Teen Sex: What's the New Normal?

KilljoyKlown

KilljoyKlown

Whatever
Valued Senior Member
http://bigthink.com/ideas/39156

Marina Adshade wrote this article. It seems to make a lot of sense and all the comments made were very positive. I have never really thought about teen sex as having a normal that could be changed by the condition of the society. Well maybe average life span, but the other things not much. I don’t have any children of my own, so comments from those of you that do will carry a lot of weight with me.
 
Well, it's possible that they are saying one thing because of social pressure but doing another. I have seen teenage(mostly) internet boards who joke about how hillarious the sex-hysteria is.

To be honest though, I feel that this whole issue of adolescent sex panic is just madness.
Teenagers are young adults and the processing power of their brain is the highest even if their experience is the lowest. That they don't have the maturity to "consent" is a myth that many adult sex hysterics like to promote but their isn't a single shred of evidence for such a claim. Rather, adults routinely underestimate teen ability.

And what is this "emotional injury" thing anyway? Can anyone objectively define what it is? The answer is no. The funny thing is- some psychiatrists,whom Richard Feynman called 'witch doctors', just can't stop promoting that there will be emotional injury if teens have sex. And the tragedy is that people buy that.
 
Last edited:
KilljoyKlown said:
http://bigthink.com/ideas/39156

Marina Adshade wrote this article. It seems to make a lot of sense and all the comments made were very positive. I have never really thought about teen sex as having a normal that could be changed by the condition of the society. Well maybe average life span, but the other things not much. I don’t have any children of my own, so comments from those of you that do will carry a lot of weight with me.
Click to expand...

it seems reasonable but neglects a few things in its viewpoint. For instance it makes the assumption that "Sociaty" or even parents have a right to determine when its apropriate for sexual activity to occure. Now in the UK, US and Australia (ect) we live in "liberal democracies". This means that everything should be permitted unless something is shown to harm someone else significantly. Peoples sexuality and sexual identity are matters for them alone, if they chose to wait then thats there choice, if they chose to have sex at 12 or 13 thats also there choice. As a sociaty what we have a duty to do is to make these choices as safe as possible by giving people the knowlage (through the education system) and the ability to protect themselves (through the health system). This means compulsery high quality sex ed as young as possible and freely avilable contraceptives such as condoms and the pill.

As far as education goes the best program i have seen is the one running in the UK and i would love to see it introduced here. As far as the health systems responcibilities SHine SA is the best i have seen. Widely avilable sexual health clinics providing sexual health services very cheeply to young people and people of low SES.

The last linch pin of this is of corse confidentuality, if a teenager aproches there doctor to get the pill that MUST apsolutly remain confidentual between the doctor and pt, No matter what the parents want
 
DNA100 said:
Well, it's possible that they are saying one thing because of social pressure but doing another. I have seen teenage(mostly) internet boards who joke about how hillarious the sex-hysteria is.

To be honest though, I feel that this whole issue of adolescent sex panic is just madness.
Teenagers are young adults and the processing power of their brain is the highest even if their experience is the lowest. That they don't have the maturity to "consent" is a myth that many adult sex hysterics like to promote but their isn't a single shred of evidence for such a claim. Rather, adults routinely underestimate teen ability.

And what is this "emotional injury" thing anyway? Can anyone objectively define what it is? The answer is no. The funny thing is- some psychiatrists,whom Richard Feynman called 'witch doctors', just can't stop promoting that there will be emotional injury if teens have sex. And the tragedy is that people buy that.
Click to expand...

Did you actually click the link and read the article? I can't relate anything you just said with anything in the article.
 
Asguard said:
it seems reasonable but neglects a few things in its viewpoint. For instance it makes the assumption that "Sociaty" or even parents have a right to determine when its apropriate for sexual activity to occure. Now in the UK, US and Australia (ect) we live in "liberal democracies". This means that everything should be permitted unless something is shown to harm someone else significantly. Peoples sexuality and sexual identity are matters for them alone, if they chose to wait then thats there choice, if they chose to have sex at 12 or 13 thats also there choice. As a sociaty what we have a duty to do is to make these choices as safe as possible by giving people the knowlage (through the education system) and the ability to protect themselves (through the health system). This means compulsery high quality sex ed as young as possible and freely avilable contraceptives such as condoms and the pill.

