• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Forum moderator applications are now open! Click here for details.
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best places on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! Community members will not see the bottom screen advertisements.

Sex.

Status
Not open for further replies.

twocows

The not-so-black cat of ill omen
4,307
Posts
15
Years
Having sex is a privilege now? Using your body the way it was intended require government approval? You don't find that ridiculous at all, to require people to have a sex permit like a drivers license?
It's a compromise. It's the same as the current system but with a way to get "early access," so to say. I don't see the harm, it's not like the permit system would prevent you from just waiting out the period until you're 16.

That is still very arbitrary, even more so than the current AoC.
How is asking questions to gauge someone's mental readiness for adulthood arbitrary? It solves the exact problem people have with lowering age of consent.


I think you're overstating the importance of this "problem" and then trying to over complicate it. Heck, the presumption that sex is a psychological thing is just too much - when your body is ready, that's it.
The problem is arbitrary limits. I agree that sex isn't necessarily a psychological thing, but if you look through the thread, nobody else seems to agree, even when I specifically use the word "necessarily."
You don't have to be in a certain state of mind to have sex, or meet anyone's arbitrary standards of maturity - your body just has to be physically mature. It's how everyone ever, since the dawn of humanity, has known someone is ready. Adding anything else just to please whingers is just pointless. It''s how we got into this current situation in the first place.
I agree, more or less. Good luck convincing the other 299 million people here of that. Compromise isn't necessarily permanent. The status quo rarely changes significantly all at once; I think this would be a reasonable compromise that would put our system on the right track and address the opposition's main concerns.

Your problem is the different privileges we're afforded by the government based upon age, which you consider arbitrary, correct? Why then do you propose a solution that requires MORE government involvement?
Government involvement isn't necessarily arbitrary, that's just silly. What's arbitrary are specific age limits. The reason these limits are in place (supposedly) is that people under the limit aren't mentally prepared. I'm trying to make a solution that addresses peoples' concerns while still moving in the right direction. And, to be honest, I think some of these concerns have merit. I'm not so sure that every single kid is ready to have sex the second they hit puberty.

In the instance of sex, for instance, I'd rather everyone get married first, but to have the government enforce that would be absolutely ridiculous. Take the government hands out of it, and let families and individuals decide upon what they want to do, how they want to raise their kids, what they'll accept in their communities, etc.
What you're proposing is anarchy and has all the traditional problems associated with it. What if someone has sex with a girl who, in his community, is considered fair game, but who, in her community, is considered underage? Furthermore, how was that kid to know that it wasn't tolerable in her community?

What you're proposing is way too much and will actually go against your desires in the end.

How often do they even enforce AoC laws anyway? It shouldn't even be an issue because there is barely anyone who even cares.
I think it will appease the opposition (at least aside from implementation concerns) while offering enough freedom to those who believe they are ready for it.

In the US, AoC is enforced relatively strictly and the consequences are severely out of proportion with the offense. You get put on the sex offender's list for "statutory rape" and more or less blacklisted so you can't get a job.

the restriction against those under-21 drinking actually isn't that bad though - 21 is the age your liver stops developing, iirc. It is the last of all your organs to finish developing.
If that's true, it makes sense, but I haven't heard of places like France having significantly more liver problems in the general population.
 

miltankRancher

Mega Ampharos is the one.
3,947
Posts
13
Years
I think sex is only tabooed because of the censorship religion had put upon it. However, I still believe in the no sex before marriage, because that is really ungentlemanly.
 

lacella

monsters & macarons.
141
Posts
12
Years
  • Seen Jan 22, 2012
sex is a LOOOOT less tabooed now than it was even, say, twenty years ago - but still pretty tabooed - in some circles. i have friends who discuss anything and everything openly as if they were talking about food.

