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

As I am surrounded constantly by American culture, what with living in America, I often wonder if I am the only American who realises that of all things that human beings do, sex is one of the few basic human acts, right along with eating and sleeping. People have made such fuss over sex, and some with good reason. It is dangerous, what with diseases and unwanted pregnancy, but people need to stop programing themselves to be less human. The human reproductive prime is during youth, the teenage years, yet, because the way our society is structured, the people in society biologically most fit to have sex are programed that it is only for marraige. This is based on the notion some religeons have that all pleasure is sinful, and, unfortunately, that sentiment has spread throughout America.

In short:
Teens, have sex if you and your partner(s) want to, but be prepared
to live with the consequences.

Adults, don't meddle in the sex lives and sexual rights of teens.

hear hear

(mostly) hear hear hear.

I think life would be a lot easier to lead if more people exercised a little foresight and common sense...

Sex is fun And it's quite save as well if people know about the risks and what do against them. It's absolutely no surprise to me that the US is having problems with that issue. If they started talking about sex more openly, the whole
problem would solve itself. Let's face it: Condoms aren't evil, talking about them isn't and using them isn't either.
Of course every person has the right to remain abstinent but it's simply wrong to impose that opinion on everybody else.

I agree with these sentiments.

I remember being a 16 year old deeply in love. I had to work hard to arm myself with the information I needed about sex, as the schools, the library, and my parents blocked my access at every turn. Once informed, I made my decision about sex with a good conscience. I visited a Planned Parenthood center and got proper birth control, as even my family doctor would not help me, knowing full well that his refusal could contribute to an unwanted pregnancy.

I am disturbed by the puritanical belief in some parts of the US that assumes that parents, teachers, doctors, and even librarians know what is best for a teen's sex life, and that abstinence is always the best (and most underrated) option for teens. I know this is unjust, because I am a woman whose true love 'didn't wait,' and I have never regretted losing my virginity before the legal age.

I thank my good fortune that I will forever possess the memories I do -- memories of my virginity ending with the healthy exploration of my love for someone who always treated me with the utmost respect. Many of those who wait until adulthood or even marriage to have sex do not receive this lifelong gift.

I like to think that adults can be open-minded and fair enough to treat teens who have lost their virginity with respect and understanding. And I also give teens enough credit to recognize that when all the options are placed fairly before them, they will choose abstinence when it is appropriate and they will always choose what is best for them.

If only the options *were* presented fairly before our teens...

I concure entirely. I think that most of the problems in America could be solved rather swiftly if adults would get over the illusion that they know what is best for teens, and stop passing laws based on their heavily distorted view of reality. No human being truly knows what is best for another, and teens are human. No other human can know what is the best descision for them.

I think much of the problem stems from remnants of American culture from before the sexual revolution. Back then (or so I'm told, anyway), it was taboo to talk about sex, pregnancy, or any similar topic, and sex before marriage was a big stigma.

Like it or not, America is still in the grasp of the purtianical values that the country's founders held, and we're slowly but surely getting over all that repression. I think as soon as the current baby boomer generation of administrators and teachers pass the torch, we'll start seeing better and more informed sex ed, as well as more common sense being used (such as putting condom machines in school bathrooms).

On the other hand, maybe when my generation, Gen X, takes control, we'll turn into our parents and forbid our schools and kids from having serious discussions about sex. I know no one ever told ME anything practical or useful about sex; I had to learn it from looking at pornography, which probably wasn't the most effective way to learn about that topic.

Pornography was a teaching aid in my development too, that and friends, what you pick up in the playground. My most informed stuff came from a general interest in doccumentaries whuch at least informed me aboutthe issues. As for school, rubbish really. America does seem to have an immensely puritanical thing going but as far as people go its split. Half want the old days back where you didn't hold hands until three months of dating and half want to just go out. It will tip one way or the other but its hard to say which. IMHO the U.S. Is at risk of becoming a puritanical fundamentalist countrey, or at least several states are.

I too find the American attitude to sex slightly puzzling - but then much of what the religious right does in the USA defies analysis anyway. I mean, where is the biblical justification for murdering a doctor who performs abortions? The attitudes of some of the more puritanical is more like the old-testament Jewish than the new testament Christian values.

All the same, I think that some restrictions on teenage sex are wise. For example, a lower age limit for sexual activity. Rather like the notion of informed consent in medical matters, to gove informed consent to sex requires sufficient emotional maturity to permit of saying no or accepting the consequences, as well as sufficient physical maturity to tolerate childbirth without damage (abstinence is the only reliable contraceptive, with only one recorded failure about 2000 years ago...) That means we must either have individual tests for everybody (impractical) or a blanket age limit.

But whatever society's views on premarital sex, the one thing nobody wants is unwanted children. Well, except the Pope maybe (sorry, sorry, don't go there). Ignoring sex education is 100% certain to fail as a means of controlling teenage sexual activity, and therefore equally doomed as a method of preventing teenage pregnancy.

