Puberty at 13, sex at 18?

[Kadagar_AV]

This is something I have wondered about lately...

What drives us to set a age-limitation on sex?

I mean, I would understand if the law was against sex with people before puberty, as that would in fact hurt them. I then could of course understand a law against non-consensual sex.

However, if a 15 year old girl wants to have sex with her boyfriend, why shouldnt she?

In Sweden the age limit is 15, however, if the boyfriend is also young it wont go to court if she is 13 or 14...



My question, I assume, is why do we need rules to regulate post-puberty consensual sex?

[Beskar]

Mental Maturity and age of accepting responsibilities. It is rather silly having a drinking age at 18 but having a sex age limit lower as sexual relations require far more responsibility for behaviour and using condoms.

It used to be the rule of no sex before marriage as well.

[Kadagar_AV]

In austria the age for both sex and drinking is 16...

still, the hot girls and boys are no longer virgins or at 14 or 15...

[Beskar]

The thing is, what I hate about these legalities, is my opinion is "They have sex when the time is right", so my opinion of let's say the UK laws where it is 16 is, people see 16 at the time to have sex, if not before, when they are obviously not ready.

So legally speaking, an age where is it isn't considered abuse is right, however, it doesn't mean people at that age should just go and have orgies.

[Kadagar_AV]

Very good point beskar!

I also noticed how a "lawful" age pressured girls into having sex, rather than protected girls not ready.

EDIT: this goes for boys too...

[pevergreen]

Legal age here is 16.

Drinking 18.

Drinking normally starts at 13-14, sex at 14-15.

But yes, it should be enforced etc. :shrug:

I know a lot of people that havent had sex though, but hey. If they are smart enough they wait.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The purpose is noble, but the idea of getting kids to stop having sex is kind of silly. I wish they spent much more on education and access to protection.

[Tratorix]

The purpose is noble, but the idea of getting kids to stop having sex is kind of silly. I wish they spent much more on education and access to protection.

I always thought the main purpose of laws like these was to keep creepy older guys from having sex with thirteen year olds. Your second sentence is spot on though.

[Kadagar_AV]

pevergreen, would you explain why it is "smart" to wait with having sex?

Is it smart to wait before having your first laugh? Should you save your first laugh for the perfect joke? Should you wait untill you know what a good joke is before you laugh?


ACIN, agreed. But then still, testosterone/hormones > education...


Tratorix, I know a guy who is 32 who just last winter had sex with a girl being 16... She was a bartender, he was a ski instructor... It was only sex, no love attached... From what she told me, it was good for both of them :)

Granted, this guy is not "creepy"... And she was really really into him and really did her best to get him in bed. He was rather hesitant...

[pevergreen]

pevergreen, would you explain why it is "smart" to wait with having sex?

Is it smart to wait before having your first laugh? Should you save your first laugh for the perfect joke? Should you wait untill you know what a good joke is before you laugh?

is sex like any of those things?

No.

I wasn't ready. It emotionally damaged me, her and the relationship we had.

It also is the way you approach the situation.

[Kadagar_AV]

To me it sounds like you, or maybe her, read to much into it.

Sex is sex, making love is making love... The better you are at the former, the better you are at the later...

One should never learn how to make love from watching porn, though...

[Beskar]

Sex and Making Love are two different things.

If they both the same to you, you haven't made love. or.. you never just had random sex.

[a completely inoffensive name]

One should never learn how to make love from watching porn, though...

EDIT: Bleh, I didn't care for my joke.

[Fragony]

Age cap is at 13 here as long as nobody is older than 18.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I always thought the main purpose of laws like these was to keep creepy older guys from having sex with thirteen year olds. Your second sentence is spot on though.

Ah yeah, I totally forgot about the creepy old guys. Ruining everything. Well if that is the purpose I think something still needs to be done because these laws have incidences of putting 18 years olds having sex with 17 year olds (in the same friggen grade just a couple months difference in birthdays) on the national sex offender list.

[pevergreen]

To me it sounds like you, or maybe her, read to much into it.

Sex is sex, making love is making love... The better you are at the former, the better you are at the later...

One should never learn how to make love from watching porn, though...

As per the other thread, my number is one. So now I havent had random sex.

[Tribesman]

It used to be the rule of no sex before marriage as well.

When?

[HoreTore]

The reason these laws exist, is not to stop kids having sex. At least that's not the case here. With a legal age of 16, it's only illegal for an adult to have sex with anyone under 16. Kids are free to do whatever they please, there is no law against teens having sex.

[Papewaio]

One should never learn how to make love from watching porn, though...

That would be like learning about WWII from a Hollywood movie.

Highly entertaining, very easy on the eyes but probably not a very accurate sound track or correct sequence of events...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That would be like learning about WWII from a Hollywood movie.

Highly entertaining, very easy on the eyes but probably not a very accurate sound track or correct sequence of events...

Quoted for profundity and hilarity.

More seriously though, it tends to be that the lower the age limit the lower the taboo and the earlier fids break it. So, in addition to creepy old guys, and creepy young guys too, taking advantage you also have a general effort to discourage sex before a certain age. It's not perfect by any means, but it's better than not trying at all.

Also, it's worth remembering that there is a vast range responses to sex. Some people get very upset over a drunken kiss, others shrug odd full intercouse as irrelevant. I would like to say there's a happy medium but, to be honest, I don't think our attitude to sex is something we have a great deal of control over.

[Beirut]

The reason these laws exist, is not to stop kids having sex. At least that's not the case here. With a legal age of 16, it's only illegal for an adult to have sex with anyone under 16. Kids are free to do whatever they please, there is no law against teens having sex.

What he said.

They have brought in new laws in Canada that allows for a two-year age gap with young people. It's so some guy who's 16 doesn't go get labeled a sexual offender and go to jail for having sex with his 14 year-old girlfriend. Or a 15 year-old with a 13 year-old. Etc, etc.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What he said.

They have brought in new laws in Canada that allows for a two-year age gap with young people. It's so some guy who's 16 doesn't go get labeled a sexual offender and go to jail for having sex with his 14 year-old girlfriend. Or a 15 year-old with a 13 year-old. Etc, etc.

I still think 13 is defniately too young, I'm pretty sure Rory will tell you the decision making part of the brain is pretty under-developed at that age.

[HoreTore]

I still think 13 is defniately too young, I'm pretty sure Rory will tell you the decision making part of the brain is pretty under-developed at that age.

Well, the thing is, what you believe doesn't really matter, we still cannot punish two 13-year olds for doing each other, that would be madness.

[Rhyfelwyr]

You can't put an age on when someone will be ready for it. Even physically, I think people are reaching puberty earlier than they used to, and this is probably due to health reasons.

And I'm not just imagining this because I'm a grumply old fart that thinks things aint what they were like in the good old days. My (anectodal) evidence is from the two sets of friends my younger brothers, who is IIRC 12, has. One set is from his new private (posh/good) school, the other from his old school which isn't in the best of areas. Now, having seen some of his new friends around, they look massive, one is not a lot shorter than I am (and I'm average height). And they all have deep voices, in fact when one of them spoke once I nearly burst out laughing because it just looks so ridiculous to me to see a kid speaking like that.

But in the set of friends from his old school (which he still sees and I see them around because they live locally), they are still fairly small and have high-pitched voices. The reason for this difference between the two groups is I think health reasons. Having went to the same private school as my brother for a few years, the lifestyle most of them have is very healthy, they eat good food and lots of it, and they do a lot of exercise etc. But the people from the old school do not, they spend their time on their xboxes or hanging round on street corners, I remember when I was there we used to spend all our lunch money on sweets at the corner shop, and the local McDonalds and KFC are always busy. In particular, my brother's best friend from his old school is a pale, gaunt, gingernut who always seems to have a hacking cough (basically he reminds me of myself at that age), and his voice is as squeaky as ever.

Anyway, I don't know if health actually has any effect on when you hit puberty, but that's what I've seen.

[Fragony]

I still think 13 is defniately too young

Why, the moment you get interested is the moment you are ready. If I had a 13 year old daughter I wouldn't mind if she slept with her boyfriend if the age difference isn't too big, I would feel that way from 20+ or so.

[HoreTore]

Why, the moment you get interested is the moment you are ready. If I had a 13 year old daughter I wouldn't mind if she slept with her boyfriend if the age difference isn't too big, I would feel that way from 20+ or so.

Why?

Because everything fun and natural needs to be illegal, frags. That's why.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

When?

Adultery laws were common in many polities, Tribes, and are still on the books in some. Pre-marital sex usually came under those ordinances.

[Tribesman]

Adultery laws were common in many polities, Tribes, and are still on the books in some. Pre-marital sex usually came under those ordinances.
How so? Adultery is covered by breach of contract, pre marital sex isn't.

[Fragony]

Why?

Because everything fun and natural needs to be illegal, frags. That's why.

heh can't the dutch and the vikings form their own happy little union and let the rest of the world chase their tails?

[HoreTore]

heh can't the dutch and the vikings form their own happy little union and let the rest of the world chase their tails?

I've been advocating a return of the viking raids for years now, you're more than welcome to join!

Though I do suggest we rape a country with, shall we say.... "women of a more acceptable standard" than the british isles...

The French, perhaps?

[Beskar]

Well, the thing is, what you believe doesn't really matter, we still cannot punish two 13-year olds for doing each other, that would be madness.

It happens though. There is even a 9 year old sex offender who had sex with a 7 year old girl.

[naut]

It happens though. There is even a 9 year old sex offender boy who had sex with a 7 year old girl.
Seriously. Branding him as a sex offender? Is that really necessary. I doubt either of them knew what was actually happening.

If another Aussie would be kind enough to clear it up, if minors have sex here and they are within a certain age range (2 or so years) of each other isn't it considered "ok"?

[Fragony]

This right here. Just because a 13-14 year old girl might be capable of having sex and thinking she's in love and all that does not mean she's of sound enough mind to make the right decisions. Until you're an adult, and have lived and worked in the real world and dealt with real-world responsibilities, you just don't have the mental background needed to be capable of these decisions. Not to say that's always true, but it's true enough.

Just make sure they use protection, what responsibility do they have? Go to school, do you best, enjoy the rest no?

[HoreTore]

This right here. Just because a 13-14 year old girl might be capable of having sex and thinking she's in love and all that does not mean she's of sound enough mind to make the right decisions. Until you're an adult, and have lived and worked in the real world and dealt with real-world responsibilities, you just don't have the mental background needed to be capable of these decisions. Not to say that's always true, but it's true enough.

Like they said in American Pie:

It's not a space shuttle launch. It's just sex.

If both kids are roughly the same age, I have no problems. At all. Sex isn't dangerous or forbidden, sex is positive and good.

[HoreTore]

Yeah, it's all fun and games 'till someone gets pregnant. :oops:

Lots of teenagers who have sex are not stupid, and use protection, and it's all well and good. Honestly as long as the education regarding protection and STDs are in place, minors having sex with minors is hardly a problem.

The problem is with young'uns (13, 14, 15, whatever) having sex with adults. This is sheer irresponsibility on part of the adult, because he/she should know, with absolutely no uncertainty, that the teenager in question is hardly on the same mental wavelength.

:2thumbsup::2thumbsup::2thumbsup::2thumbsup:

[miotas]

If another Aussie would be kind enough to clear it up, if minors have sex here and they are within a certain age range (2 or so years) of each other isn't it considered "ok"?

As with most things, the laws are all over the shop in australia. ACT allows it if both are above 10 and within 2 years of each other, but in NSW it is illegal for 2 kids under 16 to have sex. Wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Oceania)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So, I'm the only one who thinks there might be an age when parents should protect their children from making difficult decisions?

[Beskar]

Seriously. Branding him as a sex offender? Is that really necessary. I doubt either of them knew what was actually happening.


He is on the sex offenders register. I think he was accused of raping her as well.

[HoreTore]

So, I'm the only one who thinks there might be an age when parents should protect their children from making difficult decisions?

Sounds like it.

[Rhyfelwyr]

So, I'm the only one who thinks there might be an age when parents should protect their children from making difficult decisions?

It's difficult to make a meaningful cut off point though. The examples I gave in my earlier post were to show that you can't really pin an age on these sorts of things, some people will just mature quicker than others.

[Ibn-Khaldun]

I still think 13 is defniately too young, I'm pretty sure Rory will tell you the decision making part of the brain is pretty under-developed at that age.

In Estonia 14 year old girls can have sex with who ever they want and how much they want.
But whether they understand all the consequences of their actions is another story.

There are unfortunately many under 18 year old girls who have kids because they slept with someone without using protection just because the guy didn't want to use it or because they were afraid being dumped if they don't have sex. :shrug:

[pevergreen]

Seriously. Branding him as a sex offender? Is that really necessary. I doubt either of them knew what was actually happening.

If another Aussie would be kind enough to clear it up, if minors have sex here and they are within a certain age range (2 or so years) of each other isn't it considered "ok"?
Varies from state to state like miotas said.

As with most things, the laws are all over the shop in australia. ACT allows it if both are above 10 and within 2 years of each other, but in NSW it is illegal for 2 kids under 16 to have sex. Wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Oceania)

Yeah. 16 up here (apart from taking the back door, which is 18), but honestly, I had a kid confess to me two weeks ago how he started having sex at 13. With both genders.

Hes 15, he had a girlfrien, cheated on her 12 times in 2 months.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's difficult to make a meaningful cut off point though. The examples I gave in my earlier post were to show that you can't really pin an age on these sorts of things, some people will just mature quicker than others.

Which is absolutely no reason to abdicate responsibility over the issue. I think 14 is, on average, too young and 18 too old, so 16 would seem fine to me. Below that age prosecutions for a small age gap shouldn't usually be brought, and often aren't in England and Wales.

Childhood used to a time when children were protected from having to make all the difficult and heart-rending decisions adults make. When to have sex can be about the most serious decision you ever take. If I have children I will probably tell them I don't think they should have sex before 18 because they probably aren't ready.

As a parent you have rights and responsibilities over your children. The responsibility of care should trump some vague libertarian idea of individuality.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Which is absolutely no reason to abdicate responsibility over the issue. I think 14 is, on average, too young and 18 too old, so 16 would seem fine to me. Below that age prosecutions for a small age gap shouldn't usually be brought, and often aren't in England and Wales.

Childhood used to a time when children were protected from having to make all the difficult and heart-rending decisions adults make. When to have sex can be about the most serious decision you ever take. If I have children I will probably tell them I don't think they should have sex before 18 because they probably aren't ready.

As a parent you have rights and responsibilities over your children. The responsibility of care should trump some vague libertarian idea of individuality.

WHY IS NO ONE THINKING OF THE CHILDREN! IF WE DON'T CODDLE THEM HOW WILL THEY GROW UP PROPERLY WITHOUT A CLUE OF THE DIFFICULTY AND CHALLENGES OF REAL LIFE?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

WHY IS NO ONE THINKING OF THE CHILDREN! IF WE DON'T CODDLE THEM HOW WILL THEY GROW UP PROPERLY WITHOUT A CLUE OF THE DIFFICULTY AND CHALLENGES OF REAL LIFE?

This is the second time you've abused me in debate, please stop it.

Are you suggesting 2 year-olds be given the vote, or the right to choose their own medical treatment? Growing up is about be handed responsibility as you become able to manage it. I don't think the majority of people can handle the decision of what sort of sex-life to have before at least 14. Looking back, I certainly couldn't.

[pevergreen]

I don't think I knew what sex was at 14.

Girls were pretty though.

[a completely inoffensive name]

This is the second time you've abused me in debate, please stop it.

Are you suggesting 2 year-olds be given the vote, or the right to choose their own medical treatment. Growing up is about be handed responsibility as you become able to manage it. I don't think the majority of people can handle the decision of what sort of sex-life to have before at least 14. Looking back, I certainly couldn't.

You don't have the ability to grant or hold onto that responsibility for him. The child has that responsibility from the first day he hits puberty. There is absolutely no way you can ever stop a person from doing something with his/her own body. Laws, parents, nothing. What are you going to do, wrap that bubble packaging over his private area to physically prevent him from having sex?

