CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Since there was ambiguity I will also assume this refers to sex between people younger than twenty but older than pre-pubescent children.
In this case it must be accepted that sex will happen, and that repression always leads to censure of critical information about sex and disease from the adolescents who will illicitly engage in it. In other words banning or restricting sex between adolescents promotes the diseases, pregnancies and turmoil that it seeks to reduce.
The question is if underage sex should occur. I agree with your point, I only wish to elaborate on what you have written and bridge it to the concept at hand.
Having established that underage sex does occur, it is only fair to examine the reasons for its occurrence.
On the one hand, puberty occurs at around 13-not 20-so people have a drive begin mating ate around 13- not 20.
Of course, people at this age do not think in terms of hormone signals, that is just the underlying process.
After all, at this age sexually active people do not want to 'mate'- they want to avoid getting themselves/their partner pregnant.
To get this out in the open, these sexually active people want to have sex because it is fun.
Is having sex dangerous, and require responsibility? yes
the same can be said for driving a car- which starts 16, not 20.
It seems nothing more than a cruel joke that the age group with the most hormones compelling them to have sex is not allowed to do so.
It actually begins earlier than 13 for many youths, although at this point it is experimentation without deeper understanding. I was surprised to learn of it, but there you go. I think that to deny these people the right to information about how to behave safely with their bodies under the presumption that it will stop them from having sex is supremely negligent to them and insulting to one's intelligence.
Here we are again. We shall assume that "kids" means persons aged between fifteen years and eighteen years.
We shall presently attempt to divine the main arguments of the opposition, and address them accordingly. We apologise for any subsequent verbosity, but we are most interested in this topic, and hence have much to say.
Morality
We have long endeavoured to comprehend the logic behind this argument. Promiscuity, we are told, is an abhorrent practice, doubly so at a young age. As this is a moral position, we can exclude the containment of venereal diseases as a primary motive for deploring this behaviour. We shall also rule out religious doctrine, as this is an arbitrary code unsuited to unequivocal declarations of good or evil (though, all morality is such). What worthy argument could therefore remain, we cannot conceive. We fail to understand how two persons of complementary disposition may seek to enrapture one another and yet tread some unseen path to immorality. It is nonsensical to declare that a person who desires sex can be biologically unprepared for it. How is one to prepare for something of which they have no experience or understanding? How is one to gain that comprehension without pursuing it? These questions have one answer: they cannot. Therefore, to say that one may, in two chaste years, enter a state of emotional preparedness for sex, is ridiculous. We acknowledge that some may have it earlier than they (age is not cobalt chloride in this regard) should, but thereafter their lesson is learned, in most cases with no harm done.
Our conclusion herein is thus: when both persons in a relationship wish to have sex, they should do so. If they do not, they shall gain nothing, if they do so safely, they shall lose nothing. Our one concern is that the affair is conducted safely, to which end we suggest that prophylactics should be universally available to persons aged fifteen years and older.
Hygiene & pregnancy
Young people, we are told, know little of the dangers of unprotected sex. They are not allowed to purchase prophylactics, rendering it impossible for them to legally protect themselves during their illicit activities.
We ask in whose lap the blame lies? Is it the fault of a child to be born into and raised in ignorance? We cannot see how this can be so, as the child has no control over the circumstances. We therefore look to the parents, the schools, and the state. It is the responsibility, nay the duty, of said to provide the necessary education, without any interference from any body, religious or otherwise. As we have said, so long as the affair is carried out safely, there is little moral argument to impede young lovers. We shall talk awhile on the emergence of Acquired ImmunoDeficiency Syndrome.
It was first reported in 1981, amid five homosexual gentlemen. After extensive research, it was discovered that the disease was not confined to homosexuals, rather, it could be transmitted between any two persons, via the exchange of bodily fluids such as blood, saliva and semen. The primary defence against infection is the prophylactic (or condom - we do not like this word's incestuous rhyming). We submit that it is impossible for current 15-18 year olds to be responsible for the disease, or indeed any other similarly aged generation. We therefore point, once again, the accusatory finger at adults, specifically religious leaders and anti-sexual education campaigners.
It is our firm, unwavering belief, that the generations in power over the last thirty years have failed not only the next generations, but also the entire human race. Endless debate over sexual education, constant interference by religious organisations, campaigns of misinformation, lies and propaganda, to say nothing of hunger, healthcare and poverty. Time and again, studies have shown that comprehensive sexual education does not lead to promiscuity. We feel that if there is any youth on earth who does not receive an adequate education in all things, sex included, the responsible authority has failed to fulfil its obligations.