As far as education goes the best program i have seen is the one running in the UK and i would love to see it introduced here. As far as the health systems responcibilities SHine SA is the best i have seen. Widely avilable sexual health clinics providing sexual health services very cheeply to young people and people of low SES.

The last linch pin of this is of corse confidentuality, if a teenager aproches there doctor to get the pill that MUST apsolutly remain confidentual between the doctor and pt, No matter what the parents want
Click to expand...

For the most part I agree with what you are saying and I think the government should sponsor research to find a reversible way to vaccinate against pregnancy. Then sex and children would not be an issue until children were actually wanted.

Can you imagine a world where every child born was a wanted child by both parents?
 
there are some, implanon seems to be quite effective

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implanon#Effectiveness_in_preventing_pregnancy

acording to this it has a 0.04% failure rate and it isnt effected by vomiting and antibotics (i think). The failure rate of surgical sterilisation (acording to the same artical) is 0.2% so its even more effective than surgical sterilisation (not sure if that includes a full hysterectomy or just clamps)

edit to add: however this doesnt fix the other sexual risks, STD prevention still needs condoms or the ballon
 
Asguard said:
there are some, implanon seems to be quite effective

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implanon#Effectiveness_in_preventing_pregnancy

acording to this it has a 0.04% failure rate and it isnt effected by vomiting and antibotics (i think). The failure rate of surgical sterilisation (acording to the same artical) is 0.2% so its even more effective than surgical sterilisation (not sure if that includes a full hysterectomy or just clamps)

edit to add: however this doesnt fix the other sexual risks, STD prevention still needs condoms or the ballon
Click to expand...

I'd like something that works until an antidote is given along with a law that prevents it being given to any but a husband and wife both making the request.
 
KilljoyKlown said:
I'd like something that works until an antidote is given along with a law that prevents it being given to any but a husband and wife both making the request.
Click to expand...

why the hell should they get married. My partner and i have decided we want to have kids now but we certainly arnt interested in going through some stupid aniquated religious service.

Edit to add: and since when does it have to be man and women? 2 women or 2 men or even 1 man or 1 women can raise a child fine if they so chose
 
Asguard said:
why the hell should they get married. My partner and i have decided we want to have kids now but we certainly arnt interested in going through some stupid aniquated religious service.

Edit to add: and since when does it have to be man and women? 2 women or 2 men or even 1 man or 1 women can raise a child fine if they so chose
Click to expand...

I don't care about religious crap either, but I am talking about a binding legal contract that protects all parties including the child. Also any other child rearing arrangement that is legal would be allowed with the same legal protections.

I just think within one generation we could transform society if every child started out as wanted and well cared for.
 
Can you imagine a world where every child born was a wanted child by both parents?
Click to expand...

Not really, that's just a pipe dream. The child could also have problems as their lives develop with one or both of the parents not wanting them any longer as well. Life isn't ever going to be perfect for anyone so just be ready for anything during your way through it.
 
KilljoyKlown said:
Did you actually click the link and read the article? I can't relate anything you just said with anything in the article.
Click to expand...

Why? What is so difficult to understand?

The article shows the example of a 17 year old who says that he is not going to have sex till 21 and it tries to claim that it is the new normal to delay sex. And I am just saying that that might not be the case.

A lot of parents think that their teen kids don't smoke and drink. The reality is quite the opposite. If the parents smoke, then it is likely that their teen kids too - same for drinking. But the teens are not going to tell their parents, of course.

As long as the argument is that it is OK for adults to do something, but not OK for teens- then the teenagers will never listen. Because it is double standards and the teens can see that. Such an argument might work on a 6 year old obidient kid, but not on a teen.
And I also argued that the current sex panic regarding teen sex is not only stupid, but also wrong.
 
Last edited:
cosmictraveler said:
Not really, that's just a pipe dream. The child could also have problems as their lives develop with one or both of the parents not wanting them any longer as well. Life isn't ever going to be perfect for anyone so just be ready for anything during your way through it.
Click to expand...