I get the impression that you think teenage sex is a bad thing. It isn't. In the days of the Jewish Old Testemant, people would be getting married at the start of their teenage years, and have kids soon thereafter. There were no problems with teen parenthood, it was fine.

True, but to be fair, one way or another you'd be married by then. Just a question, but would people be bothered if the hypothetical teenagers were married (assuming it was legal) and wanting a family. The general argument would be that at that age you don't know what you want but meybey some of tehm do, just a thought.

Not against teenage sex per se, but I think it should be deferred until a reasonable age. There is no 100% reliable method of contraception, and plenty of evidence to suggest that pregnancy in girls aged 14 and 15 can cause permanent damage (not *will*, but *can*) the wise course seems to be to restrict sexual activity until children are substantially through education, and most likely physically and emotionally mature enough to handle the consequences.

Sixteen is still teenage.

I dunno. The 'medically damaging' argument doesn't do it for me.

I guess it's because we allow very old women to give birth, even though we know it is potentially medically damaging to them. We also use fertility methods which allow women to have multiple births (octuplets anyone?) who would otherwise not give birth at all. And of course, multiple births are very much a risk factor, to both mother and child.

So what's the difference between a teenage girl, an older woman, and an otherwise infertile woman receiving expensive treatments likely to result in multiple births? Simple. Only the teenager is considered unable by some to make decisions in the best interests of herself and her child.

But that's not the way it is. Nobody is arrogating the rights of the poeple involved except in a protective sense, just as legislation to outlaw slavery or children in dangerous occupations is not to restrict but to protect. The judgement of society - as formed over a number of decades - suggests that there is a point before which one cannot take responsibility - or rather, where one is too vulnerable to external pressures for such a decision to be binding.

A fifteen-year-old is judged not to be competent to make a decision on refusing potentially life-saving medical treatment. Is that unjust? Maybe, maybe not. In the UK the age of consent was originally much lower, and it was raised slowly to its current levels following a series of scandals, notably one generated by a newspaper reporter who set out to procure a (virgin) girl aged fourteen for prostitution.

I do believe the law should draw a distinction between a forty year old man having sex with a fourteen year old girl, and a sixteen year old boy having sex with a fourteen year old girl. Equally, I believe that it is fundamentally unacceptable to have girls as young as twelve or thirteen having children. Not that they should have forced terminations, but a thirteen year old has no realistic prospect of being able to support and raise a child independently.

I am not a never-before-marriage merchant. Neither do I support promiscuity at any age. All I suggest is that sexual activity should be deferred until an age at which *most* people have sufficient emotional and physical maturity to cope with the consequences.

In the same way as you can't have a method for deciding on the basis of inividual assessments whether people are sufficiently responsible to be allowed to drive, you have to form a blanket judgement based on some age criteria. In my view, boy racers should never be allowed behind the wheel of a car, but there is no mechanism in place to test for acute chronic stupidity when applying for a driving license.

Please do not assume I am in favour of huge multiple births from IVF, or IVF for pensioners. I am not. I think unless a woman has had an early menopause due to a medical condition (or chemotherapy or some such) then IVF should not be available after menopause. Too risky. I also believe that many large-scale multiple births during fertility treatments are due to inadequate training of doctors. The drugs involved are powerful, and should according to best practice be started at very low doses to avoid precisely this problem. Most leading IVF centres will now not implant more than one or two embryos, as the technique is sufficiently accurate that multiple implantation is now unnecessary. Again, good training reduces the problem.

Am I labouring the point? Sorry. I feel strongly on this. It's a parent thing.....

Just a thought, but in a hypothetical situation, where a chiuld is considered ready to marry at 14, if this was happening in, say birmingham, would you still oppose that 14 year olds choice to have a child even though she was married and had considered teh consequences? Just curious to know (apart from our opinions of the maturity and ability to make decisions of a 14 year old) how would this fit into teh teenage pregnancy problem. Also, do you really think that teh law is actually considered by teenagers. Personally many of my peers were completely disregarding this, largely because, if both partners are consenting, it is very hard to enforce. Increasing the age limit would probably make virtually no difference.

It really is sad that in many developed countries; particularly in the U.S., "the leaders of the free world," restrict the sexual activity of competent teens, not only hypocritically, but without the consent of the teenagers. I am against any law that effects people who can't vote on the issue. It is presumptous, wrong, and hypocritical. Teenagers are NOT totally incompotent, no more than ANY other age group. The U.S. always caters to the lowest common denominator. The rest of us are just screwed. There is very little chance left for humanity if this is the way that things are going to keep going.

I really do feel we have created a huge self-fulfilling prophecy. Teens as young as 15 used to be able to marry, set up house, work full-time jobs, join armies, go to schools for advanced learning, and so forth.

Our modern society has created a number of legal measures to prevent all this, along with laws to restrict or prevent their ability to drive, vote, have sex, rent a place to stay, drink alcohol, make medical decisions on their own behalf, and so forth. We force them into schools where they become passive receptacles rather than makers of their own destiny. And we allow their parents to treat them as legal property, in not such a different way as women were treated during Grecian times.