Videlicet, the spread of venereal diseases amongst teenagers is largely the fault of those persons responsible for education in such matters. If safety is practiced, arguments of both disease and pregnancy fade into insubstantiality. The debate is therefore shifted into the realm of the availability of sexual education, whereof we shall make no further comment.
Our conclusion
There remains in our estimation no further argument against sexual relations between persons aged 15-18. If both parties consent, then it is the business of no man to impede or expedite them. Rather, it is the responsibility of society to accommodate and facilitate all benign sexual practices, such as they are, without undue commentary on the morality of any relevant practices.
We are as humans, animals, yet not animals. We are for the most part intelligent, civilized beings. Sex is not solely (or even primarily) a means of reproduction for us. It is a pastime, a hobby. To call sex, premarital or otherwise, immoral is to call basketball immoral. People may fall and injure themselves during the frantic battle for possession, but as a society, we must learn that liberty is more important than security. We shall conclude with a relevant quotation from Benjamin Franklin;
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both".
Should someone who cannot take the time to spell "should" be allowed to procreate I think is a better question.
As for sex though, yes. It is healthy and natural. In fact studies of tribes in the Amazon and African nations with little civilization found that children begin having sex, both hetero and homosexual, far before either party is able to reproduce, so we know it is nothing unusual and it is actually society which delays the progression from masterbation to actual intercourse.
All the more reason to teach kids about condoms, hygeine, and the social and personal costs of having a child before one is part of some stable family or has an income which can support a child.
I'm all for kids having sex, have fun.
You cannot support a kid though, it is irresponsible to leave your child on the doorstep figuratively of either your parents, or society as a whole through social programs.
If you experience burning when you pee, or any smell, bumps, or marks a week after sex go to your clinic and for $15 they will tell you what (if anything) is going on, usually it's nothing. Do not have sex again, even protected sex, until you get your results.
If you are a female and are more than a week late on your period, go to the free clinic. A test will only cost around $20. Do not rely on home pregnancy tests, and do not ignore it for 3 months.
If this "turns you off" or sounds "unsexy" you're not mature enough to have sex yet. Settle for oral, and other stimulation until you are ready.
STD's can be tranmitted orally as well. It is less common, and is nothing to be scared of, but get tested regularly if you are sexually active.
It is inexpensive (usually $15-$20) and regular checkups save society as a whole through tax dollars hundreds of thoustands/ person who does not contract a major STD, and it saves you a butt-load plus maybe your life.
Well hopefully every one on this debate is not younger than 15 if not I would just like to say why should people need to talk about sex anyway its just a stupid way of getting their points up and is pointless but no offense for people who are that needing to talk about sex for no reason im now leaving this debate because im not this sad to talk about sex.
Are they financially secure, not only for themselves but for possible dependents?
It is true that contraceptives reduce the risk of pregnancy, and proper education would encourage their use; however repeated intercourse increases the likely hood of pregnancy despite contraceptives. For example if you toss a dice a few dozen times, you are likely to roll all the sides, irregardless of if its six or 12 sided. abortion is an option, but many would choose otherwise and those that do may experience undesirable side effects(mainly social in nature). People of this age having sex increases several problems in society, mainly due to them not being in what may be called, a parental stage of life. Parents find themselves raising grandchildren, children find themselves working when they should be learning, etc.
Are they properly educated in and willing to handle their sexual networks in a responsible manner?
Many people well beyond the age of 18 are not, yet western societies tendency for elder members to be in monogamous and long lasting relationships has a similar effect of consciously managing sexual networks to eliminate or reduce the risk of disease transfer. Youths relationships tend to be shorter and with more people involved.
Are they capable of handling the social complexities that arise from sex and the chemicals that are released during it?
In the same way that I wouldn't suggest a lot of alcohol to a new user due to their lower tolerance and less experience with handling social situations well drunk. I wouldn't suggest the full sexual experience to those who have not first built up a tolerance and learned to handle themselves while intoxicated. sex and sexual activity release several potent chemicals into the body, literally creating an experience similar to some drugs. In the same way it is best for a new alcohol drinker to develop a tolerance to it, and learn how to hold their alcohol, these chemicals need a level of tolerance and experience in order to properly be "consumed".
I would reckon that the answers to all three of the above answers are a no for the vast majority of 15-18 year olds, and thus due to the resulting effects sex will have on them and society that it would be wise if they did not engage in intercourse.
It is true that contraceptives reduce the risk of pregnancy
A marvellous inference.
however repeated intercourse increases the likely hood of pregnancy despite contraceptives...
"Safe sex" assumes the use of the "morning after pill". With the use of the correct contraceptives, pregnancy can be rendered impossible on a short term basis.