EDIT: Also I did not realize you were the last person I had did that to. Sorry if you got the impression I am deliberately picking on you.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You don't have the ability to grant or hold onto that responsibility for him. The child has that responsibility from the first day he hits puberty. There is absolutely no way you can ever stop a person from doing something with his/her own body. Laws, parents, nothing. What are you going to do, wrap that bubble packaging over his private area to physically prevent him from having sex?

EDIT: Also I did not realize you were the last person I had did that to. Sorry if you got the impression I am deliberately picking on you.

I hold that responsibility until he/she is an adult. As a parent I have Ward until either I surrender it or the Law compels me to do so. Until then their actions and welfare are my responsibility.

[Decker]

As far as I know, puberty is being hit early on due to all the chemicals in food as mentioned in Rhyfelwyr's earlier post . I can't tell ya how many times I was suprised to find out a girl was 13-14years old after asking when I was a bit younger (like 16-18). That is why we are seeing girls' bodies maturing earlier and man childs walking all over.

And just because they are physically ready does not mean they are mentally. A lot cannot tell the difference between what "love" and lust is at the ages they are having sex! In my opinion it falls onto the parents shoulders to teach their kids these things and prepare them for adulthood. Sex should be the least/last thing on their mind during the high school years.

As for the age limit, I'd personally move it to 18 or around the time they get out of high school at least. Not for the underage for having sex but for the sexual predetor types.

[Craterus]

I think a few people are over-estimating this maturity that suddenly appears at age 16 (I'm gonna use the UK law). Adults are often just as unwise in their choices of sexual partners as minors, the fact that most of you get laid is testament to this. A 15-year old can have the emotional stability to deal with sex while some women can get to their mid-20s and still be bedding the same guys and complaining when they don't call.

Plus, there are occasions where girls can reach this magical age having not reached puberty. Should they be any more 'legal' than the under 16s that have?

However, it's too difficult to legislate things like this and a specific age-limit seems the only way to even nearly protect anyone, even if it is problematic.

[Samurai Waki]

I agree with the current laws on the books as far as minors engaged in intercourse. For many of the same reasons Craterus just mentioned.

[Decker]

Yes that may be true to a certain degree. I've seen it myself, but there are a lot of factors that are not taken into account; their parents' relationship(s), their friends if they allow themselves to be easily influenced, ect... It all adds up overtime and the same could be said for the youth. Instead of accepting that kids are going to be having sex and "maturing" around 16/18 (which is all absurb imho), they need to be taught otherwise and also maybe given a chance to mature if possible. It's not like I'm saying we can get them alll to stop, what I'm getting at is that the entire society needs to be educated in this regard and not just the kids/youth. I was taking a human sexuality class and a woman said she had no idea her 12 year old daughter was already on birth control pills. She found this out when she went to the doctors with her daughter, and the doctor did not even notify her otherwise. In of that is another problem altogether. Other girls in the class already had 2-3abortions or had kids at 16 and putting their life on hold to have the kid, yet, all were okay with that like it is normal!

[a completely inoffensive name]

I hold that responsibility until he/she is an adult. As a parent I have Ward until either I surrender it or the Law compels me to do so. Until then their actions and welfare are my responsibility.

I'm sorry to say but...you don't. It does not matter if legally you do have the power, it is a hollow authority because even the strictest parents when it comes to sex can't stop the teenager sneaking out or in for a fun time.

Don't get me wrong, it sucks for the parent, but realistically the parent has no ability to stop their teenager unless they bar the windows and lock the door every night. The only reasonable way for a good parent to act is educate, educate, educate their teenager and explain to them why they should not have it, going over all the dangers, what to do if they decide to have it and not to be afraid to come for help or advice.

[HoreTore]

Which is absolutely no reason to abdicate responsibility over the issue. I think 14 is, on average, too young and 18 too old, so 16 would seem fine to me. Below that age prosecutions for a small age gap shouldn't usually be brought, and often aren't in England and Wales.

Childhood used to a time when children were protected from having to make all the difficult and heart-rending decisions adults make. When to have sex can be about the most serious decision you ever take. If I have children I will probably tell them I don't think they should have sex before 18 because they probably aren't ready.

As a parent you have rights and responsibilities over your children. The responsibility of care should trump some vague libertarian idea of individuality.

So.

I was one of them criminals(or sex offender?) who had sex before I turned 16.

Please, do explain what my exact punishment would be in your theocracy. And what the punishment would be for the woman I had sex with. She was roughly a month younger than me IIRC.

[Beskar]

This reminds me, there is a cervical cancer caused by STD's, and they wanted to make it mandatory for 12 year old girls to have this vaccine against it and the soccer mom brigade got all up in arms, because it some how meant the government suggests their kids are having sex at the age of 12 (opposed to when it is the easiest early time for the government to do it)

[Fragony]

Yeah, it's all fun and games 'till someone gets pregnant. :oops:

They don't get pregnant, we teach how to strap on rubber at a very early age and teenage pregnancy/teenage abortions are virtually non-existant. Might seem odd to you to teach 12 year olds stuff like that but it's the result that counts.

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/the_way_we_live/article5208865.ece

Author got a little ahead of himself but in general it sums it up.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm sorry to say but...you don't. It does not matter if legally you do have the power, it is a hollow authority because even the strictest parents when it comes to sex can't stop the teenager sneaking out or in for a fun time.

Don't get me wrong, it sucks for the parent, but realistically the parent has no ability to stop their teenager unless they bar the windows and lock the door every night. The only reasonable way for a good parent to act is educate, educate, educate their teenager and explain to them why they should not have it, going over all the dangers, what to do if they decide to have it and not to be afraid to come for help or advice.

You can't completely stop them, but you can, and should, make it more difficult and punish them for sneaking out. Merely "Educate, Educate, Educate" doesn't work. You also have to instill a moral compass that encourages them to make careful choices.


So.

I was one of them criminals(or sex offender?) who had sex before I turned 16.

Please, do explain what my exact punishment would be in your theocracy. And what the punishment would be for the woman I had sex with. She was roughly a month younger than me IIRC.

None, if you read my post. Also, this has nothing to do with theocracy - not in the way you understand it, certainly.

On the other hand, if I felt you have manipulated and taken advantage of my daughter you'd have things other than the law to worry about.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I do not like the idea of parents having too much power over their children once they get into the teenage years.

In any case, I think educating people on this topic is overrated, the education system practically encourages us to have sex these days, and its left a clear legacy with teenage pregnancies here in the UK. As for me, my parents never said a word to me about it (thank the Lord) and guess what I never got anyone pregnant.

Parents should try to be a healthy influence for their children, but not control them. When I have children, I will just say, you can get married if you want when you turn 16, if not you know I don't approve of anything, but it's up to you. Hopefully I will raise them well so they will just be sensible (a solution often overlooked these days). But if they ever want an abortion then they're out my house. :whip:

[HoreTore]

None, if you read my post. Also, this has nothing to do with theocracy - not in the way you understand it, certainly.

On the other hand, if I felt you have manipulated and taken advantage of my daughter you'd have things other than the law to worry about.

So....

You support minors having sex with each other then? What's all the fuzz about then?


In any case, I think educating people on this topic is overrated, the education system practically encourages us to have sex these days, and its left a clear legacy with teenage pregnancies here in the UK.

Alright, let's say that's true. With this in mind, please explain the situation in the Netherlands.

Sex should be encouraged. It's healthy and fun, what's not to like? We shouldn't be saying "don't have sex, but if you do, wear a condom", that's the wrong kind of education. The correct education is "feel free to have sex, and use a condom".

[Fragony]

You can't completely stop them, but you can, and should, make it more difficult and punish them for sneaking out.

If you don't want them sneaking out make sure they don't have to, what do you prefer, some sleazy alley or the back of a car or the comfort and safety of their own bedrooms.

[HoreTore]

If you don't want them sneaking out make sure they don't have to, what do you prefer, some sleazy alley or the back of a car or the comfort and safety of their own bedrooms.

:2thumbsup:

I want to hug you in an inappropriate way, frags....

[Rhyfelwyr]

Why must we treat this issue as if teenagers must run around having sex? Don't try to control them, don't make it easy for them, just don't get involved. Why can we not just expect people to be responsible any more?

[HoreTore]

Why must we treat this issue as if teenagers must run around having sex? Don't try to control them, don't make it easy for them, just don't get involved. Why can we not just expect people to be responsible any more?

Could you please explain to me how having sex makes you irresponsible...?

[Fragony]

Why must we treat this issue as if teenagers must run around having sex?

We don't, we just don't have a problem with it. The overarching sentiment seems to be that they are doing something wrong, I don't think they are and they should be comfortable doing it. This has nothing to do with morality, and everything with behaving responsible. You should really be happy with the dutch approach, we are true champions in achieving what conservatives really want. We have the lowest teenage pregancy in Europe, the lowest abortion rate, the lowest divorce rate, and kids lose their virginity at a later age and when they do they have been in a relationship for some time, and they end up with less sexual partners. It just works when you can do as you please.

I want to hug you in an inappropriate way, frags....

wait I need something pointy

[Rhyfelwyr]

Could you please explain to me how having sex makes you irresponsible...?

Well I just think that we are not meant to run around having one-night stands as many do these days. In particular, the women that do this are often mentally unstable. And the men should just grow up. Things are just getting stupid these days, people won't settle down to have kids until their 40+ by which point its just horrible.

Ah, don't mind my rantings, I'm just going through that late teenage "life sucks because I don't have a girlfriend" stage, damned hormones. :whip:

[Fragony]

Well I just think that we are not meant to run around having one-night stands as many do these days.

Anglo-Saxon thingie that one night stand fixation, it's a UK/American problem. It's so ironic, the English and Americans seem to be obsessed with sex, the most 'victorian' society's. Good luck trying to find a dutch girl who dresses in the same way as some English/American girls do when they go out, that would be considered vulgar here, and even more good luck trying to score a one night stand here, our ladies didn't drop on their mouths as we say here, it can be done, but there are alternatives if you really have to.

[Beskar]

I think the person in the article Fragony linked got it right. Do the things when the time is right. Best way is to teach people how to live and at the same time, lead by example.

It is also amazing and scary the Dutch can seem so two-sided to us. On one-hand, it is 1960's styled Free-love, combined with a very strong family unit. I remember some that used to go to swingers parties, etc, then are at home with kids, and are very good parents who take very special care fo their children. The whole duality of two-worlds compared to the Anglo-Saxon viewpoint.

[HoreTore]

Well I just think that we are not meant to run around having one-night stands as many do these days. In particular, the women that do this are often mentally unstable. And the men should just grow up. Things are just getting stupid these days, people won't settle down to have kids until their 40+ by which point its just horrible.

Ah, don't mind my rantings, I'm just going through that late teenage "life sucks because I don't have a girlfriend" stage, damned hormones. :whip:

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and I'll also blame it on your hormones...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So....

You support minors having sex with each other then? What's all the fuzz about then?

No, I just don't believe in punishing children as adults. Personally, I think you should be in a stable relationship, getting stupid drunk and having random sex with some girl at your school isn't healthy.


Alright, let's say that's true. With this in mind, please explain the situation in the Netherlands.

Sex should be encouraged. It's healthy and fun, what's not to like? We shouldn't be saying "don't have sex, but if you do, wear a condom", that's the wrong kind of education. The correct education is "feel free to have sex, and use a condom".

No, a helthy attitude to sex should be encouraged. That does not mean having lots of cheap denigrating animal copulation, it's not healthy to devalue people and relationships. The Netherlands don't have a problem because, although they let you have sex, they by and large have a healthy attitude.

I don't totally agree with Rhy, but I do think that promiscuity is a symptom of an unhealthy attitude.

[Beskar]

Things are just getting stupid these days, people won't settle down to have kids until their 40+ by which point its just horrible.

Main reason is Middle Class families have career/educational/training to complete till they can get into a very comfortable situation where they can raise a well loved, looked-after, spoilt child.

On the other hand, the poorer classes are already working their career as cash-checkout girl, thus in a situation to have children at a far earlier age.

[Fragony]

It is also amazing and scary the Dutch can seem so two-sided to us. On one-hand, it is 1960's styled Free-love, combined with a very strong family unit. I remember some that used to go to swingers parties, etc, then are at home with kids, and are very good parents who take very special care fo their children. The whole duality of two-worlds compared to the Anglo-Saxon viewpoint.

You would have to look very very hard to find a more conservative society than we have here when it comes to family values. Sexuality is just an everyday part of life here, it just works like that.

[HoreTore]

No, I just don't believe in punishing children as adults. Personally, I think you should be in a stable relationship, getting stupid drunk and having random sex with some girl at your school isn't healthy.

No, a helthy attitude to sex should be encouraged. That does not mean having lots of cheap denigrating animal copulation, it's not healthy to devalue people and relationships. The Netherlands don't have a problem because, although they let you have sex, they by and large have a healthy attitude.

I don't totally agree with Rhy, but I do think that promiscuity is a symptom of an unhealthy attitude.

Sex has that great ability to be more than just one thing; it can be about lust, or it can be about relationships.

And who are you to judge that a drunken debut isn't healthy? Have you experienced it? I was filthy drunk when I lost my debut, and I honestly can't say that anything bad came from it. People should be able to whatever they want in their private lives, and the rest of society has nothing to do with it.

Want to have sex? Fine. Don't want to? Also fine. Want to impose your own personal morals on others? Get lost.

[Adrian II]

Anglo-Saxon thingie that one night stand fixation, it's a UK/American problem. It's so ironic, the English and Americans seem to be obsessed with sex, the most 'victorian' society's. Not just Victorian. In all of the globe's most superstitious areas (Saudi Arabia, United States, Sudan, Israel, Birma) this virginity thingy is still taken seriously. Hence the muslim, christian, jewish or sikh honour killings that regularly figure in the media. The less religious a society is, the healthier its attitude toward sexuality.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Sex has that great ability to be more than just one thing; it can be about lust, or it can be about relationships.

And who are you to judge that a drunken debut isn't healthy? Have you experienced it? I was filthy drunk when I lost my debut, and I honestly can't say that anything bad came from it. People should be able to whatever they want in their private lives, and the rest of society has nothing to do with it.

Different things to different people. I've seen how Norwegians treat sex over here, I've also seen what happens to some of the English girls they mess about with. Look, having sex can damage people for life. Not having sex is less damaging. Ergo, preventing people from having sex before a large portion of them are reading is better than allowing people to have stupid sex.

Get it?

Anyway, how do you know your attitude to sex isn't unhealthy? Maybe you're massively emotionally repressed?

I'm not advocating repression, I'm advocating restraint.


Want to have sex? Fine. Don't want to? Also fine. Want to impose your own personal morals on others? Get lost.

Rubbish, you don't allow people to murder. You say I shouldn't be allowed to impose my morality, that is an imposition of your own Libertarianism.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and I'll also blame it on your hormones...

Benefit of what doubt? You think I'm making this up and I really run around/want to run around trying to hit on every girl I see?

Meh, different types of people I guess. I got out of the 'lots of stupid crushes and thinking only of sex' mode a couple of years ago, now I would rather just have a nice girlfriend. :shrug:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Not just Victorian. In all of the globe's most superstitious areas (Saudi Arabia, United States, Sudan, Israel, Birma) this virginity thingy is still taken seriously. Hence the muslim, christian, jewish or sikh honour killings that regularly figure in the media. The less religious a society is, the healthier its attitude toward sexuality.

First you have to demonstrate that wanting to wait until you're married, or in a serious relationship, is unhealthy.

Otherwise, all you've done is made a cheap dig at religion and people of faith.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Not just Victorian. In all of the globe's most superstitious areas (Saudi Arabia, United States, Sudan, Israel, Birma) this virginity thingy is still taken seriously. Hence the muslim, christian, jewish or sikh honour killings that regularly figure in the media. The less religious a society is, the healthier its attitude toward sexuality.