And then the adults cry, "Teens just can't make their own decisions! We have to protect them from themselves! Who knows what will happen if we don't!"

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*.

And what is the longterm result of this silliness? We raise generation after generation of young adults who can't adjust to suddenly having rights -- who misuse their newfound sense of freedom for some time or else remain mere receptacles for public opinion forever. How does this really serve anyone?

Okay. Rant over. I realize a lot of people are going to disagree with me -- especially in the US, where things are at their most ridiculous state. But I can't, in good conscience, forget humanity's history and the potential of our youth in this discussion. I really believe that if we gave teens the benefit of the doubt, they would surprise us with their decisions.

This is an inconsistent hypothesis. The age of consent means the age at which one may consent to give oneself in marriage, which legally includes giving ones consent to have sex with one's spouse.

The reason the age of consent was steadily raised to sixteen in the UK was due to public pressure. I have already mentioned the newspaper which set out to procure a 14-year-old virgin for prostitution (for the princely sum of five pounds). At the same time, laws were introduced to ensure that children attended full-time education until a certain age, and that their parents could not put them out to work until that age.

You come form the point of view that the laws are restrictive in intent, but they are in fact primarily designed to be protective. You would not argue, I hope, that children of any age necessarily know better than their parents. I don't let my children stay up until midnight, however much they might want to, because they are too young (6 and 3). When they are older I'll let them stay up, but I won't allow them to go out to clubs until they're old enough to handle whatever they might meet. Which is great, because I can negotiate these issues individually with my children as my parents did with me when I came home drunk on my 16th birthday.

The state, as an entity, has neither the time nor the resources to negotiate these freedoms individually, and when they were left to parents there were too many parents who were insufficiently skilled, educated or caring to make the appropriate choices. So in response to calls from the public, regulations and laws were introduced.

You may take issue with the specifics of the ages, but I would argue that historically there is a pressing need for a blanket ban on sex below a certain age, whatever age that may be. I would also suggest that 16 is not a bad choice, as I know many fifteen-year-olds who are not capable yet of making choices of that degree of importance. Partly because they haven't yet learned to think with their heads instead of their gonads. Reproduction is, after all, a basic human instinct.

Apart form anything else, until a boy can buy a packet of condoms from Boots wihtout first purchasing thirty-one tubes of toothpaste because there was a girl serving, it's a fair bet that he'd be better off keeping his trousers firmly zipped.

Just because you know many 15 year olds who are unable of handling sex and all that comes with it, doesn't mean that no 15 year old should be allowed to have sex. I hope that this is a reminder to you, and that you don't actually beleive judging all 15 year olds by some that you know is right.

Dear people, I would first like to say that I mean to offend none by my statements, but reading these posts have filled me with great disappointment and frustration. Everyone seems to be saying that some teenagers are ready to have sex, some are not, and that it is up to the teenager to know the difference, having persued the subject thoroughly. Not every teen has this knowledge available, and when available the notions embraced since youth often interfere with the research. For example I give up my own story: I grew up in a half-Persian household. Even though my father is not devout, I still managed to take in every single aspect of what the proverbial “perfect daughter” was to be, and formed myself around these images. I didn’t learn about sex until he video was shown in school, and even at that point i did not know what actual sex was: I thought that it was like some medical procedure that people went through when (and only when) they wanted children. Sex was not only never spoken of in my household, it didn’t exist. My twin sister reacted to this, in middle school, by dressing in a very sexy manner and becoming a “player”. She also became addicted to smoking and began to drink at this time, both also things which Just Weren’t Done. She isn’t stupid, though, I’ll give her that: she has settled, still smokes and drinks, but has her sex safely and with only one partner. She’s been at that level for about three years now, and I am very proud of her. As for myself, I was the more innocent, and my first boyfriend was in freshman year of high school. I didn’t know what to do, say, think about the whole situation, and partly out of naivete and partly out of a sense of obligation I lost my virginity. It was not pleasant. I will not go into the details here as they are my own to bear, but suffice it to say that I was not a willing partner to most acts. I was blessed with understanding friends, who helped me get away from this situation, but at that time I WAS ONLY FIFTEEN YEARS OLD, and he legally an adult. There was some stalking afterwards, and a great deal of thought, and only now three years later do I feel comfortable in confiding in my friends some of what went on. All they knew was that I was acting strange. So yes, as a safety precaution I STRONGLY believe that a blanket age is GOOD, but that information about sex is ALSO good, and information on how to become individually strong and ABLE to make such decisions without later regrets is BETTER. So while some 15 year olds may be able to judge what is right or wrong for them at that point, let me be the reminder that not all are, and that they are probably the majority. Hell, some thirty-four year olds I know aren't able to decide that (which is another rant, now isn't it?). If we could work more on strengthening today's youth without lessening standards already set, that might be an improvement.