People of this age having sex increases several problems in society, mainly due to them not being in what may be called, a parental stage of life.
That contingency arises only from teenage pregnancy. We submit that proper education can eliminate this.
Are they properly educated in
That is a moot point. The education is the responsibility of elders. Using this as an excuse to forbid sex between minors equates to saying "We did a shit job parenting them, so they can't have sex".
and willing to handle their sexual networks in a responsible manner?
We pride ourselves on our astuteness, but this phrase seems to be a nothing, a smokescreen. We presume a "sexual network" to be the group of persons an individual has sexual relations with. As to how this group may be handled in any way other than having sex with them, we cannot conceive. With the use of contraceptives, we see no reason to avoid promiscuity, if that is what you are describing.
Many people well beyond the age of 18 are not
Thus we cannot comprehend why you should use this against persons aged below 18 years old.
yet western societies tendency for elder members to be in monogamous and long lasting relationships has a similar effect of consciously managing sexual networks
Ridiculous. These elder members had an active sexual life before these relationships. We cannot therefore call it a control, as they are immediately replaced by the next generation. We will not accept an argument stating that people have grown more promiscuous, because that is patent nonsense.
Youths relationships tend to be shorter and with more people involved.
Again, with the relevant measures, the likelihood of transfer of venereal diseases is reduced to <1%. We submit that this is an acceptable level when compared to the likelihood of catching a non-venereal contagious disease. We submit also that these diseases will eventually be cured. It may seem unlikely now, but so did flight. In the mean time, we see no merit to wasting the most attractive, passionate period of one's life life in chastity over the fear of catching a disease which can be prevented despite intercourse.
Are they capable of handling the social complexities that arise from sex and the chemicals that are released during it?
We admit to shedding tears of laughter upon reading this beauty. We shall undertake to enlighten you thus: the youth are the society of tomorrow. It is their duty to experience social complexities early, that they may learn to cope with them early. Your laughable, childish and frankly pathetic position is exactly the vomit we expected to encounter in this debate. We shall ask you: how can the next generation replace the one currently in control of society if they have relied upon "daddy" to solve every "social complexity" (another nothing)?
An analogy. How can one learn to ride a bike if "daddy" never lets go? When we were engaged so, our father wisely held the bike while we peddled off. Equally wisely, he released the bike almost immediately after. We didn't notice. We continued to peddle and managed to survive the ordeal. Yes, some would have fallen, but they would have picked themselves up, more sensible of the dangers. The few who injure themselves greatly are not sufficient reason to entertain a generation wholly incapable of removing their stabilisers.
In the same way that I wouldn't suggest a lot of alcohol to a new user due to their lower tolerance and less experience with handling social situations well drunk. I wouldn't suggest the full sexual experience to those who have not first built up a tolerance and learned to handle themselves while intoxicated.
To matters chemical. You have successfully engaged in misleading scaremongering. You are not speaking of moderating one's sexual experience, as you do with the alcohol, you are advising against it completely. One cannot thus build up a tolerance and to suggest otherwise is rubbish.
We are most interested in these nefarious chemicals. We shall examine endorphins, a group of peptide hormones, the body's painkillers, as it were, and mild emotional stimulants. If we are to avoid these, we should avoid music, exercise, spicy food, chocolate, sunlight, laughing and, of course, sex. Unfortunately, avoiding all but the spicy food and chocolate may result in depression (which is bad). Clearly, these are not the chemicals you speak of.
You must therefore be speaking of dopamine, norepinephrine, and phenylethylamine. The combination thereof induces a mild euphoric effect, similar to a mild amphetamine mix. Unfortunately for you, however, we have never read of any case wherein death, injury or any similarly deplorable consequences were experienced due to some really good sex (excepting affairs, but those are not quantifiable).
these chemicals need a level of tolerance and experience in order to properly be "consumed".
Oh you child. We don't have to call it "masturbation", if you don't want to.
thus due to the resulting effects sex will have on them and society that it would be wise if they did not engage in intercourse.
We feel content that we have established that society has not and will not collapse due to young lovers. Or did you have something else? Why not bring out God? That one's always a barrel of laughs.
Are they financially secure, not only for themselves but for possible dependents?
If this is a defining requirement for sex, then the vast majority of sexually active adults 'should' not be engaging in it, as sex is primarily for recreation over procreation and no one is prepared for a pregnancy to result from any and every encounter in which there is even the most minute chance of it.
Pregnancy is an sometimes outcome of sex, but sex and pregnancy are not synonymous.