The last bit is just your opinion. Maybe you will just say I have no experience in life like you did in another thread, and while this is true to be fair, I still know what I think. And I am not interested at all in trying to get laid every Friday night even though this surprises HoreTore (and probably the other Scandinavians here as well), I do not just think like this because of my religious views. Even if you look at the Personal Help section at the TWC, there are always threads from the members who are in a similar situation to myself (18-20 yrs old, no girlfriend), and they never ask for advice on how to be a player, instead they always just want to find a girl that they really like and want to have a proper relationship with.

IMO this is just a sign that we are maturing. I don't think it is anything to do with superstition or outdated views, especially since having seen these members around other parts of the forum, their beliefs/backgrounds are so diverse. To want a meaningful relationship at this sort of age is the normal, healthy attitude IMO, and I could just blame it on modern culture when people do not think like this and continue to run around having flings until they are 30.

[HoreTore]

And I am not interested at all in trying to get laid every Friday night even though this surprises HoreTore (and probably the other Scandinavians here as well)

Uhm......

What?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Uhm......

What?

Well you said you doubt that I am really just interested in having a meaningful relationship with one girl, as if at my age I should not be.

[HoreTore]

Well you said you doubt that I am really just interested in having a meaningful relationship with one girl, as if at my age I should not be.

Uhm, no I did not.

As for the matter at hand, I do not care at all how you live your life. And I would appreciate it if you didn't care about other peoples personal life. People should be free to live however they please, whether that means lots of sex, only marital sex or anything in-between. What you choose to do is irrelevant, what matters is how you come to that conclusion. If it's your own choice, then I'm happy. If you live a particular way because society wants you to, then I'm very unhappy.



And pardon me, but I do not "go out every night looking for women". I've already found a potential jewel now, what I'm doing these days is trying to get her in the sack... It's going slowly atm, but I'm having high hopes for my tactic of trying to pressure her to give me a life-sized nudie photo to put on my wall... If that's not foreplay, I don't know what is!

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Not just Victorian. In all of the globe's most superstitious areas (Saudi Arabia, United States, Sudan, Israel, Birma) this virginity thingy is still taken seriously. Hence the muslim, christian, jewish or sikh honour killings that regularly figure in the media. The less religious a society is, the healthier its attitude toward sexuality.

Christian honour killings regularly feature in the media? Really?

[Adrian II]

First you have to demonstrate that wanting to wait until you're married, or in a serious relationship, is unhealthy.

Otherwise, all you've done is made a cheap dig at religion and people of faith.
There is a clear correlation between superstitions surrounding virginity and all sorts of health issues, sexual problems, forced marriages, 'exorcism' of homosexuals, punishment for adultery and other primitive views and practices. Religion is not always the root cause, but it either introduces, supports or condones such views and practices.

I couldn't care less if you want to wait till you're 65 and crippled before you have sex, but don't force your view on others like religions have done for so long. I'm not forcing my view on you either. All I want is a world where my kids will be protected against the infringement of your mumbo jumbo upon their personal lives and freedom, thank you very much.

Christian honour killings regularly feature in the media? Really?Yeah, and jewish and sikh and all the rest. Happens all the time, my friend. Whether you get the message depends on what media one consumes, I guess. Try this article from The Times, it features three religions for the price of one:


Instead, Angelina — the first Druze to compete in the pageant — was threatened with death, allegedly by two uncles and other men from her village who accused her of disgracing the family name with promiscuous behaviour.

Ms Fares’s story has dominated the Israeli media as a high-profile example of a foiled “hon-our killing”, where a woman is murdered by members of her own family for supposed sexual offences that have somehow brought shame to the family.

Last year, seventeen Palestinian women were reported killed in honour crimes, twelve in the Gaza Strip and five in the occupied West Bank. In Israel, seven women were similarly killed for “crimes” ranging from having sex before marriage to being the victim of rape.

source (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1489930.ece)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

There is a clear correlation between superstitions surrounding virginity and all sorts of health issues, sexual problems, forced marriages, 'exorcism' of homosexuals, punishment for adultery and other primitive views and practices. Religion is not always the root cause, but it either introduces, supports or condones such views and practices.

I couldn't care less if you want to wait till you're 65 and crippled before you have sex, but don't force your view on others like religions have done for so long. I'm not forcing my view on you either. All I want is a world where my kids will be protected against the infringement of your mumbo jumbo upon their personal lives and freedom, thank you very much.

Punishment for adultery is only as primative as marriage. One can quite reasonable argue the opposite, failure to punish oath-breakers is immoral and barbaric. To be honest, I think you've become much more embittered towards religion generally over the past year or so, Adrian.

Now, as to "superstitions" surrounding virginity; I really have no idea what you're talking about. I'm talking about not cheapening an experience by doing it with every other organism with a pulse. That is my mature opinion, and it is not one I could form or articulate at 14. Had I got drunk enough and had the opertunity then I might well have ended up doing it with some girl, and I would have felt terrible the next day and for a long time thereafter.

[Rhyfelwyr]

As for the matter at hand, I do not care at all how you live your life. And I would appreciate it if you didn't care about other peoples personal life.

Where did I suggest intervening in anyone else's affairs on this matter?

What I want is for individuals of the liberal persuasion to stop demanding that everyone becomes like them. They force their values on everyone through the school system and they never stop harassing you until you assimilate. They are so determined to 'free' everyone from their own belief systems that they end up becoming the most oppressive and narrow-minded ideology out there.

Bah!

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Yeah, and jewish and sikh and all the rest. Happens all the time, my friend. Whether you get the message depends on what media one consumes, I guess. Try this article from The Times, it features three religions for the price of one:

I didn't say they were only Muslim, I said I was surprised that Christian honour killings feature, since I haven't seen one in a major news site (BBC, Globe and Mail, Die Welt, National Post, etc.) for as long as I can remember.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I didn't say they were only Muslim, I said I was surprised that Christian honour killings feature, since I haven't seen one in a major news site (BBC, Globe and Mail, Die Welt, National Post, etc.) for as long as I can remember.

Historically, Christians were more into killing the men and just locking the women up in Nunneries.

[HoreTore]

What I want is for individuals of the liberal persuasion to stop demanding that everyone becomes like them. They force their values on everyone through the school system and they never stop harassing you until you assimilate. They are so determined to 'free' everyone from their own belief systems that they end up becoming the most oppressive and narrow-minded ideology out there.

As I stated, I do not care what you do in your personal life. And if someone who calls themselves liberal does just that, then they're not liberal.

Everyone should do as they damn well please. Anyone who tries to stop people from doing what they please should be stopped.

And people who brand women who enjoy sex as "loose" or "whores" should be shot on the spot. Or sent to a nice re-education camp.... Either way works for me.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

And people who brand women who enjoy sex as "loose" or "whores" should be shot on the spot. Or sent to a nice re-education camp.... Either way works for me.

It's not the enjoying it, it's the "sleep with everyone" kind of people (men and women) who, frankly, deserve it. If you sleep with everyone, you're loose. How else do you describe it?

[Rhyfelwyr]

As I stated, I do not care what you do in your personal life. And if someone who calls themselves liberal does just that, then they're not liberal.

Everyone should do as they damn well please. Anyone who tries to stop people from doing what they please should be stopped.

What about the education system though? The problem isn't just about directly stopping people from acting however they wish. At school, we had to sit through 'health education' classes which taught values which many people would disagree with... is this right?


And people who brand women who enjoy sex as "loose" or "whores" should be shot on the spot. Or sent to a nice re-education camp.... Either way works for me.

I think most women would enjoy sex, but for those who go about getting it a bit eagerly with too many people, well then yes they are being whores aren't they?

[drone]

I think most women would enjoy sex, but for those who go about getting it a bit eagerly with too many people, well then yes they are being whores aren't they?

Only if they charge for it.

[HoreTore]

It's not the enjoying it, it's the "sleep with everyone" kind of people (men and women) who, frankly, deserve it. If you sleep with everyone, you're loose. How else do you describe it?

What on earth gives you the right to judge your fellow man....? What gives you the right to define what is proper for other humans?

As for the term "loose", well, I've never understood it. It's about the tightness of the vagina, and the assumption that the more wiener goes through a snatch, the looser it becomes, ok. But how does it work in practice? Let's take these two women:

- Maria is 23 years old. She was a virgin until she got married at the age of 18. She's been married for 5 years, and let's say that the standard rate of sex in that marriage is between 2-4 times a week.

She would not be called loose, would she? No, she's a "good girl". Now let's have a look at our next contender:

- Helga is also 23 years old. She has never been in a serious relationship, but like Maria, she lost her virginity at 18. She's been sleeping around, mostly one night stands after drinking heavily, which just a couple of guys she stuck with for a short period of time. let's say she's had, oh, 75 one night stand during those five years, and 5 guys she has spent a couple of weeks with.

This would be your loose woman, right? But then.... Which one of them has seen the largest amount of wiener pass through their snatch? Uh-oh. That would be Maria.

So, in conclusion, if your mom is married and has been for some years, she's probably one of the loosest women in the world. Think about it.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

What on earth gives you the right to judge your fellow man....? What gives you the right to define what is proper for other humans?

The same thing that gives you the right to judge politicians and the rich. The same thing that gives you the right to have any opinion at all, really. I said I can call them loose - I never said I wanted to control what they did or cared what they did.



This would be your loose woman, right? But then.... Which one of them has seen the largest amount of wiener pass through their snatch? Uh-oh. That would be Maria.

No, loose in the common vernacular generally refers to the amount of people you've had one night stands or copious sex with, not the size of the vagina (though that may well be the origin of the word).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What on earth gives you the right to judge your fellow man....? What gives you the right to define what is proper for other humans?

As for the term "loose", well, I've never understood it. It's about the tightness of the vagina, and the assumption that the more wiener goes through a snatch, the looser it becomes, ok. But how does it work in practice? Let's take these two women:

- Maria is 23 years old. She was a virgin until she got married at the age of 18. She's been married for 5 years, and let's say that the standard rate of sex in that marriage is between 2-4 times a week.

She would not be called loose, would she? No, she's a "good girl". Now let's have a look at our next contender:

- Helga is also 23 years old. She has never been in a serious relationship, but like Maria, she lost her virginity at 18. She's been sleeping around, mostly one night stands after drinking heavily, which just a couple of guys she stuck with for a short period of time. let's say she's had, oh, 75 one night stand during those five years, and 5 guys she has spent a couple of weeks with.

This would be your loose woman, right? But then.... Which one of them has seen the largest amount of wiener pass through their snatch? Uh-oh. That would be Maria.

So, in conclusion, if your mom is married and has been for some years, she's probably one of the loosest women in the world. Think about it.

No, it means "loose" as in lack of control, lack of moral restraint, animalistic, barbaric.

Congratulations, Epic Fail.

Also, insulting our mothers was REALLY classy.

Your argument is anarchism, that's a philsophical choice, but it allows me to do ANYTHING I like to you, including kill you, take all your money, and rape your female relatives... should I so choose.

[a completely inoffensive name]

You can't completely stop them, but you can, and should, make it more difficult and punish them for sneaking out. Merely "Educate, Educate, Educate" doesn't work. You also have to instill a moral compass that encourages them to make careful choices.


If you have not instilled a moral compass in your child by 14, 15, 16 you have made some mistakes as a parent. Really, if you have a 14 year old child with no sense of right and wrong or common sense something has gone awry along the way.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Your argument is anarchism, that's a philsophical choice, but it allows me to do ANYTHING I like to you, including kill you, take all your money, and rape your female relatives... should I so choose.

Wait, first it was libertarianism, now it's anarchism?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Wait, first it was libertarianism, now it's anarchism?

Well, he seems to have moved further along the scale. I do agree with you about instilling a moral compass, btw, but I also think that teenagers generally make bad decisions, and that giving too much of a free reign too soon is a very bad thing.

[Decker]

Some people just shouldn't breed period. I see kids between 10-20 having multiple partners as having a lack of respect for themselves and the other sex (or same sex depending on which they prefer). They lack morals and pressure others to do as they did, and have sex as well. Almost as if they realized they did something wrong and want others to wallow in it with them as well.

As for a girl being loose, a slut, hooker, whore, ect.; what about the guys that go and do it as well? Quite the double standard no? Why is it wrong for a girl to sleep around but okay for a guy? I see both in the same light.

[Decker]

Well, he seems to have moved further along the scale. I do agree with you about instilling a moral compass, btw, but I also think that teenagers generally make bad decisions, and that giving too much of a free reign too soon is a very bad thing.

Agreed. And I've never understood why parents kind of stand back and just say, "well that's their decision, I'm not going to stand in their way." And again, teens generally are not mature enough in most cases and with people making it seem like having sex is okay and teaching protection over maturity (whether it's from a school or parents) is imho, the wrong thing to do.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Well, he seems to have moved further along the scale. I do agree with you about instilling a moral compass, btw, but I also think that teenagers generally make bad decisions, and that giving too much of a free reign too soon is a very bad thing.

Well, I am just going to have to disagree with you about that aspect of parenting. I believe that as a teenager hit 14, 15 ,16 the parents need to begin to lighten up with the control drastically. If you make sure to install a good moral compass from when they are little, I believe that as you lighten up, if you talk to them as an adult and educate them properly and tell them that it is now their choice and their life and their responsibility that the child will be much more likely respect their parents wishes and respect their wisdom. Most kids I know where the parents, are "Mr. and Mrs. No" are angrier because of what they feel is a lack of respect and have their judgment much more clouded because of it. Not saying that being Mr. and Mrs. No will guarantee a promiscuous child though. Just my differing opinion that I believe is more effective.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Agreed. And I've never understood why parents kind of stand back and just say, "well that's their decision, I'm not going to stand in their way." And again, teens generally are not mature enough in most cases and with people making it seem like having sex is okay and teaching protection over maturity (whether it's from a school or parents) is imho, the wrong thing to do.

Well,

1. Those parents that step back are respecting their child who is not longer a child but almost a legal adult.

2. This has been brought up many times, but again, how is abstinence showing "maturity"? You have a negative connotation with sex in general which is unfounded. If the kids wear protection or are on the pill, they are being responsible. How can an act be responsible and immature at the same time?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

As for a girl being loose, a slut, hooker, whore, ect.; what about the guys that go and do it as well? Quite the double standard no? Why is it wrong for a girl to sleep around but okay for a guy? I see both in the same light.

I did say men and women.

[Kadagar_AV]

It's not the enjoying it, it's the "sleep with everyone" kind of people (men and women) who, frankly, deserve it. If you sleep with everyone, you're loose. How else do you describe it?

Define "loose"?

I've slept with a 3 digit number of people... Yet I have never cheated in a relationship, nor will I.

From what I have seen of the world, the chance is higher that someone who have had little sex will cheat, rather than someone who had a lot.

So your morals dont really work here.



It's like going to the candy store...

Do I go into a candy store, pick ONE type of candy, and then settle with this choice for life? Seems stupid.

No, I'd rather test all sorts of candy there is, and THEN I can make an informed choice what to settle for.


Virgins getting married are just like that, someone who have tried one type of candy... so then, when he or she sees some other type of candy that seems nice, they have a hard time not going for it.


I trust a girl who has been around more than I trust a virgin... The girl who has been around knows what she wants, the virgin is just clueless.

[pevergreen]

Well,

1. Those parents that step back are respecting their child who is not longer a child but almost a legal adult.

2. This has been brought up many times, but again, how is abstinence showing "maturity"? You have a negative connotation with sex in general which is unfounded. If the kids wear protection or are on the pill, they are being responsible. How can an act be responsible and immature at the same time?

It isn't automatically a mature act, but the decision to stay abstinent(sp?) is, if they make it for the right reasons.

eg:

I'm going to wait, because I want to experience it for the first time when I choose and feel ready.

not

Boys are icky I dont want them.

Not hard to pick which one is the more mature choice.

What about the kids that begin to have unprotected sex? Are they stupid? Irresponsible?

Be careful how you answer that, I'm referring to myself. :whip:

[Kadagar_AV]

What about the kids that begin to have unprotected sex? Are they stupid? Irresponsible?

