h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Like I said, the state has neither the time nor the resources to negotiate these things individually, so the state takes a view on an age at which the *majority* of people can reasonably be expected to make this kind of decision. As it does with driving licenses, military service and so on.

It has nothing to do with my individual judgement.

I'm sorry that your teenage sexual experieces were not pleasent, but don't deny others a chance.

While I agree with an age limit on various things (Alcohol not being one incidentally but thats another argument) I think an age limit on sex is if anything, unenforceable when both teenagers are willing. I agree that the point is to inform rather than to enforce and teh theory that informing teenagers about teh consequences and risks of sex is a far better policy. You can't realistically stop them having sex, at least make sure they're safe.

Good plan. We need information in education. More education and more freedom. Let people learn, and then chose, for right or wrong. We need teaching, not preaching. Less restrictions; more freedom!

Amen to that. Said more succinctly and with better typing than i could ever manage.

Not suggesting that education is bad. I fully support good quality education form an early age, along with confidential access to contraception.

On the other hand I do think that there needs to be legislation - to protect young people from exploitation and ignorance, if nothing else.

I would certainly support a change in the law which introduced an age band in which it was legal provided the age difference was not more than, say, two or three years. But I would not support any legislation which would make it easier for older people to prey on emotionally vulnerable teenagers.

but legislation only goes so far. At first at least, many of the younger girls drawn in by older men, are quite willing (from my experience and I am talking about the 15yolds you see in pubs) because the thought of an older man likeing them (at least as far as I know) makes tehm feel liek they are more mature. Actually teh older guys go for them because they are easyer targets to teh more mature girls

Which is precisely why the legislation was enacted in the first place

The same thing that happens with R movies is what will happen with the legislation: the youth, wildly underestimated in all respects, will find away around it, and not get caught.

Sure. The same argument could be used to abolish speed limits.

But you can enforce a speed limit with speed cameras and police traps. And technically you can enforce some films by having and ID check (Works ok for teh brittish 18 certificate but rins into problems with teh 12 and 15) but if both partners consent, then no breakage of teh law is reported, so no action can be taken. Legeslation is merely words, it only works if you can enforce it.

This law exists, historically, to protect the vulnerable from exploitation. If two epole are sufficiently determined to have sex that they evade all controls, then they are probably neither of them vulbnerable. Where one engages in sex because of parental indifference, that's far more worrying. In the end, you have to draw the line somewhere - and wherever you draw that line, people will step over it.

So basically, you think that the line should be drawn as a test: that all who can cross it successfully may have sex, but those who get caught, can't? Maybe I'm not interperting your statemet correctly, so if I am, please clarify.

Nope, I'm saying that the fact people cross the line is not a reason for removing it, and I'm saying that there are some cases of people crossing the line which don't worry me, for the reasons stated, and others which do, also for the reasons stated.

And my point is that just because you are determined to have sex doesn't mean your ready. And taht it doesn't amtter where you draw the line if no one can stop you crossing it.

"Well, of course they can't make their own decisions! We've hardly given them the chance. Even the ones who despite all our manipulations remain mature and intelligent enough to do everything society might require are lumped in with the rest because the adults don't like to think of them as anything but *second class citizens*"

Wow...that completely describes my life. I think society's picture of the teenager as a whole (sexual issues included) is a bit of a sad one. Society seems to look down on us as a bunch of sex-crazed, reckless, immature fools who look at porn or shoot up with an illegal substance any time we get five minutes alone to ourselves.

So allow me to share some personal experiences with you.

My mom gets uncomfortable when I close the door to my room, thinking that I'll start drinking, taking drugs, or sneaking girls up there to do it with. She came with me when a female friend and I (simply a friend, nothing more...) went to a movie. She apparently watched us the whole time we were in the theater, wanting to stop us if we started making out or something in the darkness. And then she demands I tell her about any sexual encounters she seems to envision me having while she flat-out refuses to tell me about her experiences with sex in her high school years, most likely thinking it'll give me ideas.

It's obviously true that SOME teenagers fit the traditional eternally-horny, stupid-immature-decision-makers stereotype. I know about two in my school. But what nobody seems to understand is the fact that in a school containing well over 400 students, only two or three fit into the stereotype. The rest are mature enough to makie their own informed, enlightened decisions about what they do with their lives. I'll bet at least half of them are capable of making informed, enlightened decisions about their life but are unable to because their parents fell for the stereotypical teen image. The people who can and deserve to control their life can't, and it's all the fault of a few idiots who give teenages a bad name.

I'm all for the sexual freedom thing among teenagers. Naturally, some restrictions have to be put in place considering that sex can be dangerous if not handled properly, but the way things are now are just rediculous. From what I've heard, sex can be a fulfilling, happy event if treated with care. If I found a person I really liked enough to do it with and I could somehow get around the ludicrous, illogical restrictions I have on me from my parents and society in general, I would. But I probably won't, because I can't. Any help here would be greatly appreciated.