It is true that contraceptives reduce the risk of pregnancy, and proper education would encourage their use; however repeated intercourse increases the likely hood of pregnancy despite contraceptives. For example if you toss a dice a few dozen times, you are likely to roll all the sides, irregardless of if its six or 12 sided. abortion is an option, but many would choose otherwise and those that do may experience undesirable side effects(mainly social in nature). People of this age having sex increases several problems in society, mainly due to them not being in what may be called, a parental stage of life. Parents find themselves raising grandchildren, children find themselves working when they should be learning, etc.
Your illustration of a dice with a few dozen sides misrepresents the likelihood. People who correctly use contraceptives can have sex hundreds or thousands of times without resulting in pregnancy. If teenagers correctly use contraceptives, this would be a minor issue in the big picture. There will be occasional failures, and unplanned pregnancy is not a desirable position for most anyone, but it is still a very small likelihood on which to decide an entire demographic is not prepared to engage in intercourse. Rather, they should be given the proper education, and Enigmaticman's post on the other side points out that a lack of education is typically the fault of adults responsible for providing it.
Are they properly educated in and willing to handle their sexual networks in a responsible manner?
Many people well beyond the age of 18 are not, yet western societies tendency for elder members to be in monogamous and long lasting relationships has a similar effect of consciously managing sexual networks to eliminate or reduce the risk of disease transfer. Youths relationships tend to be shorter and with more people involved.
If many people well beyond the 18 are not capable of this, then this is another question which should not be used to determine whether or not 15-18 year olds should have sex.
How do you propose teenagers gain experience with handling their 'sexual networks' in a responsible manner, except firsthand? It is a regrettable necessity for most people to suffer through an uncertain phase in the development of their sexuality; it will happen whether they are teenagers or not.
In the same way that I wouldn't suggest a lot of alcohol to a new user due to their lower tolerance and less experience with handling social situations well drunk. I wouldn't suggest the full sexual experience to those who have not first built up a tolerance and learned to handle themselves while intoxicated. sex and sexual activity release several potent chemicals into the body, literally creating an experience similar to some drugs. In the same way it is best for a new alcohol drinker to develop a tolerance to it, and learn how to hold their alcohol, these chemicals need a level of tolerance and experience in order to properly be "consumed".
To continue with the alcohol metaphor, you appear to be recommending complete sobriety until a given age, rather than a slow and measured introduction to the subject. What happens in America on many 21st birthdays? Copious drinking. Accepting this as a fact, what is the preferable history of someone who is about to turn 21? That they have never had a sip of alcohol before, or that they be familiar with the substance and have been experimenting with it for a few years?
you and egnmatic man had similar counters, so this will do for both.
If a statement is true for group A, and for Group B, it does not necessarily pose a contradiction of some type.
It is most certain that sexual education can be improved, but even with improvements there will be a significant amount of people who will fail to apply it. Even with proper applications failures and accidents occur, upon which by your own admission in another debate there is a 20% chance of pregnancy. even with a chance of .1 percent, an active person should expect a child within 2 to 5 years. Factoring in failures, apathy, and accidents I reckon that the chances are significant. They are currently Significant enough that I know personally 6 people who have had or could have(father being undetermined) a child while they were between 13 and 19. I doubt that better sexual education would of decreased that number to 2, let alone 0.
If there is a need for a certain effect, and it is reached by method B rather then A, then A is unnecessary. If B is impossible or unlikely, then A may be necessary to ensure the effect. Advocating A when B is lacking does not mean you should not advocate A.
Sexual experience is possible without intercourse: oral, hand-jobs, dry humping etc. Sexuality does not necessarily imply an "uncertain phase in the development of their sexuality", it is merely common that such occurs.
I advocate a slow and measured introduction to the subject, was that really not clear?
It is most certain that sexual education can be improved, but even with improvements there will be a significant amount of people who will fail to apply it.
This is an evasive answer, as it does not apply exclusively to minors. Your position seems to imply that nobody at all should have sex, as some people will not do so safely, or have the resources to deal with the consequences thereof. Put simply, your position is that so long as their are poor, irresponsible people in the world, nobody should have sex. This, we conclude, is nonsense.
Even with proper applications failures and accidents occur, upon which by your own admission in another debate there is a 20% chance of pregnancy.
Aeroplanes occasionally crash. Toasters sometimes set curtains alight. Bridges have in the past collapsed (a particularly fascinating case was the Tahoma bridge, where the wind created a resonance with the structure, causing it to vibrate and eventually collapse). None of these facts are compelling arguments to ban the use of these things.
Your statistics are woefully inaccurate. The success rate of a prophylactic is about 98%. The success rate of of progesterone (the celebrated pill) is about 99% if taken within 24 hours. 1; 2. Perchance your education was lacking?
even with a chance of .1 percent, an active person should expect a child within 2 to 5 years.