I'll go with "yes".

[Adrian II]

What about the kids that begin to have unprotected sex? Are they stupid? Irresponsible?Most likely, those kids are from religious families. In the US for instance, the major (Christian) religions and teen pregnancy appear to go together like statistical twins. That's because those religions usually preach the virtues of abstention and virginity and foster all the myths, lies and confusion that traditionally come with them. This causes children to remain unnecessarily immature and at the same time leaves them unduly obsessed by sexuality, resulting in undesirable outcomes, not only teen pregnancies but higher divorce rates and other markers of instability.

As the New Yorker puts it: it's not suprising when Sarah Palin's daughter becomes pregnant at the age of 17. 'Red' states have sex earlier, marry earlier and divorce earlier and more often than 'blue' states. Blue sex is more responsible than red sex!


Evangelicals could start, perhaps, by trying to untangle the contradictory portrayals of sex that they offer to teen-agers. In the Shelby Knox documentary, a youth pastor, addressing an assembly of teens, defines intercourse as “what two dogs do out on the street corner—they just bump and grind awhile, boom boom boom.” Yet a typical evangelical text aimed at young people, “Every Young Woman’s Battle,” by Shannon Ethridge and Stephen Arterburn, portrays sex between two virgins as an ethereal communion of innocent souls: “physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual pleasure beyond description.” Neither is the most realistic or helpful view for a young person to take into marriage, as a few advocates of abstinence acknowledge.
The quote from that pastor obviously reminded me of some of the attitudes toward sex in evidence in this thread.

Evangelicals are very good at articulating their sexual ideals, but they have little practical advice for their young followers. Social liberals, meanwhile, are not very good at articulating values on marriage and teen sexuality—indeed, they may feel that it’s unseemly or judgmental to do so. But in fact the new middle-class morality is squarely pro-family. Maybe these choices weren’t originally about values—maybe they were about maximizing education and careers—yet the result is a more stable family system. Not only do couples who marry later stay married longer; children born to older couples fare better on a variety of measures, including educational attainment, regardless of their parents’ economic circumstances. The new middle-class culture of intensive parenting has ridiculous aspects, but it’s pretty successful at turning out productive, emotionally resilient young adults. And its intensity may be one reason that teen-agers from close families see child-rearing as a project for which they’re not yet ready. For too long, the conventional wisdom has been that social conservatives are the upholders of family values, whereas liberals are the proponents of a polymorphous selfishness. This isn’t true, and, every once in a while, liberals might point that out.
Well, I'm glad to have been of service by pointing it out to yall. Night-night.

source (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/11/03/081103fa_fact_talbot?currentPage=all)

[pevergreen]

I'll go with "yes".

I disagree here. In some cases at least. Which kind of makes my point moot, as there are always exceptions.

The difference being though, in this case, I can speak from experience.

Kids dont plan for it. The mindset isnt "I'm going to have sex tonight, should I get a condom? Naaah."

It happens, and they dont think. Theres no time to think, think about what is the correct thing to do.

Logical and rational decisions are ignored. Its the heat of the moment thing.

In my case, unprotected sex continued for about 4-5 months. However, i found out a few months in that she was on the pill. I did not know that to begin with.


I can't claim it all turned out well though, things went bad for her after we split up, she started sleeping around and is currently about 3 months late for her period. Just to let you all know. :grin2:

I can't quote statistics or anything, but I went to a Lutheran school for my schooling life and I found that the kids that were actually christians were the ones not having sex. Those that had no religious beliefs (yet are too stupid to actually know what 'belief' they have (aethiest etc)) did.

[AlexanderSextus]

When i have a kid/kids, i'm gonna let them have sex. i'm not gonna punish them for it.

If its a boy, i'm gonna buy him condoms and tell him that if he doesnt use them and gets a chick knocked up, i'm gonna KICK HIS ASS. (i would pay for the abortion afterwards tho) i would also tell him he definately doesn't wanna get an STD or AIDS and its best for him to use them.


If its a girl, i'm gonna buy her the NuvaRing and condoms and tell her how they work.

In both cases i will also waive the condom rule upon verification that neither party has STDs, and after said verification i will buy them birth control pills/patch/NuvaRing, and just let them go at it with no negative consequences.

It'll probably make them much happier teens and we will probably have much less fights.

IMO sex is a good thing.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I can't claim it all turned out well though, things went bad for her after we split up, she started sleeping around and is currently about 3 months late for her period. Just to let you all know. :grin2:


Yes, because an unexpected pregnancy is something that deserves a smiling emoticon.

[pevergreen]

Of course.

If we must delve into it, shes had the tests, all negative. So...

Plus, the grin was because I divulged information a lot of australian males dont want to hear about

[Kadagar_AV]

Pevergreen, one should always have a condom handy. When not in a relationship I wont leave my house without it, just like I dont leave without my keys.

Yes sex can come with suprise, but seriosly, how hard can it be to have some condoms in the pocket?

Also, abortion debate aside, there are STDs. That is the main reason I use condom when having a one night stand (or other more casual relationships).




Basicly, your argument turned against itself. If you would have been PREPARED you would have had safe sex, but as you were unprepared sex was not safe.

Thus, isnt it better with a society preparing the yuths? Than a society preaching abstinence (which never will happen anyway on any larger scale).

[pevergreen]

Yes, because being a virgin, and 16, and not expecting sex, I would carry a condom.

Its pevergreen. :stare:

If I had been prepared, yes, I have no doubts about that. But that is exactly the point. I wasn't prepared. Teaching me about condoms and giving me them would not have helped either.

There is not a casual air to intercourse here.

[Kadagar_AV]

Yes, because being a virgin, and 16, and not expecting sex, I would carry a condom.

Its pevergreen. :stare:

If I had been prepared, yes, I have no doubts about that. But that is exactly the point. I wasn't prepared. Teaching me about condoms and giving me them would not have helped either.

There is not a casual air to intercourse here.

thats my point, if there was a casual air, you would have been prepared :2thumbsup:

[pevergreen]

So you wish to overhaul the way we view sex as a culture?

Good luck.

[Kagemusha]

Yes, because being a virgin, and 16, and not expecting sex, I would carry a condom.

Its pevergreen. :stare:

If I had been prepared, yes, I have no doubts about that. But that is exactly the point. I wasn't prepared. Teaching me about condoms and giving me them would not have helped either.

There is not a casual air to intercourse here.

And you did not expect sex either during those 4-5 months of unprotected sex? That is just irresponsible. My first time was when i was 14 and i was sober, we were using protection and i was expecting sex as did she as the girl had arranged so that her parents would be the weekend off.

People are individuals and generalizing in general is bad method. Teens just like adults behave very differently depending on the individual.

[pevergreen]

Obviously I did.

Why didnt I? I'm not entirely sure. oooh wait i remember, I said we should she said no, I complied. As of that point she'd been on the pill for months and months, but as I said I didnt know, she did.

It was damn nice though.

[Decker]

Well,

1. Those parents that step back are respecting their child who is not longer a child but almost a legal adult.So because they are almost legal means that they have the maturity to make the best decision?



2. This has been brought up many times, but again, how is abstinence showing "maturity"? You have a negative connotation with sex in general which is unfounded. If the kids wear protection or are on the pill, they are being responsible. How can an act be responsible and immature at the same time? I know it has but is the way in which they choose abstinence. I do not believe I do. That "connotation" may come from the fact that I just cannot wrap my head around how people seem to think that in order to have a relationship you have to have sex. Yeah good on them:applause: for using protection, but why did they have it in the first place? Do they "love" each other? Did they feel pressured into having sex? Was one ready and the other not, but didn't want to break-up because they did not want to have sex? Do they even know each other well enough to do it? I am not saying they need a reason to not have sex or have it, I'm saying that there is a whole lotta baggage that comes along whether they notice it or not and that they probably will have unnecessary problems in the future.


I did say men and women.
I saw...


I went to a Lutheran school for my schooling life and I found that the kids that were actually Christians were the ones not having sex.
They do have a habit of getting married right out of the gates tho! :no: At least 1/4-1/3rd of my class has already been engaged at least once or is engaged and or married! :dizzy2:

[a completely inoffensive name]

So because they are almost legal means that they have the maturity to make the best decision?

No, that's why you need to educate them so they make the better (note I did not say "best") decision instead of the worst, like I have been saying. :yes:





I know it has but is the way in which they choose abstinence. I do not believe I do. That "connotation" may come from the fact that I just cannot wrap my head around how people seem to think that in order to have a relationship you have to have sex. Yeah good on them:applause: for using protection, but why did they have it in the first place? Do they "love" each other? Did they feel pressured into having sex? Was one ready and the other not, but didn't want to break-up because they did not want to have sex? Do they even know each other well enough to do it? I am not saying they need a reason to not have sex or have it, I'm saying that there is a whole lotta baggage that comes along whether they notice it or not and that they probably will have unnecessary problems in the future.


You seem to make sex into a bigger thing then it is. There is only baggage if you consider sex to have such baggage. Seriously, if two kids want to have fun and are responsible when they do it why and where is this baggage going to come from?

[HoreTore]

You seem to make sex into a bigger thing then it is. There is only baggage if you consider sex to have such baggage.

Indeed. Another point is; when did 13-year olds stop going emo when their crush on someone was, well, crushed?

I don't understand how you somehow through magic gain so much more feelings for someone after you've done the deeds. I've never felt that, I've had the same strong feelings for people I've slept with and people I haven't slept with. The only thing that makes sex any special, is that it's a confirmation that there's something there. But the same would go for some tongue action. no not down there, filthy pervs...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Most likely, those kids are from religious families. In the US for instance, the major (Christian) religions and teen pregnancy appear to go together like statistical twins. That's because those religions usually preach the virtues of abstention and virginity and foster all the myths, lies and confusion that traditionally come with them. This causes children to remain unnecessarily immature and at the same time leaves them unduly obsessed by sexuality, resulting in undesirable outcomes, not only teen pregnancies but higher divorce rates and other markers of instability.

As the New Yorker puts it: it's not suprising when Sarah Palin's daughter becomes pregnant at the age of 17. 'Red' states have sex earlier, marry earlier and divorce earlier and more often than 'blue' states. Blue sex is more responsible than red sex!

Evangelicals could start, perhaps, by trying to untangle the contradictory portrayals of sex that they offer to teen-agers. In the Shelby Knox documentary, a youth pastor, addressing an assembly of teens, defines intercourse as “what two dogs do out on the street corner—they just bump and grind awhile, boom boom boom.” Yet a typical evangelical text aimed at young people, “Every Young Woman’s Battle,” by Shannon Ethridge and Stephen Arterburn, portrays sex between two virgins as an ethereal communion of innocent souls: “physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual pleasure beyond description.” Neither is the most realistic or helpful view for a young person to take into marriage, as a few advocates of abstinence acknowledge.
The quote from that pastor obviously reminded me of some of the attitudes toward sex in evidence in this thread.

Evangelicals are very good at articulating their sexual ideals, but they have little practical advice for their young followers. Social liberals, meanwhile, are not very good at articulating values on marriage and teen sexuality—indeed, they may feel that it’s unseemly or judgmental to do so. But in fact the new middle-class morality is squarely pro-family. Maybe these choices weren’t originally about values—maybe they were about maximizing education and careers—yet the result is a more stable family system. Not only do couples who marry later stay married longer; children born to older couples fare better on a variety of measures, including educational attainment, regardless of their parents’ economic circumstances. The new middle-class culture of intensive parenting has ridiculous aspects, but it’s pretty successful at turning out productive, emotionally resilient young adults. And its intensity may be one reason that teen-agers from close families see child-rearing as a project for which they’re not yet ready. For too long, the conventional wisdom has been that social conservatives are the upholders of family values, whereas liberals are the proponents of a polymorphous selfishness. This isn’t true, and, every once in a while, liberals might point that out.
Well, I'm glad to have been of service by pointing it out to yall. Night-night.

source (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/11/03/081103fa_fact_talbot?currentPage=all)

It's wierd, we don't have any of that over here. At least not among my, admittedly middle-class, friends. There have been a glut of weddings of people I went to school with, but we're all 22 now. There have been no pregnancies,only one of my friends is expecting and she has been married three years. A deeply devout friend of mine went to America and said she was shocked by the amount of deception they practice, fueled by the fact that people go to Church as the "done thing", not out of conviction.

So all that demonstrates is that American Evangelicals, who practice deception and self-delusion as a way of life, has as unhealthy an attitude to sex and science.

I'll give you the point, but it doesn't have broad application and I don't think it applies to anyone here.

[Rhyfelwyr]

A deeply devout friend of mine went to America and said she was shocked by the amount of deception they practice, fueled by the fact that people go to Church as the "done thing", not out of conviction.

So all that demonstrates is that American Evangelicals, who practice deception and self-delusion as a way of life, has as unhealthy an attitude to sex and science.

I get this feeling as well when it comes to Evangelicals, I give Christianity a couple of generations before it dies almost completely in the US. It has a Christian culture, but the Christian religion isn't very significant anymore. I always hear stories about what goes on at the Christian youth camps, you may as well go to a brothel.

Anyway, I do not see why Dutch culture should be seen as the natural over any other when it comes to sex. I would never want to sleep around, and I would much rather find the right girl straight away. Can someone back me up here and tell me that this isn't just me? And it's not like I am one of these people that would think it is a big deal, I'm not sensitive at all I'm a miserable stoic [expletive], I just think it should be kept for the one partner. As I said earlier read the threads at the TWC advice section, most of the people there seem to express my sentiments, so is this just because we are all superstitious or is there something in it? Someone back me up here!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I get this feeling as well when it comes to Evangelicals, I give Christianity a couple of generations before it dies almost completely in the US. It has a Christian culture, but the Christian religion isn't very significant anymore. I always hear stories about what goes on at the Christian youth camps, you may as well go to a brothel.

Anyway, I do not see why Dutch culture should be seen as the natural over any other when it comes to sex. I would never want to sleep around, and I would much rather find the right girl straight away. Can someone back me up here and tell me that this isn't just me? And it's not like I am one of these people that would think it is a big deal, I'm not sensitive at all I'm a miserable stoic [expletive], I just think it should be kept for the one partner. As I said earlier read the threads at the TWC advice section, most of the people there seem to express my sentiments, so is this just because we are all superstitious or is there something in it? Someone back me up here!

I think your goal is mature, but your outlook less so.

A friend of mine picked up a girlfriend last year for a few months. Thing is, he wasn't actually physically attracted to her, just emotionally. So, he embarked on this relationship, dispite my warnings I might add, and it all ended in tears. The reason being that without the physical attraction he found her presence irritating when she wanted to cuddle etc.

Just because you take sex seriously and don't want to rush into things doesn't mean there shouldn't be a part of you that wants to rip your girlfriend's clothes off.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I think your goal is mature, but your outlook less so.

A friend of mine picked up a girlfriend last year for a few months. Thing is, he wasn't actually physically attracted to her, just emotionally. So, he embarked on this relationship, dispite my warnings I might add, and it all ended in tears. The reason being that without the physical attraction he found her presence irritating when she wanted to cuddle etc.

Just because you take sex seriously and don't want to rush into things doesn't mean there shouldn't be a part of you that wants to rip your girlfriend's clothes off.

Of course, I agree fully, I am not one of these inner beauty people that bores people to death by tellling them how 'deep' I am. Heck, I've probably been more shallow than most people when thinking about what girls I've liked in the past, simply because I've never strung together most than a single sentence with one in any sort of social situation (yes quite an achievement but it's just how things have worked out for me). Don't get me wrong, I would never even consider going out with a girl I wasn't physically attracted to.

The point I want to make is just that maybe Adrian and HoreTore etc, despite presuming their own cultures to be liberating, were in fact just following their cultures as mindlessly as us "superstitious" folks, and really repressed themselves from getting into a proper relationship. Maybe if they had kept more of the blood flow going to the brain rather than the nether-regions then they would have found the right partner sooner. I don't see how it can be human nature to wait until you are in your 30's before you settle down, considering we used to die around that age. When they want to call one belief system blind or unthinking then they should apply such healthy skepticism to their own as well.