What's so wrong with sex? Why is society at the point where doing it before marriage is a horrible, evil act? It's as natural as sleeping and eating. True, pregnancy can screw up a couple's life, especially if they haven't finished high school, but we have the technology to prevent that. People's mideival attitudes about birth control is really getting in the way, too. I'll bet if I asked my parents to teach me how to put on a condom they'd flip out, to put it mildly.

Yet despite all this discouragement, teens are still having sex anyway. Some don't know how to use birth control properly, so they get pregnant or spread diseases. Whose fault is that? Definately not the teens', they're just doing what comes naturally. Society's? Oh yes. Irrational fears and adversions lead to avoidance, which leads to misinformation and ignorance.

Take that, Establishment, or whatever it's called now. I think at this point there is a choice. Either way, we teens will be having sex if we can. You can either continue to ignore it, and place heavier restrictions on us. We'll find ways around them and keep at it. Or you can stop fighting it and educate us more on the subject, so we won't be putting the condoms on inside out. Even go so far as to accept it. Is that too much to ask?

Probably.

Society is like this for a very good reason - the purpose of society is to counteract nature. Think about everything that society does. Now think about every thing that human nature compels people to do. Compare. It should become clear why society interferes with life - there is nothing more natural than trying to live your life how you want to.

I don't understand why everybody is under the delusion that society is heading this way. This is the way it has been from the beginning. At the beginning of human history, it was known to be right that a man and woman make a commitment to each other before having sex.


Yes it is - for married people. That's why young children can't do it. It's stupid to say that just because something is a natural desire that it's OK. Some people naturally have violent tendencies. Would that make it OK for them to go on a killing spree? What you desire doesn't determine what is alright for you to do, or there would be no need for laws at all.

Sex was designed to be an expression of love between a man and his wife. Sex would remind them of their eternal commitment to each other, because they would never do it with anyone else in the future, nor would they have done in the past. And who can deny that the ultimate purpose of sex is to have children? And this is clearly meant to happen within a family.

When I saw the subject 'What is Humanity Coming to?', I was glad that somebody saw how wrong this was. Then I see the actual conversation and find that it's full of people who not only no longer know the difference between right and wrong, but are putting one in place of the other! Know this, that restrictions on sex are NOT what humanity is coming TO! They are what humanity has always had but is coming FROM!

"At the beginning of human history, it was known to be right that a man and woman make a commitment to each other before having sex."

This is simply not true in the most basic sense. When you look back at pre-civilization mankind, there are no records to indicate whether people formed monogamous opposite-gender pairs, much less whether they engaged in elaborate ceremonies to formalize such pairings.

All we know is that children were born and raised, usually in small tribes that included both males and females. It would be just as reasonable to assume that the tribe took group responsibility for raising its children, or that the mothers were given sole responsibility due to their tendency to bond with their babies.

Through history and across civilizations, there have been many models to construct families. In some ancient societies, "marriage" simply meant cohabitation. Either the man or both married partners were free to seek sex outside the marriage if they wanted to. In many societies, cohabitation went without the ritual of marriage and divorce was simply a matter of moving out. In still other societies, formalized marriages between same-sex partners or even multiple partners were accepted as perfectly normal.

In the Middle Ages, often as not, only the upper classes were allowed to marry. It was somtimes considered too expensive a ritual for the commoners. Marriage was considered a privilege, not a right or necessity.

Even in the pristine Victorian era in American and Europe, it was common to cover up divorces by moving to a new city and claiming to be single or widowed. Out-of-wedlock children were invariably presented as "nieces" and "nephews" whose real parents were far away and unable to care for them. So while it seemed everyone was conforming to the marriage norm, it was an act more than a reality.

If you go back two generations, you will see a lot of concern about people moving from extended multigenerational families towards the nuclear family. Such people often complained that Western society was changing the way "things have always been." But of course, things have not always been any particular way. There has been a lot of change over many thousands of years. The sense that things have always been the same is nothing more than an illusion.

More and more frequently, Western society is moving towards multiplicitous concepts of family. The frequency of divorce is making single parent families, children with more than two active parents, and step-siblings and half siblings increasingly common. Where this is ultimately going is anyone's guess. Personally, I chalk it up to yet another change in the meaning of marriage and family.

Wait another 50 years, and we'll have new complaints.

But the fact remains that a monogamous relationship is generally an equitable way to bring up families. Many of the alternatives proposed seem to make life easier for men and leave women - literally - holding the baby.

You have to remember that no form of contraception is 100% effective. Anybody having sex must do so with the knowledghe that a baby may result - so it makes good sense to make sure that sex only happens within a context where the arrival of a baby would be supportable. Casual sex is foolish and (these days) dangerous as well, and adolescents routinely lack the judgement to be able to control sexual urges - which is why the law intervenes.

Remember again: it's usually the girls who are left holding the baby.