Well, we don't know about you, but we don't have sex 200 times a year. What we do regularly however, is cross the road. We do so in the knowledge that there is a slight chance of being hit by a vehicle. We shall continue to do so in this knowledge for approximately 58 years (at current standards).
Aside from that, your position is ridiculous. Two years after being 15 (commencing sexual activity), on is 17, which allows one to legally have sex in most (if not all) European countries. Thereafter you pretence at reasoning is irrelevant. A further point must be made. The average age of pregnancy in the United Kingdom is 30. 3. We submit therefore that your argument is not supported by reality. If you were correct, every single person who has a healthy sex life and is aged over 20 would have a baby. This is obviously not the case.
Factoring in failures, apathy, and accidents I reckon that the chances are significant.
Fortunately for us, we have observed that your reckoning is fallacious.
They are currently Significant enough that I know personally 6 people who have had or could have(father being undetermined) a child while they were between 13 and 19.
And I know none. Both facts are irrelevant.
I doubt that better sexual education would of decreased that number to 2, let alone 0.
Your doubt is immaterial to us.
If there is a need for a certain effect, and it is reached by method B rather then A, then A is unnecessary. If B is impossible or unlikely, then A may be necessary to ensure the effect. Advocating A when B is lacking does not mean you should not advocate A.
So one method being effective renders the other redundant? By your wording we should suppose that both are effective and that B's prevalence was mere circumstance, thus, by your logic, rendering both redundant. In the second scenario, you confirm that A is effective and otherwise state the obvious. The meaning of the third scenario is impossible for us to conceive; advocating something because the alternative is unavailable or lacking does not mean that something should not be advocated? This is ambiguous claptrap. We could presume A or B to be contraception, and likewise for Abstinence. We suggest that you explain your "logic" in a less evasive manner.
Our taking of it is thus: that abstinence should be preferred to contraception, as it is 100% effective. We submit that your argument is once again disconnected from the reality; the reality that humans are mortal, and a chaste youth will give one nothing but regret before the end. We advise you, as one human to another, to reevaluate your philosophy in life.
Sexual experience is possible without intercourse:
In the same way that playing PGR 4 will prepare you for driving. Why not just take driving lessons (I.E sexual education followed by tentative sex)?
oral, hand-jobs,
As you are speaking specifically about the implications of sexual intercourse and experience thereof, we submit that this is not sufficient.
dry humping etc
We apologise: what? Is this a serious suggestion? We submit that it is impossible to learn how to drive a car by sitting in the driver's seat. Aside from that - seriously? The tears of laughter have returned with a vengeance.
Sexuality does not necessarily imply an "uncertain phase in the development of their sexuality", it is merely common that such occurs.
Which is why the good zombee referred to "most people".
I advocate a slow and measured introduction to the subject, was that really not clear?
Not abundantly so, no. Your conclusion was "thus due to the resulting effects sex will have on them and society that it would be wise if they did not engage in intercourse.". That is neither measured nor slow, it is abstinence.
We shall entertain you with an analogy. Newly recruited soldiers in most Western societies receive exhaustive training, but little or no experience of real, solid combat. Hence, upon entering real combat, they find themselves woefully unprepared for the psychological and physical implications thereof. Agōgē was a practice in ancient Sparta, where a boy would be introduced to combat at a young age, and by maturity was an elite fighting unit.
Sex at 15 is akin to this, if you would be so good as to banish the negative connotations of war.
A final note on matters chemical
We notice that there has yet been no further mention of the chemical implications of sex. We theorize that your Potemkin village machine must be on the fritz.
My position does not imply that nobody at all should have sex rather it implies that some people should not have sex, and clearly so.
so, it seems then that after 100 times you should expect a child...
There is no chance of being hit by a vehicle while crossing the road if done correctly, a similar statement can not be said of vaginal sex between a fertile male and fertile female.
The average age of pregnancy in the UK is affected by many factors, women become pregnant multiple times and use less protection when they do desire children. If a women has a child when she was 23, and again at 27 becomes less sexualy active and thus has a child at 40 rather then 32, the average age would be 30. Thus I conclude that the mode, rather then the average would be a more accurate measure. Do you have that statistic?
I know my personal experience is anecdotal, but I know it is one that is shared among many and the point is that there is a measurable effect in people's lives.
Then you are not so active, I know of a few people who live together or see each other often enough they practically live together and they do it quite regularly, easily 200 or more times a year.us youth have a strong libido. If I were to acquire a place of my own and decide to lose my virginity, then judging by my current sexual activity and my polyamourous life style it wouldn't be long till the statistics become meaningful.