[HoreTore]

The point I want to make is just that maybe Adrian and HoreTore etc, despite presuming their own cultures to be liberating, were in fact just following their cultures as mindlessly as us "superstitious" folks, and really repressed themselves from getting into a proper relationship.

Utter rubbish. I believe Adrian is married, and as for myself, I don't really care about womenz atm, except for hunting that one jewel I've found... And I've been in a relationship for 5 of the 8 years I've been sexually active.

The thing is, we just don't want to preach our way to any others, and realize that people should be free to find out what they want for themselves, and feel comfortable with it. There is no one way to happiness, each person should be free to find it for themselves. What works for you might not work for me, while what works for me might not work for you. So let's keep it that way.



The same thing that gives you the right to judge politicians and the rich. The same thing that gives you the right to have any opinion at all, really. I said I can call them loose - I never said I wanted to control what they did or cared what they did.

No, EMFM, the point is that you're abusing them by throwing hurtful terms at them. It's kind of like not throwing the n-word at a black man. If you say that you don't agree with their lifestyle; fine, do as you please. But insulting and hurting people is a no-no. Keep it civil.

[Louis VI the Fat]

In the US for instance, the major (Christian) religions and teen pregnancy appear to go together like statistical twins.And let's not forget the overlap between strip clubs and religion. The maps of strip club density and religiosity are virtually identical.
The sexually frustrated mothers substitute sex for eating ice cream - by the bucket. And the fathers divide their time shielding their daughters from growing up and secretly watching internet pron or live strippers.

There is a pretty standard mechanism in Conservative / Evangelical 'protection' of family values. Contraceptives are taboo, under the assumption that spreading information, making them available will increase wanton sex. As a result, Protestant Americans have one of the highest teen pregnancy rates* in the Western world.**

The same mechanism is visible in another thread, about Bush halting information to veterans about end of life procedures. Again, with the alarmist reasoning that information equals wanton killing of veterans. The result is that many evangelical families suffer needlessly prolonged misery.

While I'm at it, I might as well bring up those toe-tapping politicians too. How many gays are secretly married, bringing frustration and misery to themselves and their families? The result of endless nonsense about 'recruiting' and 'cures' for homosexuality.

Some family values.


*Secular and lascivious France is very low on the list of teen pregnancy rates. Almost at the very bottom, is Europe's 'Sodom and Gomorra', the liberal experimentative state of the Netherlands. Highest up are the puritan Anglosaxons and the superstitious states.
Take that indeed.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_tee_bir_rat-people-teenage-birth-rate


**
Teenage pregnancies and syphilis have risen sharply among a generation of American school girls who were urged to avoid sex before marriage under George Bush's evangelically-driven education policy, according to a new report by the US's major public health body.

In a report that will surprise few of Bush's critics on the issue, the Centres for Disease Control says years of falling rates of teenage pregnancies and sexually transmitted disease infections under previous administrations were reversed or stalled in the Bush years

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/20/bush-teen-pregnancy-cdc-report

[Viking]

*Secular and lascivious France is very low on the list of teen pregnancy rates. Almost at the very bottom, is Europe's 'Sodom and Gomorra', the liberal experimentative state of the Netherlands. Highest up are the puritan Anglosaxons and the superstitious states.
Take that indeed.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_tee_bir_rat-people-teenage-birth-rate

Iceland = 2*Norway
Norway = 2*Sweden

Also

Portugal > 2*Spain

:inquisitive:

[Louis VI the Fat]

The point I want to make is just that maybe Adrian and HoreTore etc, despite presuming their own cultures to be liberating, were in fact just following their cultures as mindlessly as us "superstitious" folks, and really repressed themselves from getting into a proper relationship. Maybe if they had kept more of the blood flow going to the brain rather than the nether-regions then they would have found the right partner sooner. I don't see how it can be human nature to wait until you are in your 30's before you settle down, considering we used to die around that age. When they want to call one belief system blind or unthinking then they should apply such healthy skepticism to their own as well.Indeed, it isn't human nature to wait until your late twenties to have sex and settle down. Thus was developed the traditional West European marriage pattern: urging partners to wait into well into their twenties. And to remain abstinent until marriage.

The goal was to prevent population increase. The means were abstinence, marrying late, or not marrying at all. This is the traditional Western European marriage pattern.
One can not teach most people the workings of demographics. One can, however, teach people irrational fear and superstition. Hence the social pressure to remain abstinent until well into your twenties was tranformed into a religious duty.

All this changed during the Industrial revolution. Couples married young, population levels shot through the roof. It changed again sometime after WWII.

Modern contraceptive methods, changing demographics, and increased ability to cope with instable population numbers have rendered 'no sex before marriage' obsolete. An empty shell. A means to protect pre-industrial societies against pre-industrial threats.

However, modern Christians want to have their cake and eat it too: no sex before marriage, AND marrying young. This entirely defeats the original purpose of abstinence. It is also very modern, stuck in an Industrial age. Meanwhile, secular Westerners have reverted back to a traditional, pre-industrial marriage pattern, of marrying late and having a first child in their late twenties.

[Rhyfelwyr]

*Secular and lascivious France is very low on the list of teen pregnancy rates. Almost at the very bottom, is Europe's 'Sodom and Gomorra', the liberal experimentative state of the Netherlands. Highest up are the puritan Anglosaxons and the superstitious states.

The education system here in no way reflects traditions Christian values (if there is such a thing... well you know what I mean) when it comes to sex. In fact the values they encourage are the exact opposite. And now we have 12 year old chavs getting pregnant, great job health education classes! :yes:


The thing is, we just don't want to preach our way to any others, and realize that people should be free to find out what they want for themselves, and feel comfortable with it. There is no one way to happiness, each person should be free to find it for themselves. What works for you might not work for me, while what works for me might not work for you. So let's keep it that way.

I agree it should be up to the individual, but you've obviously got your idea of what's right/natural. It was mostly Adrian's post that got to me when he said that people without his values on the matter are just "superstitious". I don't think this is true, hence why I gave the example of all the people who think more along my lines over at the TWC, regardless of their backgrounds.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

No, EMFM, the point is that you're abusing them by throwing hurtful terms at them. It's kind of like not throwing the n-word at a black man. If you say that you don't agree with their lifestyle; fine, do as you please. But insulting and hurting people is a no-no. Keep it civil.

Oh, how sad. It's what they are, aren't they? It fits the definition, doesn't it? It has no comparison to calling a black man a term we have now see as derogatory, unless you believe that promiscuous people are somehow as repressed as black people were - and from this thread, that certainly doesn't seem to be the case.

It's not that I don't agree with their lifestyle. I don't care either way. I don't want to regulate it or encourage it. But I will say things how I see them, and someone who sleeps with a lot of people simply for the sake of it is loose. If you do sleep with a lot of people, and this is how someone describes you, why take it as an insult? Are you ashamed of your own ways? If not, there is no reason to be offended.

[Adrian II]

The point I want to make is just that maybe Adrian and HoreTore [..] were in fact just following their cultures as mindlessly as us "superstitious" folks, and really repressed themselves from getting into a proper relationship.There you go again. What gives Monsieur Rhyfelwyr the right to define what sort of relationship is proper for Adrian II? What does he know that I don't know?
I believe Adrian is married [..]I put out the garbage every second Friday and I can diaper a baby blindfolded and with one hand in 27 seconds flat.

Don't ask me why the baby was blindfolded, that's not my department.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

There you go again. What gives Monsieur Rhyfelwyr the right to define what sort of relationship is proper for Adrian II? What does he know that I don't know?I put out the garbage every second Friday and I can diaper a baby blindfolded and with one hand in 27 seconds flat.

I think he's lampooning you.



There is a clear correlation between superstitions surrounding virginity and all sorts of health issues, sexual problems, forced marriages, 'exorcism' of homosexuals, punishment for adultery and other primitive views and practices. Religion is not always the root cause, but it either introduces, supports or condones such views and practices.

I couldn't care less if you want to wait till you're 65 and crippled before you have sex, but don't force your view on others like religions have done for so long. I'm not forcing my view on you either. All I want is a world where my kids will be protected against the infringement of your mumbo jumbo upon their personal lives and freedom, thank you very much.

I'm actually a little insulted you feel the need to denigrate my religious beliefs, but if anything doing so damages your argument.

Frankly, my sexual conduct has to do with not being in a relationship; not with not being married. I simply don't feel the need to have sex so badly that I seek women out at the moment. To be honest, I think I just can't be bothered right now.

I CERTAINLY don't think having sex before marriage makes you evil or irredeemably decedant. What I do think is that in an ideal world we'd all meet someone perfect by the time we were 18, before we met anyone else, get married, be blissfully happy and have an awsome sex life.

In other words, in a perfect world we'd pick the right flavour off the bat and never want to change.

That may be a romantic view, but it's not really a religiously motivated one.

[HoreTore]

I agree it should be up to the individual, but you've obviously got your idea of what's right/natural.

I most certainly do not. Nor do I even care in the slightest. My stance on this is the same as my stance on God, the flying spagetti monster, the origin of life or any higher meaning of life. I don't care. I don't think about it. It doesn't bother me.

I know what works for me. You figure out what works for you.

As for Adrian's comment, I see it as an attack on those who try to control what others should feel, preventing them from figuring out for themselves. Which I think is completely justified.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

As for Adrian's comment, I see it as an attack on those who try to control what others should feel, preventing them from figuring out for themselves. Which I think is completely justified.

That begs the question of whether it is pertinant though. I don't think there are any Evangelicals in the thread, not even sure if we have any in the BR at the moment. Rhy doesn't actually qualify, I certainly don't.

[Kagemusha]

That begs the question of whether it is pertinant though. I don't think there are any Evangelicals in the thread, not even sure if we have any in the BR at the moment. Rhy doesn't actually qualify, I certainly don't.

By evangelicals, do you mean Evangelical Lutherans?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

By evangelicals, do you mean Evangelical Lutherans?

I'm not too up of Evangelical Lutheranism.

Lets see, are you:

Christocentric
Believe in the Ultimate authority of Scriputure.
The Sovereinty of the Holy Spirit
Salvation only through Grace, and not through works?
The need for personal conviction.

I think that's it.

If so, then I believe you qualify.

[Kagemusha]

I'm not too up of Evangelical Lutheranism.

Lets see, are you:

Christocentric
Believe in the Ultimate authority of Scriputure.
The Sovereinty of the Holy Spirit
Salvation only through Grace, and not through works?
The need for personal conviction.

I think that's it.

If so, then I believe you qualify.

Sorry i was just interested to what you were pointing at. I am namely a Evangelic Lutheranian, like 77,7% of my countrymen, but to be honest i am really not following any kind of dogma purely. What i can say about our church from personal experience is that church seems to be as secular as our society. It babtizes people, confirmates teens, marries people and buries them. The Church does not interfere much on peoples personal lives. The message you get is more about tolerance and forgivness rather then damnation and uproar about values of today.

[HoreTore]

Sorry i was just interested to what you were pointing at. I am namely a Evangelic Lutheranian, like 77,7% of my countrymen, but to be honest i am really not following any kind of dogma purely. What i can say about our church from personal experience is that church seems to be as secular as our society. It babtizes people, confirmates teens, marries people and buries them. The Church does not interfere much on peoples personal lives. The message you get is more about tolerance and forgivness rather then damnation and uproar about values of today.

We're all evangelical lutherans up here, swedes, danes, finns and norwegians.

And the state of our state church is pretty much the same.... The loonies are mostly confined in the pentecostal churces.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Sorry i was just interested to what you were pointing at. I am namely a Evangelic Lutheranian, like 77,7% of my countrymen, but to be honest i am really not following any kind of dogma purely. What i can say about our church from personal experience is that church seems to be as secular as our society. It babtizes people, confirmates teens, marries people and buries them. The Church does not interfere much on peoples personal lives. The message you get is more about tolerance and forgivness rather then damnation and uproar about values of today.

I was merely providing what is (I believe) the current definition. It was not a comment upon you or your Church.

FYI, I believe "Evangelical Lutheran" in English is the correct term.

What we are really talking about here, however, are Fundamentalists; which is a shame because the original purpose of Evangelicalism in the US was to move away from that ideaology

[Kagemusha]

I was merely providing what is (I believe) the current definition. It was not a comment upon you or your Church.

FYI, I believe "Evangelical Lutheran" in English is the correct term.

What we are really talking about here, however, are Fundamentalists; which is a shame because the original purpose of Evangelicalism in the US was to move away from that ideaology

Yes i understand.I was just curious. I really dont have anything to contribute in this discussion. Or perhaps about people being loose. I was rather "loose" during my single days and wont take it as offensive if described that way.:laugh4:
My opinion is that no laws, regulations or morals cant change the fact when young people get the urge to have sex they will have it no matter what law books will say about that. Some earlier, some later. What ever suits them the best.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

We're all evangelical lutherans up here, swedes, danes, finns and norwegians.

And the state of our state church is pretty much the same.... The loonies are mostly confined in the pentecostal churces.

Completely OT, but it's interesting that pretty much every loonism in the West since 1380 has come from Anglo-Saxons.

Sorry about that.

[Rhyfelwyr]

There you go again. What gives Monsieur Rhyfelwyr the right to define what sort of relationship is proper for Adrian II? What does he know that I don't know?

Sorry, it is my bad wording. When I say 'proper', I mean serious, long-term etc. Yes, this is maybe my personal bias. Anyway, I always said people can do what they want, everyone is different. But, I object to your comments about my "superstition" and "mumbo jumbo". Despite my religion/culture I can still think for myself, and I know I would not want to sleep around as they do in the Dutch-Scandinavian culture. You are really just following your own culture as well, why are you so sure your own one is right? What makes Monsieur Adrian think he knows what Rhyfelwyr is thinking, or what motivates his decisions?


I CERTAINLY don't think having sex before marriage makes you evil or irredeemably decedant. What I do think is that in an ideal world we'd all meet someone perfect by the time we were 18, before we met anyone else, get married, be blissfully happy and have an awsome sex life.

In other words, in a perfect world we'd pick the right flavour off the bat and never want to change.

That may be a romantic view, but it's not really a religiously motivated one.

This is more or less what I think as well, as you can imagine its fits in pretty well with my rather fatalistic worldview.

[Adrian II]

What makes Monsieur Adrian think he knows what Rhyfelwyr is thinking, or what motivates his decisions?I didn't comment on your lifestyle. I pointed out that there is a negative correlation between religiousness and sexual health and that the prevalence of (traditional) religious views such as yours promotes unhealthy outcomes for youngsters such as unwanted early pregnancies, high divorce rates and related issues. Like Hore Tore I have no objection to your lifestyle whatsoever, only to the pretense, articulated more then once in this thread, that it is somehow superior, that people who do not adhere to it are 'loose', have no 'proper' relationships or regard women as mere 'organisms with a pulse'.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Like Hore Tore I have no objection to your lifestyle whatsoever, only to the pretense, articulated more then once in this thread, that it is somehow superior, that people who do not adhere to it are 'loose', have no 'proper' relationships or regard women as mere 'organisms with a pulse'.

I just reread some of the posts, and you are right, in a way some of my ideas are ingrained, and there were some disrespectful undertones in what I posted, so I apologise. :shame:

Still, I will continue to follow my own views on this matter, because they are just what feel right to me, its not just a religious custom, its part of a much broader outlook. As for the problems we see with Evangelicals in the US, if they actually stuck to their religious views on this then they would be fine, it's when they're done half-heartedly that the problems arise.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I didn't comment on your lifestyle. I pointed out that there is a negative correlation between religiousness and sexual health and that the prevalence of (traditional) religious views such as yours promotes unhealthy outcomes for youngsters such as unwanted early pregnancies, high divorce rates and related issues. Like Hore Tore I have no objection to your lifestyle whatsoever, only to the pretense, articulated more then once in this thread, that it is somehow superior, that people who do not adhere to it are 'loose', have no 'proper' relationships or regard women as mere 'organisms with a pulse'.

