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

As a law student, I also see the legal implications.

There is clearly a link between age and the (at least legal) ability to enter into a binding contract. Sex is certainly one of the most strictly binding contracts - you can't have your virginity back if the relationship breaks up.

I don't even think the religious aspect is that significant. I just think that to enter into a sexual relationship too early is damaging emotionally and psychologically - no matter how mature you think you are. Especially when you consider the statistics on teenage pregnancies and the difficulties that arise because of them. Educational and employment opportunities are all but destroyed, and in many cases family structures break down.

I understand that some people (mostly male) think the risks are worth it, but perhaps that's part of the problem - the 'it won't happen to me' mentality... same for STDs &c.

I'd take precautions of course!!
But I agree. Too young *is* a bad thing.

I think we can all agree on that, but we'd probably all disagree on how young is too young! The problem with discussing whether or not the age of consent should or should not be lowered is that you then have to ask "WHICH age of consent?" Not only does it differ from country to country, and sometimes even region to region within a country, but in Britain it differs according to who you are. Because we allow unelected people in the House of Lords to influence our laws, we're still stuck with age of consent laws that discriminate against gay men, making them wait two years longer than everyone else to be legal. Hopefully, international human rights legislation will soon change this state of affairs.
Going back once more to True Love Waits: admittedly, their site doesn't say EXPLICITLY that if you follow their way then you're superior, but they do use that sinister phrase "moral purity" rather a lot. Which does rather suggest that they think that if you don't agree with them then you're "impure" and inferior. As for all that stuff about "seizing the web"... well, I guess we should just be thankful that these days Christians do their crusading with e-mails rather than swords.
Finally, I still say that committing yourself to a partner for life without first discovering whether you're sexually compatible, as TLW advocate is quite amazingly stupid. Does anyone disagree?

No - I agree.
Its been described as "renting with the option to buy".

In America, it's illegal for a 17 year old and an 18 year old to have sex unless they have already been in a stable relationship with each other before the 18 year old reached 18.

Or something like that. It's to do with the fact that the age of consent is less than the age of minority, and it would be wrong for an adult to have sex with a minor. So they have this wierd way around...

I don't like the way True Love Waits are promoting things. What's God got to do with anything? I understand that for people who do have religious beliefs, God or whichever religious figures are appropriate can have a large part to play in sexual relationships, but to me it's totally irrelevant and incredibly off-putting.

I also do not believe that sex should wait for marriage. I'm not even that sure if I believe in marriage, although maybe that's because I've not met anyone I'd like to live with for the rest of my life. Sex should come when it comes, but it should never be done just for the sake of it, or because of peer pressure, or because two people think it's the right thing to do. When both are ready, it's fine.

As for sex education, that's the responsibility of parents and the schools. And it's very, very important.

The problem with all of this is identifying who it is exactly that such a government campaign would target. It interested me to hear that there is a discrepancy between the sexes in terms of the message being given by the campaign; whilst girls are to be told "it's okay to be a virgin", boys are to be encouraged to use a condom. Mixed messages, methinks...

However, I think that things really ought to be made more accessible and better explained to teenagers. I'm seventeen, and this morning I went for a pregnancy test after missing a period whilst on the Pill. The thing is, I would consider myself reasonably intelligent and well-informed, but I knew practically nothing; I didn't know if I could get a result on the spot, what the test involved, how long it takes after conception for a pregnancy to manifest itself. Fortunately for us, I wasn't pregnant, but if I had been, again there is so little information given. It's all well and good trying to avoid pregnancy happening, but once it becomes an issue there is so little information that girls can wait until it is too late.

Definitely. I'm not a girl, but from the point of view of a man who may suspect he's gotten someone pregnant by accident it can also be very distressing. There should be more information about what to do if something does go wrong.

> I would, however, suggest that, as sex is a pretty important part of life,....

I'd just like to add to this that in this high divorce rate world we live in, many people like to test out the relationship first. This in my view is an excellent idea, and sex should be a part of that. It must be terrible marrying someone without prenupital sex, and then finding out that you just aren't satisfying each other sexually.

Imagine spending your whole married life continually lusting after other people, 'cos you can't get what you need with your partner...

Exactly. And from some conversations I've had with people from my parents' generation, that is precisely what used to happen a lot of the time when the idea of no-sex-before-marriage was the norm.

not always just lusting...

A quick clarification: In the United States, the age at which it is legal for adults to have sex with you varies from state to state. I have lived in one state where you are not 'legal' until you are 18, one where you are legal at 17, and one where you are legal at 16. There may also be a clause that allows people who are only slightly older than the minor off the hook, but this also varies by state. In general, the more conservative the state is, the harsher the law is.

In general, minors in the US are legally able to get married. In fact, in most states doing so gives them instant status as adults. After marriage, almost all state statutes about sex and age fail to apply. In the Southern US in particular, this means kids sometimes get married without much thought primarily because they want to have sex.

I noticed somebody suggested that people want to have sex before marriage because of high divorce rates - they want to make sure they're compatible.

I would submit that the high divorce rates are *because* people have sex before marriage - at least in part. By denigrating the institution that marriage once was, by removing key elements, the resulting bond is strictly legal and no longer has the moral and spiritual elements attached to it. Thus, more divorces.

I know that the old institution of marriage had many faults (including, primarily, its restrictions on women) but one cannot fail to see the link between less respect for marriage, vis-a-vis pre-marital sex, and higher divorce rates.

I'm not trying to tell people they're bad or something because they have sex before marriage. I'm just explaining what I think so that hopefully some people will question their own opinions - and to some extent so that I question my own.

cheers
Rob

Interesting. Unfortunately at the moment I don't seem to be able to articulate my thoughts on the matter. I'll try again later.

Is divorce always a bad thing? If one partner is constantly abusing the other (or the children of the marriage), or if both partners are making each other miserable, then isn't it better to end the thing? Should a person be sentenced to a lifetime of misery without parole just because they fell in love with someone who turned out to be nowhere near as nice as they first appeared to be?
The concept of swearing allegiance to someone unto death is all very romantic and idealistic. Unfortunately, it ignores the fact that people change over long periods of time, so the person you find yourself lumbered with today may be very different to the one you married 10 years ago. People must be allowed to admit their mistakes and move on. Higher divorce rates may simply indicate that people are no longer prepared to put up with an unhappy situation just for the sake of keeping up appearances.

Yes, definitely. That's what I wanted to say!

Marriage should be entered into seriously, but if it doesn't work it doesn't work and there's no point in pressing on with it if it's just going to cause a load of misery. Is it better for the kids to live with their parents arguing all the time or for their parents to split up? I'm not sure, but I suspect the latter.

I'm not saying divorce is itself a bad thing, but the fact that people resort to it is. Why not stay unmarried until you're sure?

But now I'm contradicting my earlier posts. I suppose I'm changing my mind.

That feels funny.

cheers
Rob

Of course it's a pity that people ever have to resort to divorce. But for everyone to stay unmarried until they felt "sure" would not eliminate the problem. People do, and always will, change over the years, and drift apart. People often put on their best behaviour when wooing a new partner, then reveal their darker side once they're married and feel that they don't have to try any more. And people in love are not necessarily in the best frame of mind to judge their loved ones' characters impartially.
You can never really be "sure". Trust me on this one - I'm 40 years old and I speak from bitter experience.

I thought I'd just chip in with my single-issue equality drive:

No sex before marriage? What about the poor gay people?

Well, according to the religious institutions advocating this kind of policy, gays shouldn't be having sex anyway. I'm well aware of this; my uncle is gay and lives in Malaysia - an Islamic country - where homosexuality is illegal...