Yes, one method being defective renders the other redundant. There is nothing evasive about working with general forms. It is generally true that if there are two methods that ends in a desired effect, and you care not about anything else but the effect: Then attempting to instigate one well the other is unimplementable is perfectly logical and sane. Or, to be more particular, well many are unlikely to have long lasting monogamous relationships and well wanting to cause a reduced rate of infection, it is reasonable for one to advocate people are conscious of all potential sexual partners' sexual history and use such knowledge in deciding their own sexual history.
One should take driving lessons, one should not go on the interstate before ever taking a driving lesson.
Abstinence is different then Chasity, as it is different to sex; Moderation is different then water, as it is different to Bing Drinking.
she stated that it was necessary for most people, I stated that it was not.
The negative connotations of war have more to do with a person's psychological state and less to do with the properties of war themselves. "nothing is good or bad, but thinking makes it so". Most modern Soldiers grow up in a society that fails to prepare them for war. Were young spartan boys experiencing full combat at such a young age? most certainly not, an army of children would be quite ineffective. At best they watched, maybe killed a few things or a few other boys but go to war and actually experience combat, doubtful. Yet by your own admission they were an "elite fighting unit" despite not being literally thrown into the fray. The only way that they would of experienced combat would of been to pit two large teams of boys with strong leaders and training against each other, and not allow them to return home alive in-till the other team is dead. Such a method seems counter productive, it destroys half your fighting force and wastes valuable resources for a not-that-valuable experience that would of been naturally gained later.
Replys are replys, The chemical implications of sex are significant. Sex is one of the main methods of human bonding and attachment due to the chemicals release during it, among other things.
My position does not imply that nobody at all should have sex rather it implies that some people should not have sex, and clearly so.
Your position states that as some youths may become pregnant, all youths should refrain from having sex. We ask why this "logic" cannot be expanded to the entire population.
so, it seems then that after 100 times you should expect a child...
We submit that behaviour should not be avoided based on a 1% chance of undesirable consequences arising.
There is no chance of being hit by a vehicle while crossing the road if done correctly
That is neither mathematically nor historically accurate.
a similar statement can not be said of vaginal sex between a fertile male and fertile female.
If done correctly, sexual reproduction has a 100% chance of impregnating a fertile female, as that is the natural objective.
Thus I conclude that the mode, rather then the average would be a more accurate measure. Do you have that statistic?
According to this document, the most frequent occurrences at a particular age would be seen between the ages of 25 and 39. Unfortunately, the document did not provide the necessary information for 25 - 34 years olds for us to calculate the exact mode.
I know my personal experience is anecdotal, but I know it is one that is shared among many and the point is that there is a measurable effect in people's lives.
There is a measurable effect of melanoma on the lives of certain people who actually used sun screen at the beach. This does not mean that we should as a society avoid the beach.
Then you are not so active, I know of a few people who live together or see each other often enough they practically live together and they do it quite regularly, easily 200 or more times a year.
We submit that you are not holding yourself to the same standard to which you are holding us, in verifying information.
If I were to acquire a place of my own and decide to lose my virginity, then judging by my current sexual activity and my polyamourous life style it wouldn't be long till the statistics become meaningful.
We consider this to be useless conjecture based upon ill-conceived statistics and shoddy logic, as well as misrepresentative information.
Yes, one method being defective renders the other redundant.
We suggest you examine the wording of that statement, specifically the fifth word.
It is generally true that if there are two methods that ends in a desired effect, and you care not about anything else but the effect:
The problem with this case is that the effect is not the only concern in the model it is representing.
Then attempting to instigate one well the other is unimplementable is perfectly logical and sane.
Neither abstinence nor contraception or unimplementable.
it is reasonable for one to advocate people are conscious of all potential sexual partners' sexual history and use such knowledge in deciding their own sexual history.
This falls into the category of acting in accordance with education and is retrograde to your position, which is abstinence regardless of education.
One should take driving lessons, one should not go on the interstate before ever taking a driving lesson.
As the driving lessons represent sexual education followed by tentative sex, the interstate must stand for promiscuity. We submit that it is impossible to become promiscuous without first losing one's virginity, thus rendering your reasoning moot. The educational factor is essentially what we suggested, so if the impossibility were not the case, you would in fact be agreeing with us. We suggest that you abandon analogies, as you seem to become confused very quickly when dealing with them.
Abstinence is different then Chasity, as it is different to sex; Moderation is different then water, as it is different to Bing Drinking.