Well today you are a pessimistic soul. I wasn't talking about a perfect life for anyone, just a better start.
 
DNA100 said:
And I also argued that the current sex panic regarding teen sex is not only stupid, but also wrong.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where you are getting this from. I don't see any panic regarding teen sex. If you got that from anything in the article please point it out. I personally believe the best time to experience sex is when the drive is the strongest. I just don't think pregnancy and disease should be a part of that experience. Kids only when you are ready and want them.
 
KilljoyKlown said:
I'm not sure where you are getting this from. I don't see any panic regarding teen sex. If you got that from anything in the article please point it out. I personally believe the best time to experience sex is when the drive is the strongest. I just don't think pregnancy and disease should be a part of that experience. Kids only when you are ready and want them.
Click to expand...
Of course there is a panic. Why else would a 17 year old say that it's not right to have sex untill 21 years?

One of the consequences of this panic is that there is very little statistics available on teen sexuality. The little data that we have is actually surprising.
For example - ,
1>Teens are MORE careful about taking birth control and disese prevention measures.
2>Teenage marriages last longer and are much more stable than marriage in later life.

"I personally believe the best time to experience sex is when the drive is the strongest"
I am interested in knowing when do you think the drive is the strogest.
Is it a constant for every indivual?

Also, people can still enjoy sex even if the drive is not the strongest, but just strong enough.
 
Last edited:
DNA100 said:
Of course there is a panic. Why else would a 17 year old say that it's not right to have sex untill 21 years?
Click to expand...

Maybe fear, but not panic. Anyway I think the author was using it as an extreme example, to explain how different societies might look at that same behavior in a healthy teenager. In most current societies his peers might think he is homosexual, and you know kids can be very cruel to each other if they think your not normal.

One of the consequences of this panic is that there is very little statistics available on teen sexuality. The little data that we have is actually surprising.
For example - ,
1>Teens are MORE careful about taking birth control and disese prevention measures.
2>Teenage marriages last longer and are much more stable than marriage in later life.
Click to expand...

I don't suppose you have a source for your examples 1 & 2, because I read much that says the opposite is true.

"I personally believe the best time to experience sex is when the drive is the strongest"
I am interested in knowing when do you think the drive is the strogest.
Is it a constant for every indivual?
Click to expand...

From what I remember reading I'd say sex drive peaks in the early 20's, but from my personal experience I didn't notice mine slacking much at all until sometime in my 30's and not much then. But I do remember being a horny frustrated teenager in high school.

I personally don't fully agree with that. That's a bit like saying a person should only work when he is the strongest. Even if he is not the strongest, he can still contribute when he is fit enough.
Click to expand...

Your example doesn't really depict the way I meant what I said. Basically I wasn't getting any when my sex drive was the strongest and not because I didn't want to get any. Society didn't see fit to educate me properly in that aspect of my life or the other people in my general age group. It was like the blind leading the blind with a lot of fear thrown in make it harder and to top it all off, the threat of being drafted as soon as you graduated high school. High school was not a very good time for me and I don't think it had to be that way.
 
KilljoyKlown said:
Maybe fear, but not panic. Anyway I think the author was using it as an extreme example, to explain how different societies might look at that same behavior in a healthy teenager. In most current societies his peers might think he is homosexual, and you know kids can be very cruel to each other if they think your not normal.
Click to expand...

There is definitely a panic.
You can show anything in a movie. The ONLY thing you can't show is teenage sexuality/nudity. It's pretty much the only argument used to promote censorship and to invade privacy.

I don't suppose you have a source for your examples 1 & 2, because I read much that says the opposite is true.
Click to expand...
There are very few sources to begin with because it is such a taboo subject.
But I do have sources.
The first one I think is taken from a book by Judith levine. I never read the book myself, I merely read about this study somewehere.

I think here is a source for the marriage part.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_pKVCGJ7E4

What you have read is most likely popular media speculation about how teenagers are not mature and so on. The truth is though that in terms of raw brain capacity teens have the highest processing power.
 
I see no reason for the panic over teenagers having sex, either.

It's not a decision that takes years of life experience to get right. It's very simple. Use a condom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top