No, you pointed up a problem in America not mirrored to the same degree in the UK.

America does not reflect Western Christianity in general.

[Adrian II]

No, you pointed up a problem in America not mirrored to the same degree in the UK.

America does not reflect Western Christianity in general.Certainly. That's why I made precisely this distinction in my posts. It's all there, just read again. I said there was a virginity cult in highly religious societies like the US, Iran, etcetera. I didn't include the UK. In fact I would be hard put to include any European country bar Malta.

[Strike For The South]

If its a girl, i'm gonna buy her the NuvaRing and condoms and tell her how they work.


you realize the boy who will have the privllege of entering your duaghter will be able to feel the nuvaring up agianst his stuff right? You realize this may cuase him to giggle?

As for the thread,Some people whom have sex at 13 are prefectly mature and sane some who have sex at 23 are leeches on socitey. All of you are sexualy repressed and have some issue that stems back to your childhood that would cuase you to care about another persons sex life this much. It's not your dang buisness so stop preaching. .


Except for you Adrian, you're just a decrepit hippie.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Certainly. That's why I made precisely this distinction in my posts. It's all there, just read again. I said there was a virginity cult in highly religious societies like the US, Iran, etcetera. I didn't include the UK. In fact I would be hard put to include any European country bar Malta.

That's a fair point, you did not draw a direct conection. However, the "mumbo jumbo" comment was a little unfair, and there's still a little "guilt by association in your posts.

However, I will accept that I have not argued my point entirely consistantly, but I would submit that my view does not have a great deal to do with my religion. If anything, my denominational choices are based on admiration for the moral outlook of the leaders.

So, I feel that the linking of irresponsibility and religion is a dead end outside the US. It's not something you get over here really, I think religious couples marry maybe four years earlier on average over here. One of my oldest friends, who I have saddly fallen out of close contact with, got married last week.

He and his bride are 22, but they have been together for going on 5 years now and one has to ask how long they should wait before getting married.

For the record, they are both Evangelical in outlook (though not US-style).

[Adrian II]

So, I feel that the linking of irresponsibility and religion is a dead end outside the US.The relation between religion and sexual oppression is just as complex as the relation between religion and conflict or that between religion and science. And in each religion or sect the nature and consequences of the oppression are different.

The problems connected with American Evangelism are different from those connected with, say, circumcision in Somalia or honour killing among Muslims, Hindus or Sihks. Yet in each case a fearful and/or hostile attitude toward female sexuality and female lust, culminating in an exalted notion of virginity, is the root cause of the problem.

In Buddhist Thailand for instance the effect is totally different from effects seen in the US. In Thailand women are supposed to remain virgins till marriage, and this rule is effectively enforced in most (lower and higher) middle class families. As a result, there is a huge prostitution industry in Thailand that caters to young men, whose only sexual outlet is to have paid sex with a poor girl. Around 95% of Thais have first slept with a prostitute. Going to a whorehouse is a rite of passage for the youngest and a regular pastime for boys and men in their late teens and early twenties. Not only has this mass sex industry turned Thailand into an international brothel and a main exporter of AIDS, but its true (and mostly hidden) downside is the sexual misery of many of Thailand's women.

The role played by religion is obvious. The Buddhist view of women puts them on a lower level than men. Women are scorned by the monks who regard them as provocative incarnations of evil. As a result the self-image of many Thai women is so low that some turn to prostitution in order to repay their families, both literally and figuratively, for the fact that they were born as lowly, useless women. They actually imagine that they purify their karma by prostituting themselves in the interest of their parents and siblings. How's that for a change from American Evangelism?

Even so, the exaltation of virginity (and the complementary fear and hatred of female lust) is the root cause of sexual misery in all cases. It is the common denominator. And religion is always its second name. Of course we can't say that religion causes these attitudes. It certainly upholds and rationalises them more than any other institution. Hence their worldwide correlation.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The relation between religion and sexual oppression is just as complex as the relation between religion and conflict or that between religion and science. And in each religion or sect the nature and consequences of the oppression are different.

The problems connected with American Evangelism are different from those connected with, say, circumcision in Somalia or honour killing among Muslims, Hindus or Sihks. Yet in each case a fearful and/or hostile attitude toward female sexuality and female lust, culminating in an exalted notion of virginity, is the root cause of the problem.

In Buddhist Thailand for instance the effect is totally different from effects seen in the US. In Thailand women are supposed to remain virgins till marriage, and this rule is effectively enforced in most (lower and higher) middle class families. As a result, there is a huge prostitution industry in Thailand that caters to young men, whose only sexual outlet is to have paid sex with a poor girl. Around 95% of Thais have first slept with a prostitute. Going to a whorehouse is a rite of passage for the youngest and a regular pastime for boys and men in their late teens and early twenties. Not only has this mass sex industry turned Thailand into an international brothel and a main exporter of AIDS, but its true (and mostly hidden) downside is the sexual misery of many of Thailand's women.

The role played by religion is obvious. The Buddhist view of women puts them on a lower level than men. Women are scorned by the monks who regard them as provocative incarnations of evil. As a result the self-image of many Thai women is so low that some turn to prostitution in order to repay their families, both literally and figuratively, for the fact that they were born as lowly, useless women. They actually imagine that they purify their karma by prostituting themselves in the interest of their parents and siblings. How's that for a change from American Evangelism?

Even so, the exaltation of virginity (and the complementary fear and hatred of female lust) is the root cause of sexual misery in all cases. It is the common denominator. And religion is always its second name. Of course we can't say that religion causes these attitudes. It certainly upholds and rationalises them more than any other institution. Hence their worldwide correlation.

Alright, that's all true. However, this is not actually anything to do with religio, it's more to do with ideology. The religion is then enlisted in support of a mysoginistic ideaology.

Extreme forms of feminism, for example, villify men as oppressors and condition women to avoid them completely and embrace Lesbianism. Unsurprisingly, this rarely makes it to a second generation. In the West mysoginy is a relic of our enduringly Philhellenic culture, and so long as philosophy in the Universities starts with Plato we're going to continue to have issues.

That being said, there are other reasons to avoid "carnal relations" as they have been called that have nothing to do with mysoginy. Frankly, at the base of Christianity is an abhorence of the flesh, and this has everything to do with loving God to the exclusion of all else, and nothing to do with women. Monasticism in the West for both men and women was based on the recognition that a physical relationship necessarily pulls in the opposite direction to God at certain points in your life.

Under such a scheme, marriage is the acceptable licencing of a physical relationship for the majoriety of human beings who lack the piety to be genuinely celebate; to completely abstain.

However, it's humanely impossible to follow even Jesus' commandments, let alone those of Moses. That's sort of the point.

Anyway, I deigress.

My point is this: Abstenance from sexuality is supposed to be about exercising control; the sort of reppression practiced in many places denies the existence the very urges that were originally meant to be restrained. Practice of such restraint has nothing to do with virginity and everything to do with generally trying to seperate the conciousness from the physical world.

In my own case, I'm a romantic and so are a lot of the girls I associate with.

[Adrian II]

In my own case, I'm a romantic and so are a lot of the girls I associate with.Now you're talking. :laugh4:

Seriously, I understand that. But blaming Plato for all the (western) world's misogyny is a bit rich and so is denying the misogynic Christian tradition. The Christian abhorrence of the flesh has always gone hand in hand with the abhorrence of women as the worst temptation of the flesh and female lust as the worst aberration of all.

In your case of course these connotations may be absent and even if you do entertain them I still respect your views or lifestyle. That doesn't detract from my point about the correlation. Nor from my point that I don't want your views to be imposed on anyone else.

In my personal view, abstaining from sexual activity till marriage is like abstaining from reading and writing till you are 18. Or abstaining from making music till you are 21. A form of self-mutilation, in other words. From the standpoint of society, I think that only the barest restrictions on children's sexual activity should apply. Sexual health, happiness and fulfilment are an intensely personal matter and any attempt at ideological control over it is bound to cause misery, failure and frustration.

[Xiahou]

That being said, there are other reasons to avoid "carnal relations" as they have been called that have nothing to do with mysoginy. Frankly, at the base of Christianity is an abhorence of the flesh, and this has everything to do with loving God to the exclusion of all else, and nothing to do with women. Monasticism in the West for both men and women was based on the recognition that a physical relationship necessarily pulls in the opposite direction to God at certain points in your life.Maybe it's just the pragmatist in me, but I always figured that many religious "rules" are at their heart are actually pretty sensible. A classic example, to me, was the Jewish prohibition on pork. When not prepared and cooked thoroughly, it could be a dangerous food to consume. Modern food preparation, handling, ect. makes that less of a concern, but at it's core, there was some sense to it. Most of the Ten Commandments are just guidelines for a civil society.

More on topic, major religions frowned on promiscuity for the simple reason that it was a bad idea. It ran the risk of men fathering children that they have no intention of supporting, spread disease, ect. Obviously, monogamy withing marriage was also something to be encouraged for stability.

Of course, modern technologies have greatly reduced the risks of disease and unwanted pregnancy, but I think there's still some value in showing some sexual restraint. It's foolish to simply chalk up religious views on sex to misogyny and the like.


In my personal view, abstaining from sexual activity till marriage is like abstaining from reading and writing till you are 18. Or abstaining from making music till you are 21. A form of self-mutilation, in other words.You're entitled to you view, but I really can't put intercourse on the same level as reading. Intellectual intercourse may stir one's emotions, but it isn't going to earn you an STD or create a new life if you're careless in doing it. Deciding to have sex is a more serious decision than deciding to read a book.

[HoreTore]

but it isn't going to earn you an STD or create a new life if you're careless in doing it.

Please, stop with the fear-mongering. Sex is not dangerous, an it's certainly not unhealthy, in fact it's healthy, for both the mind and the body. An orgasm is a major happy-pill, and the sex itself is quite good exercise(now you know what to say next time your lady complains about her weight).

STD's and pregnancies are things we no longer have to worry about. Condoms fixed it while abstinence has failed miserably.

[Xiahou]

STD's and pregnancies are things we no longer have to worry about.Which explains why millions of people contract STDs each year in the US alone. :dizzy2:

[Rhyfelwyr]

I wish evangelicals would not get bogged down in these arguments about whether or not abstinence is realistic and will reduce STD's. God's perfect nature which we are supposed to reflect does not exist to serve us. In the end it does, but not if we have the attitude that it exists to serve us, it's one of those paradox things in a way. When evangelicals try to argue we should follow commandments such as abstinence because it's good for us, this is just too much Christian culture, and not enough Christian religion. Christians are told to be abstinent, so they should be abstinent. It's that simple, just do it (or don't do 'it' in this case).

[Beskar]

Difference between USA and UK is major.

USA - backwards ideas such as world only 6000 years old, teaching creationism in schools, very religious leaders as if being religious was a requirement.

UK - Goes with scientific theory and geology, teaches only evolution in science classes, if you rant and raved about god, people would think you are mentally ill.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Now you're talking. :laugh4:

A lot of them are also virginal (and stil virgins).


Seriously, I understand that. But blaming Plato for all the (western) world's misogyny is a bit rich and so is denying the misogynic Christian tradition. The Christian abhorrence of the flesh has always gone hand in hand with the abhorrence of women as the worst temptation of the flesh and female lust as the worst aberration of all.

Well, yes and no. Female lust is something Monks were quite upset about, but they were all getting erections while weeding the vegitable patch and having wet dreams. If you look more closely at pre-Reformation culture you will find that the reality is that lust was not something people actually worried about that much. At any time before 1200 most priests were married, even in 1300 it was difficult to enforce celibacy among the secular clergy.

More to the point, the cure for impotence around 1400 in England was to invite all the local goodwives around to laugh at the poor man's flacid penis. It was also considered necessary for a woman to achieve orgasm in order to concieve.

Mysogeny was an inherritence from Greece and Rome, the early Church all the way back to Paul, was influenced by Hellenism and medieval culture worshipped Greek and Roman literature and philosophy.

Anyway, my point about Plato is that mysogeny is not native to Gallic or Germanic culture in the same way at all.


In your case of course these connotations may be absent and even if you do entertain them I still respect your views or lifestyle. That doesn't detract from my point about the correlation. Nor from my point that I don't want your views to be imposed on anyone else.

In my personal view, abstaining from sexual activity till marriage is like abstaining from reading and writing till you are 18. Or abstaining from making music till you are 21. A form of self-mutilation, in other words. From the standpoint of society, I think that only the barest restrictions on children's sexual activity should apply. Sexual health, happiness and fulfilment are an intensely personal matter and any attempt at ideological control over it is bound to cause misery, failure and frustration.

How about abstaining from white-water rafting, bungee jumping, parachuting? Sex is not like reading. It is, by all accounts, a lot more fun.

[Adrian II]

A lot of them are also virginal (and still virgins).I understand. No problem there.
Anyway, my point about Plato is that mysogeny is not native to Gallic or Germanic culture in the same way at all.Seriously, why would you trace Paul's misogyny and that of the church to Plato? Its origin is the Jewish god, and no one else.

Besides, Greek and Hellenistic culture were not uniquely misogynic. Only the idealistic schools (like that of Plato) were. The materialistic schools of thought (Demokritos, Epicurus) held women in much higher regard. Of course Christian philosophy, from the first Church fathers onward, identified with the former and abhorred the latter...

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Difference between USA and UK is major.

USA - backwards ideas such as world only 6000 years old, teaching creationism in schools, very religious leaders as if being religious was a requirement.

UK - Goes with scientific theory and geology, teaches only evolution in science classes, if you rant and raved about god, people would think you are mentally ill.

Child please.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I understand. No problem there.

Yeah, virgins are sexy.


Seriously, why would you trace Paul's misogyny and that of the church to Plato? Its origin is the Jewish god, and no one else.

Besides, Greek and Hellenistic culture were not uniquely misogynic. Only the idealistic schools (like that of Plato) were. The materialistic schools of thought (Demokritos, Epicurus) held women in much higher regard. Of course Christian philosophy, from the first Church fathers onward, identified with the former and abhorred the latter...

Well, because Paul was as much a Greek as a Jew. He is the only genuinely mysoginistic character in the NT, the others are just a little bit sexist at worst.

Anyway, just look at the survival rate for Greek philosophical texts, back before Plato there's very little. As to abhorance of Epicurus, et al. were atheists; their philosophy isn't compatable with theism, and it openly rejects it.

So it's not surprising the Fathers rejected.

[Adrian II]

Yeah, virgins are sexy.I know all about it, I married one. Surprised?

Anyway, thanks to you, Rhyfelwyr and other decent Christian posters I got a good run for my money in this thread. And it shows that this sort of thing doesn't always have to end in acrimony. :bow:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I know all about it, I married one. Surprised?

Well no, but then you once told us you spank her as well.


Anyway, thanks to you, Rhyfelwyr and other decent Christian posters I got a good run for my money in this thread. And it shows that this sort of thing doesn't always have to end in acrimony. :bow:

Well, you're not too bad yourself, sometimes. :wink3:

[Adrian II]

Well no, but then you once told us you spank her as well.I did? :laugh4:

[Louis VI the Fat]

And you once told us you performed in a pr0n flick...:sweatdrop:


(Yes, he really did, it's not a lame joke)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I did? :laugh4:

Yep, and you said she liked it :beam:

Apparently, you only do it when she misbehaves.:whip:

[Rhyfelwyr]

Heavens above, I leave this thread for a day and all you talk about is spanking virgins.

Glad to see it ended in consensus though. :laugh4:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Heavens above, I leave this thread for a day and all you talk about is spanking virgins.

Welcome to "teh internetz."

[Kadagar_AV]

I found most girls likes getting spanked :whip:

ON TOPIC though... I never understood the value of having a virgin girlfriend. Only men who are very insecure about their abilities in bed can want a virgin, so she has nothing to compare with. Thus actually believing you just had divine sex...

Also, I dont like the term "loose" used about girls who are sexually liberated.