Chastity can mean abstinence from all or extra/premarital sex.
she stated that it was necessary for most people, I stated that it was not.
We see no further relevance to the discussion, but remark that you must be a very insightful individual, having never felt confused over your sexuality. We found it necessary to educate ourselves properly before concluding what our sexuality was.
The negative connotations of war have more to do with a person's psychological state and less to do with the properties of war themselves.
Our request was a precaution, not a declaration.
"nothing is good or bad, but thinking makes it so"
The quotation actually reads "...there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." We suggest you think carefully when using Hamlet against us. We also suggest that, in the spirit of unprotected sex, you analyse
"Tender yourself more dearly;
Or, - not to crack the wind of the poor phrase,
Running it thus, -you'll tender me a fool."
The only way that they would of experienced combat would of been to pit two large teams of boys with strong leaders and training against each other, and not allow them to return home alive in-till the other team is dead.
Deaths were not uncommon in Spartan training. We submit that such practices could have been employed, at least until surrender. Regardless, the history is irrelevant beyond as a means of explaining the value of experience.
Replys are replys
They are actually "replies".
The chemical implications of sex are significant.
As we have explained, they are not.
Sex is one of the main methods of human bonding and attachment due to the chemicals release during it, among other things.
Irrelevant, unless you consider human bonding to be abhorrent, in which case we again suggest that you examine your philosophy.
speed can be a killer, as you apparently inferred it should of been "effective".
My position is that more then education should determine if one should have sex, if the other criteria is not meet, then irregardless of education one should not engage. Acting in accordance with education is one of those criteria.
we do read some analogies differently, it may be best to avoid them in this discussion.
sexuality is more inherent then it is emergent, my youth forced a strong intuition and self knowledge to develop. There are more ways then one to educate yourself about your own sexuality.
I wonder how many people have not only gone through great emotional trauma, but experienced or caused physical trauma due to their ignorance of the chemical implications of sex. Truth is, if you take away the sex to many relationships. There is nothing left to keep the two people bonded. In such situations one has to ask if the sex is really worth it, and a lack of consciousness about where one's feelings comes from only clouds one's judgment. Instead of being able to use dynamics to solve a physics problem, one is stuck with kinematics. I believe that is an analogy we both will interpreted similarly.
Youth have different properties then their elders.
If you are referring to wealth, we have already shown that the chances of becoming pregnant if safety is practised during sex to be negligible.
even if a behavior is going to occur more then 100 times?
We remind you that promiscuity is not being debated. We vociferously wish that all our undertakings had only a 1% chance of catastrophic failure. We also remind you that the prophylactic is only the first phase, and that a progestin and oestrogen combination has a 99% success rate. This second rate acting upon a 1% possibility reduces it to 0.01% chance. It is therefore necessary to have sex ten thousand times when both methods are used, before pregnancy is certain.
It is mathematically impossible to be hit by a car, if there is no car.
We have yet to find a busy road without vehicles on it. You are acting, in our eyes, like a complete idiot, as though every person who has ever crossed the road and been killed was at fault.
It may mean though that those people similar to those who do acquire melanoma may wish to avoid the beach.
But the premise includes 100% of youths, not merely those incapable of supporting a child. Besides, our latest mathematical breakthrough effectively nullifies all arguments.
Yes, I should be more empirical.
We submit once again the new 0.01% chance, and ask you to divide 10,000 by 112, as seen in the Wikipedia article as the average rate for 18 - 29 year olds. The second article was fascinating, come to speak of it. We thank you for pointing us to it.
speed can be a killer, as you apparently inferred it should of been "effective".
We apologise, but we require you to explain what this statement is a response to.
My position is that more then education should determine if one should have sex, if the other criteria is not meet, then irregardless of education one should not engage. Acting in accordance with education is one of those criteria.
We have since demonstrated that if the education is adhered to, the probability of a pregnancy surviving two methods of contraception is approximately 0.01%. We consider this to be an acceptable risk.
sexuality is more inherent then it is emergent, my youth forced a strong intuition and self knowledge to develop. There are more ways then one to educate yourself about your own sexuality.
We are curious a to whether you have ever been in love?
I wonder how many people have not only gone through great emotional trauma, but experienced or caused physical trauma due to their ignorance of the chemical implications of sex.
Drowsiness and a mild euphoric effect are hardly things worth losing sleep over, no pun intended.
Truth is, if you take away the sex to many relationships. There is nothing left to keep the two people bonded.
Completely irrelevant. We are not discussing emotional relationships.
In such situations one has to ask if the sex is really worth it, and a lack of consciousness about where one's feelings comes from only clouds one's judgment.
We are not debating whether relationships should be based solely upon sex, rather that relationships between youths should include sex.
Instead of being able to use dynamics to solve a physics problem, one is stuck with kinematics.
We consider this to be a better effort and execution than we have previously seen. We have been transfixed with motion since reading about Isaac Newton's years at Cambridge. Another factor was an animation in Halo: ODST where a helmet traces an elliptical curve into a window, leaving a contrail. We draw our inspiration from the strangest things.
If the failure rate was .01%, I would agree that some of my criteria wouldn't matter much. However it is clearly not the case that it is .01% or else 49% of pregnancy wouldn't be unplanned http://www.ehow.com/about_4611925_unplanned-pregnancy-statistics.html. It is true that better access and education would decrease that number, and we should improve access and education. It is unlikely that improvement will reduce that statistic to a much lower number any time soon.
I have yet to find that all roads are busy, especially ones with no cars.
The majority of youth is incapable of supporting a child, as a general rule of thumb, it is advisable for youths to not have sex. If one is capable and willing to raise a child, I wouldn't have any qualms against them having responsible sex.
yes, I have been in love and am.
Sex is a important force in social dynamics, from it has came crime, marriage, hate, love, etc. Is it so wrong to suggest that one goes slowly into the subject for certainly a slower introduction will minimize the crime and hate that will result?
The math would be meaningful if it was practical, but failure rates for the most common contraceptives
The links (both being the same) state perfect use to provide a 97% success rate. We have already shown Oestrogen and Progestin to be 99% successful. With this refinement, the chances come to 0.03%, which still requires 3,333 copulations to become certain. We also suggest that as other sources state the effectiveness of prophylactics to be 99%, we shall have to agree that it varies between the two, if properly used. We submit that increased education will improve the number of people using them properly.
That is the fault of the education system and the persons involved. It is therefore entirely irrelevant to the debate, as the responsibility of the individuals involved is not the variable we are discussing. Our position is that persons of any post-pubescent age should be able to engage in safe sex. Your position seems to be that nobody should engage in unprotected sex unless they plan to conceive, which is both obvious and irrelevant.
It is unlikely that improvement will reduce that statistic to a much lower number any time soon.
As aforesaid, that position is moot. The premise is universal, not specific.
I have yet to find that all roads are busy, especially ones with no cars.
Yet the reality is that many roads are busy, and will likely be crossed by people. We suggest that you are merely being perverse in refusing to accept the obvious fact that sometimes people are run over through no fault of their own.
The majority of youth is incapable of supporting a child,
Then they should engage in protected sex, not unprotected sex. We have provided statistics to show that the risks are acceptable.
it is advisable for youths to not have sex.
Unprotected sex, yes, but that is advisable for anybody who does not want or cannot support a child. As aforesaid, the risks of pregnancy as a result of safe sex is negligible.
If one is capable and willing to raise a child, I wouldn't have any qualms against them having responsible sex.
It is not your business to have qualms about the sexual activity of others, as long as mutual consent exists.
yes, I have been in love and am.
Congratulations. We wish you luck in associated endeavours.
Sex is a important force in social dynamics, from it has came crime, marriage, hate, love, etc.
The same can be said of money, yet that cannot be denied to people of a certain age.
Is it so wrong to suggest that one goes slowly into the subject for certainly a slower introduction will minimize the crime and hate that will result?
Yes. It was our understanding that rape (crime) is primarily conducted in the pursuit of power, not sexual gratification, which we submit is the result of mental instability. The hate is more difficult to answer, we do not understand what you mean. If you refer to envy and resentment between failed couples or as a result from unrequited love, sex is not a necessary factor, though we admit that it can be. It is not entirely relevant, however, as delayed sexual behaviour would likely worsen such cases, having never been dealt with before.
I assume Children refers to humans older than an infant, and younger than the age of puberty. While children in this age group experiment sexually, they rarely understand the context of the acts and so it merely remains as experimentation. If the child cannot understand what sex is, then they can only ever experiment and this is permissible since it appears to be fairly common and natural amongst this group.
However, I consider the question to be asking if children of this age should engage in sexual acts beyond experimentation which in my mind means penetration and possibly involvement with post-pubescent adolescents. I do not believe that a child can truly consent with post-pubescent people because the age difference gives natural authority to the older person, which subverts the child's ability to consent meaningfully.
It has been stated a few times that arguments in this debate have thus far been written with 15-18 year olds in mind.
Even so, children far younger than that regularly experiment with their bodies and the bodies of their peers and while it might make you uncomfortable, it is a normal stage of development. Kids are curious and they will usually engineer safe ways to explore the things they are becoming aware of.