[HoreTore]

Which explains why millions of people contract STDs each year in the US alone. :dizzy2:

In the US, yes. Where they preach abstinence.

In countries where they preach condoms, like the neds and norway? Not so much.

Wear a condom, and nothing bad will ever happen. Period.

[a completely inoffensive name]

In the US, yes. Where they preach abstinence.

In countries where they preach condoms, like the neds and norway? Not so much.

Wear a condom, and nothing bad will ever happen. Period.

Well...99% of the time at least. Let's not go overboard here.

[Xiahou]

Well...99% of the time at least. Let's not go overboard here.Even that's a stretch. Don't get me wrong, if you insist on sleeping around, you should use a condom, but you're being foolish if you think using one completely protects you from all risks. They're great against things like HIV, Chlamydia, Gonorrhea, ect- if used properly. But they only provide "limited" protection from diseases like Herpes, Genital Warts, Syphilis and HPV. Read all about it from the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/latex.htm).

People can do what they want, I just object to people painting promiscuous sex as a risk free behavior- it isn't. You can and should minimize your risks, but the risks still remain and have serious consequences. It's up to the individual if they want to wait until marriage, but at the very least, I think it's advisable to be in a committed relationship and be aware that your decisions could have far reaching consequences. It's not a decision that should be made carelessly.

[Kadagar_AV]

USofA should not be used as an example of how STDs spread.

More modern countries have a very different take on sexual information...

[Dîn-Heru]

STD's and pregnancies are things we no longer have to worry about.


In the US, yes. Where they preach abstinence.

In countries where they preach condoms, like the neds and norway? Not so much.

Wear a condom, and nothing bad will ever happen. Period.


Not really true now is it...

According to this article (http://www.fhi.no/eway/default.aspx?pid=233&trg=MainLeft_5669&MainLeft_5669=5544:26586::0:5667:1:::0:0) from the health information office (Folkehelseinstituttet) the cases of chlamydia is rising both in Norway and in Sweden.

And this is the number of reported cases the last ten years, which strangely only contain data for the last four, but combined with the data quoted in the article you can see that the it has been increasing for a while. But, before you think I disagree with you and preach abstinence, the reason for increase in chlamydia cases I believe is that the use of condoms has decreased (if I remember correctly).

Fylke 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Østfold - - - - - - 952 1079 1132 1156 -
Akershus - - - - - - 1773 1807 1962 1941 -
Oslo - - - - - - 2781 3253 3466 3453 -
Hedmark - - - - - - 670 696 768 717 -
Oppland - - - - - - 787 663 713 714 -
Buskerud - - - - - - 1078 996 1053 973 -
Vestfold - - - - - - 865 909 968 1012 -
Telemark - - - - - - 751 682 734 747 -
Aust-Agder - - - - - - 336 356 373 451 -
Vest-Agder - - - - - - 517 601 627 710 -
Rogaland - - - - - - 1579 1674 1696 1775 -
Hordaland - - - - - - 1750 1795 1945 1887 -
Sogn og Fjordane - - - - - - 318 338 401 433 -
Møre og Romsdal - - - - - - 809 1150 1169 1177 -
Sør-Trøndelag - - - - - - 1358 1573 1493 1767 -
Nord-Trøndelag - - - - - - 430 518 613 645 -
Nordland - - - - - - 130 1174 1366 1416 -
Troms - - - - - - 1178 1238 1311 1382 -
Finnmark - - - - - - 608 594 710 705 -
Utenfor Fastlands-Norge - - - - - - - - - - -
Ukjent fylke - - - - - - 1293 163 347 427 -

Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 19963 21259 22847 23488 0

Taken from http://www.msis.no/

(sorry for the messed up table, but the important thing is the total numbers, not the county numbers)

PS: To HoreTore, if you use the msis site, check out the age distribution, it is greatest in our age-range 20-29, but for the age group 10-19 it about half that so (given that we assume an average age of 15-16 for first intercourse) the numbers are not statistically different. Do we have bad sexual education, or is it just us being sloppy when it comes to taking care of ourselves..?

The moral is, use a condom and reduce the chances of getting infected and infecting others with STD's.

[Fragony]

Even that's a stretch. Don't get me wrong, if you insist on sleeping around, you should use a condom, but you're being foolish if you think using one completely protects you from all risks. They're great against things like HIV, Chlamydia, Gonorrhea, ect- if used properly. But they only provide "limited" protection from diseases like Herpes, Genital Warts, Syphilis and HPV. Read all about it from the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/latex.htm).

People can do what they want, I just object to people painting promiscuous sex as a risk free behavior- it isn't. You can and should minimize your risks, but the risks still remain and have serious consequences. It's up to the individual if they want to wait until marriage, but at the very least, I think it's advisable to be in a committed relationship and be aware that your decisions could have far reaching consequences. It's not a decision that should be made carelessly.

These are very very rare, virtually non-existant. Our approach just works, no teenage pregnancy's, no teenage abortions, no teenagers with mystery-meat, happy and healthy teens with loving family's, no better place to grow up than the Neds or the Viking-countries.

[a completely inoffensive name]

no teenagers with mystery-meat,

Ok, I have no idea what the hell this means.

[pevergreen]

STDs I presume.

[Fragony]

STDs I presume.

Ya that :laugh4:

[Furunculus]

Difference between USA and UK is major.

USA - backwards ideas such as world only 6000 years old, teaching creationism in schools, very religious leaders as if being religious was a requirement.

UK - Goes with scientific theory and geology, teaches only evolution in science classes, if you rant and raved about god, people would think you are mentally ill.

OT: no wait, i thought these cultural memes as broadly expressed by differing national groups didn't exist, and could therefore have no impact on society........................?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I found most girls likes getting spanked :whip:

ON TOPIC though... I never understood the value of having a virgin girlfriend. Only men who are very insecure about their abilities in bed can want a virgin, so she has nothing to compare with. Thus actually believing you just had divine sex...

Also, I dont like the term "loose" used about girls who are sexually liberated.

If you consider them "liberated" then the term loose really means the same for you as for me, lack of restraint. You simply consider that lack an unmitigated benefit, while I less so.

About the spanking thing: Like all (minor) fetishes it's a matter of taste, not every girl enjoys handcuffs or silk ties. Not every guy either.


In the US, yes. Where they preach abstinence.

In countries where they preach condoms, like the neds and norway? Not so much.

Wear a condom, and nothing bad will ever happen. Period.

This is as much rubbish as, "condoms never work, they are complete crap". Frankly, your naivity is pretty shocking for someone who claims to be so expereinced.

Condoms reduce the likelyhood of all infections, but they can break, slip off etc. and even assuming no obvious failure they are STILL only about 95% affective. At that point, their ability to protect you is strongly influenced by the level of STDs in your population. It has been suggested that the low incidence of STDs has led to promiscuity in Scandanavia, then complecency (not bothering with condoms), and this has gradually allowed the level of STDs to rise in your population.

This in turn has made sex in Scandanavia less safe than it was, condom or no.

[Fragony]

This in turn has made sex in Scandanavia less safe than it was, condom or no.

But when all the dust has settled it really isn't. The chance of contracting a STD with viking chicks is minimal, especially since you won't get any without putting on some gear.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

But when all the dust has settled it really isn't. The chance of contracting a STD with viking chicks is minimal, especially since you won't get any without putting on some gear.

I said "less safe than it was", Frag; and that is true. What's more, HoreTore's blasse attitude is evidence that the Norse at least have not caught up with reality. The safety margin will continue to decline until they reach rocognition, hopefully they won't have to go as low as us before that happens.

Anyway, "minimal" is not "zero" which is exactly what HoreTore is claiming.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I've had just about enough of this portrayal of the USA as a backwards and stupid nation. Kind of ironic that it mostly comes from the people who spend half of their time claiming nationalism as stupid for precisely the same reason...

I love irony.

[Beskar]

I love how nationalists are the ones complaining about how people put national attributes to the national system in a random thread off-topic about a quick-fire post about main religious stereotypes of two countries trying to make a vague and bad point.

I love the irony.

Edit: Also, it isn't precisely the same reason at all. Where did you even dig that one from?

[HoreTore]

This is as much rubbish as, "condoms never work, they are complete crap". Frankly, your naivity is pretty shocking for someone who claims to be so expereinced.

Condoms reduce the likelyhood of all infections, but they can break, slip off etc. and even assuming no obvious failure they are STILL only about 95% affective. At that point, their ability to protect you is strongly influenced by the level of STDs in your population. It has been suggested that the low incidence of STDs has led to promiscuity in Scandanavia, then complecency (not bothering with condoms), and this has gradually allowed the level of STDs to rise in your population.

This in turn has made sex in Scandanavia less safe than it was, condom or no.

My ex-girlfriend was allergic to the pill. So that meant 2 years of regular condom-use for me. As I'm still not a father, that means condoms are damn safe.

And the STD you can get here is chlamydia, which is basically a penis-cough.

[Adrian II]

I've had just about enough of this portrayal of the USA as a backwards and stupid nation. Kind of ironic that it mostly comes from the people who spend half of their time claiming nationalism as stupid for precisely the same reason...

I love irony.Agreed. Like I said in the other thread (about 'How many have you slept with'):

It's a big country and there's more to it than virginity balls and mad preachers. In my experience Americans can be just as relaxed about sex as anyone else and they've got the numbers and the pictures to prove it.

[Fragony]

I said "less safe than it was", Frag; and that is true. What's more, HoreTore's blasse attitude is evidence that the Norse at least have not caught up with reality. The safety margin will continue to decline until they reach rocognition, hopefully they won't have to go as low as us before that happens.

Anyway, "minimal" is not "zero" which is exactly what HoreTore is claiming.

Zero, sounds like a hero. I am all the way with Horetore on this one. If STD is the reality then catching up is not a good thing.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Zero, sounds like a hero. I am all the way with Horetore on this one. If STD is the reality then catching up is not a good thing.

No, Frag, the reality is rising numbers of STD's in Scandanavia, "catching up" means realising this and not burying your head in the sand.


And the STD you can get here is chlamydia, which is basically a penis-cough.

Well, actually, it has now been proven that is leaves men and women infertile. Of course, it's been known for a long time that it leaves women infertile, but what do you care, so long as your balls don't shrivel up and turn into useless raisons.

[HoreTore]

No, Frag, the reality is rising numbers of STD's in Scandanavia, "catching up" means realising this and not burying your head in the sand.

Well, actually, it has now been proven that is leaves men and women infertile. Of course, it's been known for a long time that it leaves women infertile, but what do you care, so long as your balls don't shrivel up and turn into useless raisons.

There's a slight risk of sterility yes, I've known that since I was a kid, might have something to do with that little thing called sexual education we get in school...

Anyway, wear a condom and you won't catch anything. Ever.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Anyway, wear a condom and you won't catch anything. Ever.

Unless the condom breaks, or is porus, or perishes in the heat, or falls off.

Or any of a number of other things.

Look, a condom is not magic, just like everything in our reality it is imperfect.

Here's one more thought for you: What if you had a tiny little knick/sore near your johnson. All it would take would be a slight abbrasion for it to be possible for you to be infected with something. We call them sexually transmitted diseases because sex is the easiest way to transfer what are otherwise quite difficult things to catch.

[Xiahou]

Anyway, wear a condom and you won't catch anything. Ever.
Of course, that flies in the face of all facts and reason, but you enjoy living in the little world you've created for yourself. :yes:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's rather akin to saying, "don't bother with condoms, they don't ever work."

HoreTore, you have something in common with a "Sex-Ed" teacher in an American Evangelical school.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I don't know what to say here, I agree with HoreTore's views that sex should be very open, is a healthy thing to do, etc... but I know that there are still massive dangers and him saying that condoms protect against everything bad 100% of the time is making me distance myself from him and agree with the more...."traditional" in here.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don't know what to say here, I agree with HoreTore's views that sex should be very open, is a healthy thing to do, etc... but I know that there are still massive dangers and him saying that condoms protect against everything bad 100% of the time is making me distance myself from him and agree with the more...."traditional" in here.

No one here is arguing sex isn't healthy (I'm certainly not), however restraint is not a bad thing either.

For some reason we seem to view it as a great evil, even though we practice it all the time. You don't punch everyone who annoys you, similarly you shouldn't try to have sex with every girl you are physically attracted to.

[Adrian II]

[..] you shouldn't try to have sex with every girl you are physically attracted to.You shouldn't?? :laugh4: :smash::clown:



Wait, of course you shouldn't. God forbid. :stare:

[a completely inoffensive name]

No one here is arguing sex isn't healthy (I'm certainly not), however restraint is not a bad thing either.

For some reason we seem to view it as a great evil, even though we practice it all the time. You don't punch everyone who annoys you, similarly you shouldn't try to have sex with every girl you are physically attracted to.

Well, I am all for moderation, I am just getting sick of the taboo that the religious right has cast on sex in the United States and wish that America could adopt some of the openness of Europe.

I just want sex to be treated as a normal thing, not an evil thing. I don't think it is good to lock the windows on your teenagers just because you think they will have sex (which indirectly reinforces the idea that sex is bad) but obviously I don't want young people to go overboard and start spreading STD's.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You shouldn't?? :laugh4: :smash::clown:



Wait, of course you shouldn't. God forbid. :stare:

Ok, I'm having trouble reading you here Adrain. Are you gently mocking me, or cautiously agreeing with me?

[Furunculus]

I love how nationalists are the ones complaining about how people put national attributes to the national system in a random thread off-topic about a quick-fire post about main religious stereotypes of two countries trying to make a vague and bad point.

I love the irony.

Edit: Also, it isn't precisely the same reason at all. Where did you even dig that one from?

now hold on there buddy boy, i have made no such complaint. i embrace cultural diversity.;)

[Furunculus]

Well, I am all for moderation, I am just getting sick of the taboo that the religious right has cast on sex in the United States and wish that America could adopt some of the openness of Europe.

I just want sex to be treated as a normal thing, not an evil thing. I don't think it is good to lock the windows on your teenagers just because you think they will have sex (which indirectly reinforces the idea that sex is bad) but obviously I don't want young people to go overboard and start spreading STD's.

no dammit, we have already 'proved' that there are no consequential cultural differences! :wall:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

There's a slight risk of sterility yes, I've known that since I was a kid, might have something to do with that little thing called sexual education we get in school...

Anyway, wear a condom and you won't catch anything. Ever.

Jesus. In the sex ed class you're bragging about didn't they teach you that herpes is spread via skin to skin contact so that wearing a condom is only 30% effective? You're bragging about your superior sex education you get in school?

[Adrian II]

Ok, I'm having trouble reading you here Adrain. Are you gently mocking me, or cautiously agreeing with me?I am gently mocking everyone's reflex when it comes to this subject. Whenever somebody says you shouldn't want to bed every girl you find attractive, everybody else routinely nods and goes "No, no, of course not." But in the secrecy of their own thoughts, more than a few men will think: "You bet!"

It just isn't socially acceptable in even the most 'liberated' nations or circles to deny the statement.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I am gently mocking everyone's reflex when it comes to this subject. Whenever somebody says you shouldn't want to bed every girl you find attractive, everybody else routinely nods and goes "No, no, of course not." But in the secrecy of their own thoughts, more than a few men will think: "You bet!"

It just isn't socially acceptable in even the most 'liberated' nations or circles to deny the statement.

Some pretty girls are married...I doubt it will ever be socially acceptable to hit on married women...

[Adrian II]

Some pretty girls are married...I doubt it will ever be socially acceptable to hit on married women...If it is acceptable to the women - after all we are not talking rape, but consensual nooky - then why shouldn't it be socially acceptable as well? It's an old reflex that that makes us nod the prohibition, at least in public. But many men, if and when given the chance to hit on a married woman, apparently do so without compunction.

[Beskar]

Depends on beliefs. Having an affair behind some one who you are legally bound to, is not ok or acceptable. If you and your partner both decide they can "see" other people, then that is acceptable.

[Adrian II]

Depends on beliefs. Having an affair behind some one who you are legally bound to, is not ok or acceptable.No woman is legally bound to a man. This used to be the case for most of history, hence the reflex. But those days are over, at least in the West where men or women are not prosecuted for adultery anymore. It's up to the individual to decide whether his or her marital oath covers sexual exclusivity or not. This matter is now considered private to the point where the state refrains from intervening.
If you and your partner both decide they can "see" other people, then that is acceptable.Forget it. Either partner in a marriage is fully entitled to have sex outside the box without the permission of the other.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No woman is legally bound to a man. This used to be the case for most of history, hence the reflex. But those days are over, at least in the West where men or women are not prosecuted for adultery anymore. It's up to the individual to decide whether his or her marital oath covers sexual exclusivity or not. This matter is now considered private to the point where the state refrains from intervening.Forget it. Either partner in a marriage is fully entitled to have sex outside the box without the permission of the other.

No they aren't, not if their marriage vows include sexual exclusivity; which they almost always do, i.e. "forsaking all others...faithful only to you". In any case, marriage vows have always bound the man to the woman as much as the other way around; the fact that was ignored makes it no less true.

As far as prosecution goes, I don't see why not. Breaking your marriage vow is a form of purjery; I find it perverse that we only prosecute oaths made in the court of law.

[Adrian II]

As far as prosecution goes, I don't see why not. Breaking your marriage vow is a form of purjery; I find it perverse that we only prosecute oaths made in the court of law.This is done on the sound basis that human sentiment or intimacy can and should not be legally enforced. For the same reason, there is no law that forces parents to love their children and vice versa.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This is done on the sound basis that human sentiment or intimacy can and should not be legally enforced. For the same reason, there is no law that forces parents to love their children and vice versa.

If the sentiment fails then the couple should release each other from their vows, they should not perjure themselves. I do not believe you are ever free to break an oath.

[Adrian II]

If the sentiment fails then the couple should release each other from their vows, they should not perjure themselves.

I do not believe you are ever free to break an oath.Not ever?

For clarity's sake, let us look at an extreme example. Should all German soldiers who swore allegiance to Hitler have fought to the bitter end? Of course not; circumstance released them from their oath. At the time when they took the oath, many of them were young, misled and/or forced to comply. And at any subsequent time they would have been morally and legally justified to break that oath, and this without the prior consent of A. Hitler of 1 Voßstraße, Berlin.

More than a few spouses find themselves in a similar bind, although far less dramatic or political. Some were too young and inexperienced when they took their vow. Others weren't aware of the objectionable nature of their spouse. In yet other cases a marriage develops in a direction that neither partner could have foreseen. More often than not adultery is not a cause, but a symptom of maital failure. In other cases adultery can save a marriage. I personally know of one case where adultery allowed a partner to sustain he marriage which would otherwise have been utterly insufferable, and this in the interest of her kids.

All in all, the intensely personal nature of the issue and the unpredictability of sentimental causes and consequences have led to the wise decision that the law should leave spouses alone in this regard.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Not ever?

No never, but please see below.


For clarity's sake, let us look at an extreme example. Should all German soldiers who swore allegiance to Hitler have fought to the bitter end? Of course not; circumstance released them from their oath. At the time when they took the oath, many of them were young, misled and/or forced to comply. And at any subsequent time they would have been morally and legally justified to break that oath, and this without the prior consent of A. Hitler of 1 Voßstraße, Berlin.

Well, an oath given under durress is not valid, an oath given to someone who seriously misrepresents themselves is also suspect, though not necessarily breakable. Oath-giving is the same as a written contract, you can't just break an oath because "circumstances have changed" unless such contingencies are contained in said oath.

To take your example, in both Germany and Japan there were soldiers who fought to the death. If that was what they had sworn to do, and freely, that is their obligation.


More than a few spouses find themselves in a similar bind, although far less dramatic or political. Some were too young and inexperienced when they took their vow. Others weren't aware of the objectionable nature of their spouse. In yet other cases a marriage develops in a direction that neither partner could have foreseen. More often than not adultery is not a cause, but a symptom of maital failure. In other cases adultery can save a marriage. I personally know of one case where adultery allowed a partner to sustain he marriage which would otherwise have been utterly insufferable, and this in the interest of her kids.

All in all, the intensely personal nature of the issue and the unpredictability of sentimental causes and consequences have led to the wise decision that the law should leave spouses alone in this regard.

None of which remotely excuses adultery in my view, they could just get a divorce, then go see other people. Your argument might hold some water when women were forced to marry against their will, but they aren't now. Youthful failures in judgement do not excuse dishonorable behaviour in adulthood.

Why are you espousing the dishosest breaking of the marriage contract over it's legal dissolution?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Also, it isn't precisely the same reason at all. Where did you even dig that one from?

Die-hard anti-American anti-nationalists...you don't see the contradiction?

[Beskar]

Die-hard anti-American anti-nationalists...you don't see the contradiction?

Not really. They are different concepts. You got anti-American policy which as the worlds hyper-power affects us all and we are puppets being played along to the same tune. Because of America's position and influence on the globe, it isn't because they are just a nation, it is far from that, it is against the hold they have and the power of their situation. It is over oversimplification to a massive degree to even suggest the point you are trying to create, if anything, it only shows the problems caused by nations.

Anti-nationalism because it is anti- the divide between natures, which ultimately do not benefit us as a whole, if anything causes more strife and harm then any good.

They are two completely separate concepts and issues. Ultimately, you could even argue that without America, the second one still stands, but without nations, the first one doesn't exist, as being against all nations mean you are anti-every nation.

[HoreTore]

Unless the condom breaks, or is porus, or perishes in the heat, or falls off.

That just do not happen.

I've had a condom break on me. Once. And that was a condom that went through a washing machine, and it popped after a minute or so.

Anyway. A condom doesn't "break", that's a propaganda myth. Condoms are way beyond 99,9% effective, but it does need to be put on and used correctly. Those horrors stories you've heard of condoms breaking, etc, they're all caused by idiots who don't know how to put it on or use it properly.


Jesus. In the sex ed class you're bragging about didn't they teach you that herpes is spread via skin to skin contact so that wearing a condom is only 30% effective? You're bragging about your superior sex education you get in school?

Of course? But then again, who has herpes anyway?

Also, I probably should've specified that you should get yourself checked regularly.... Didn't mention it before, because, well, it's quite obvious... Get yourself checked after each and every partner(I do that), and you won't spread an STD no matter what you do. Use a condom too, and you get one either.

[Adrian II]

[..] they could just get a divorce, then go see other people.Which only goes to show the shallowness of your view. There are a myriad circumstances where 'just getting a divorce' is not the best option. People are not robots, programmable machines unburdened by attachments to kids, parents and friends and unburdened by doubts, fears, hopes or conflicting emotions.

Frankly, your view reminds me of the legalistic tradition in China. Thank heaven we have liberated ourselves from the notion that the law should govern peoples' intimacy.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Which only goes to show the shallowness of your view. There are a myriad circumstances where 'just getting a divorce' is not the best option. People are not robots, programmable machines unburdened by attachments to kids, parents and friends and unburdened by doubts, fears, hopes or conflicting emotions.

Frankly, your view reminds me of the legalistic tradition in China. Thank heaven we have liberated ourselves from the notion that the law should govern peoples' intimacy.

None of which excuses adultery. It might make it understandable, but not excusable.

I am not shallow, but I am uncompromising.

Kids: Most of the "kids" I know who discover a parent has been unfaithful feel as hurt and betrayed as the spouse, it can damage the relationship with both parents; especially if the mother is the guilty one and the issue of paternity arises. That would be my first question on discovering my wife had had an affair, as well.

Friends: If your spouse/partner can't trust you I think it's a fair bet your friends can't either. In all the examples of unfaithfulness I can think of, from both my own and my parents generation, the reaction has not been understanding overall. Generally, you loose fewer friends than in an honest divorce.

Parents: Well, if you cheat on your spouse you're surely betraying their parents as well. If your parents dissaprove that'd be because they think it's wrong.

The rest seems to be you saying you should have an affair if you can't decide whether or not to get a divorce. I honestly fail to see the validity of that argument; having an affair whilst trying to "work on" your marriage seems the height of hipocracy.

I have "doubts, fears, hopes" etc. all the time, but it never makes me believe that being dishonest or breaking my word is the right thing to do. The truth is, I have broken my word a few times, each time it has lost me friends; so far being honest has only ever offended people.

[Adrian II]

I am not shallow, but I am uncompromising.So am I. The fact that adultery may hurt people is a consequence of the fact that love hurts. Such is life. I could give you many sob stories as well with a totally different moral. All sorts of incidents, behaviours or omissions in a marriage can hurt; they can hurt partners, kids, friends. But that is no legitimate reason to want to legislate morality.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So am I. The fact that adultery may hurt people is a consequence of the fact that love hurts. Such is life. I could give you many sob stories as well with a totally different moral. All sorts of incidents, behaviours or omissions in a marriage can hurt; they can hurt partners, kids, friends. But that is no legitimate reason to want to legislate morality.

We legislate morality all the time, Protagoras (First Sophist) argued that morality was merely the best form of governance for a society. To put it another way, why should we create a legal contract based on a verbal oath (marriage) and not prosecute when a similar contract (on giving evidence) carries a heavy penalty.

I'm not talking about prison, but I strongly object to your origonal statement that no one can be bound to another person and is free to do whatever they want, because a marriage is quite litterally a legal binding together of two people. It's even there in the traditional vows, "To have and to hold" habendum et tenendum is the same form as that used to confirm the holding of a lease on a piece of land. The bride and groom litterally take possesion of each other.

[Adrian II]

The bride and groom litterally take possesion of each other.We have come a long way since Deuteronomy, my friend. Speaking of which, any news on that cloven hoof thingy yet?

[Fragony]

I'm not talking about prison, but I strongly object to your origonal statement that no one can be bound to another person and is free to do whatever they want, because a marriage is quite litterally a legal binding together of two people.

If you divorce you have to pay your ex and your children no

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

We have come a long way since Deuteronomy, my friend. Speaking of which, any news on that cloven hoof thingy yet?

I don't know about the cloven hooth, that's a purely Jewish thing. Funnily enough, when I was in halls I picked up the complementary Bible and it fell open to that passage in Deut., nearly fell off my chair.

Anyway, this is Saint Paul, and his message can best be summed up as, "Don't have sex unless married, if you're married don't have sex with other people, but have lots of sex with each other because you own each other."

I actually think it's a nice summation of what a marriage should be. You commit to someone and trust them to the extent that you actually submit ownership of yourself to them.

[Adrian II]

I actually think it's a nice summation of what a marriage should be. You commit to someone and trust them to the extent that you actually submit ownership of yourself to them.I actually think that's a fine commitment. But the law should have nothing to do with it. That is where we differ.

In light of what I know about life, marriage and parenthood, you will never convince me that the exposure in court, the emprisoning or the fining of adulterers would make this world a better place for anyone.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well, this brings me rather neatly back to my original point in this thread. Namely, that I have to teach my children something about sex, marriage etc., and I don't think chucking a pack of condoms at him at sixteen is really a good way to go about things at all.

Further, concerning the practice of restraint etc., I should teach them not be a party to adultery, or to commit it and married to that should be the principle that you shouldn't just try to have sex with everything that moves.

[Adrian II]

Well, this brings me rather neatly back to my original point in this thread. Namely, that I have to teach my children something about sex, marriage etc., and I don't think chucking a pack of condoms at him at sixteen is really a good way to go about things at all.I couldn't agree more. And perish the thought that those like myself who are fortunately free from religion somehow wouldn't care about life, love or commitment.

I talked with my wife about the subject and she said it's funny that people traditionally make such a fuss about sex. If two people decide not to marry but just be friends, everybody else respects that. But if they decide not to marry and just have sex, half the community still frowns on that - whilst half of the frowners are secretly jealous...

Which touches on Adrian's First Law of Social Life:


Mimetic rivalry is the most destructive force in society.But that would be for another, later thread.

[Beskar]

Well, this brings me rather neatly back to my original point in this thread. Namely, that I have to teach my children something about sex, marriage etc., and I don't think chucking a pack of condoms at him at sixteen is really a good way to go about things at all.

Further, concerning the practice of restraint etc., I should teach them not be a party to adultery, or to commit it and married to that should be the principle that you shouldn't just try to have sex with everything that moves.

I wish sex education was so simple. Doing that would be as productive as telling your children just to say "no" to sex.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I couldn't agree more. And perish the thought that those like myself who are fortunately free from religion somehow wouldn't care about life, love or commitment.

I talked with my wife about the subject and she said it's funny that people traditionally make such a fuss about sex. If two people decide not to marry but just be friends, everybody else respects that. But if they decide not to marry and just have sex, half the community still frowns on that - whilst half of the frowners are secretly jealous...

Which touches on Adrian's First Law of Social Life:

Mimetic rivalry is the most destructive force in society.
But that would be for another, later thread.

Well, perish the thought that those like myself, comforted and sustained by religion, were without sympathy. A young Christian woman, who I sadly failed to fall in love with, once described Christian ethics on this subject as, "designed to protect yourself". There's a lot in that, the principle being that sex can damage, so we stop everyone from doing it to protect the few from massive trauma. This is most definately the principle behind the age of consent in most countries, as well.

Also, if a man and woman decide to be close friends people do not always respect that, they as often whisper, and the mothers go out and buy fancy hats.

[Fragony]

Also, if a man and woman decide to be close friends people do not always respect that, they as often whisper, and the mothers go out and buy fancy hats.

America isn't the Neds, it's normal to have female friends here. The (now-ex girl) of my best friend is also a friend of mine for example no problem if I took her for dinner or went of a day with the boat. Friends of my parents who are divorced are best friends they both remarried and everybody gets along great, the two family's even go on holidays together. And why should we care anyways.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

America isn't the Neds, it's normal to have female friends here. The (now-ex girl) of my best friend is also a friend of mine for example no problem if I took her for dinner or went of a day with the boat. Friends of my parents who are divorced are best friends they both remarried and everybody gets along great, the two family's even go on holidays together. And why should we care anyways.

I'm not even slightly American, Frag.:thumbsdown:

[Fragony]

I'm not even slightly American, Frag.:thumbsdown:

As if that is an insult, I don't keep a diary keeping up with who is from where.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

As if that is an insult, I don't keep a diary keeping up with who is from where.

Everyone else manages, pretty sure if you look through this thread you'll see I've said I'm from the UK.

[Fragony]

Everyone else manages, pretty sure if you look through this thread you'll see I've said I'm from the UK.

UK & USA have a lot in common, this prudency is an anglo-saxon thing. And aren't the English really Americans who missed the boat?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

UK & USA have a lot in common, this prudency is an anglo-saxon thing. And aren't the English really Americans who missed the boat?

Ok, now I know you're trying to wind me up.

This "prudency" is not an "anglo-saxon" thing.

The prudishness is a Puritan thing, and it was pretty common in the Netherlands before the War. It was not and is not common in England for people to be excessively pruddish, we are simply not as lax as you in a lot of ways.

Frankly, I find the Dutch, the Germans and the Scandanavians much easier to understand than Americans. Your brains work in a similar way. Americans just look a bit like the English at first glance.

[a completely inoffensive name]

no dammit, we have already 'proved' that there are no consequential cultural differences! :wall:

Sorry, but I disagree. In the more liberal areas like San Fransisco and New York there is not much difference, but I do live in a very conservative area and there is a difference. You might disagree but it is just my experience.

[pevergreen]

Also, if a man and woman decide to be close friends people do not always respect that, they as often whisper, and the mothers go out and buy fancy hats.

Please explain the last part of that so I can stop laughing.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Please explain the last part of that so I can stop laughing.

Traditionally, married women wear hats in Church in England. This is less common now than even ten years ago, but at a white wedding all the stops get pulled out.

Warning your mother "not to get a hat" is akin to warning her not to start knitting baby clothes.

[pevergreen]

Ah okay.

I still find it hilarious. Its just not in the culture here.