as for the population that still does consider it taboo (moreso than suicide, violence etc.) is because of history, to be honest. most probably the victorian era, because last i checked, the bible talks openly about sex, pleasure, incest, etc. added onto that long line of tradition is the fact that most people have the ability to feel pleasure from sex. there's a guilt surrounding the fact that sex is pleasurable. violence? the majority agree it's wrong, terrible, makes you feel bad, so it's fine, it's in the open. the other examples mentioned are examples of what the majority of people view as something just plainly bad, and can all publically agree on. sex is like a weird secret humans have. hey, let's talk about this taboo thing which we secretly want but pretend we don't really know much about it or don't want to touch on.

or at least, that's my little view on it.

how freely one should talk about it should depend on the people they're with or the place they're in. it's better to be kind and considerate than someone who believes they're always right. sure you might have the right to talk about sex 24/7 but you're also a douchebag and creepy if you do that. so the goal is just being appropriate. some people don't feel comfortable talking about it because of bad experiences, etc. it's not nice to bring it up if someone doesn't feel good.

sex ed, right before or during puberty, as teen pregnancies are rampant these days. sexual consent i personally think is for population control and the fact that emotional maturity, financial stability, and the overall practical ability to raise a potential unwanted pregnancy does play a huge part in someone being able to make well-informed decisions. i've seen some 25 year olds make terrible decisions, but the chances of them being more financially stable and emotionally equipped to raise a child are of course, much higher.
 

twocows

The not-so-black cat of ill omen
4,307
Posts
15
Years
I think sex is only tabooed because of the censorship religion had put upon it. However, I still believe in the no sex before marriage, because that is really ungentlemanly.
Marriage is (originally, at least) a religious institution. Some of us aren't religious and would still like to produce offspring. There's legal marriage, but still, I should be able to do what I want with my body, married or not.
 

Shining Raichu

Expect me like you expect Jesus.
8,959
Posts
13
Years
Don't know about what you think of your government as a whole, but I honestly think the U.S. (or many other first, even second world countries) government(s) knows better than "we" do. If you don't believe so, then that's fine with me.

If you're happy to blindly follow along with whatever your government decides for you because "they know better", then that's between you and your government. But again, you've missed the point. Even if they do know better (and I completely disagree with the notion that a government knows better than its populace simply by virtue of being a government), it's still not their concern. These are our bodies and our minds with which to do whatever we please and they have no business whatsoever making laws that tell us any differently than that.

Sexual pleasure or gratification is a bodily function that we should have access to from the moment we desire it. If both parties consent to this, then it is not for the government as a third party to tell us that we are not allowed to use our own bodily functions, and any attempts to do so are nothing more than a restriction of the liberty which they so proudly claim to support.

The role of governments should be to make laws that prevent people from harming others against their will, and nothing more. What we do with our bodies and at what age we do it is our business exclusively.
 
10,769
Posts
14
Years
If you're happy to blindly follow along with whatever your government decides for you because "they know better", then that's between you and your government. But again, you've missed the point. Even if they do know better (and I completely disagree with the notion that a government knows better than its populace simply by virtue of being a government), it's still not their concern. These are our bodies and our minds with which to do whatever we please and they have no business whatsoever making laws that tell us any differently than that.

Sexual pleasure or gratification is a bodily function that we should have access to from the moment we desire it. If both parties consent to this, then it is not for the government as a third party to tell us that we are not allowed to use our own bodily functions, and any attempts to do so are nothing more than a restriction of the liberty which they so proudly claim to support.

The role of governments should be to make laws that prevent people from harming others against their will, and nothing more. What we do with our bodies and at what age we do it is our business exclusively.
But how can you decide who can and can't consent to having sex if not by a third party and/or some outside set of standards? Unless you believe that everyone, regardless of whatever, can consent. I don't believe a 10 year old can consent. They may understand what sex is, but they're still maturing mentally (as in their brain is still not finished developing), physically, and socially. That's why we need something to prevent people from doing harm to one another or to themselves by accident.
 

Shining Raichu

Expect me like you expect Jesus.
8,959
Posts
13
Years
Education can play a great role in this. More than just the inner workings of it all. The 10 year olds can be educationally equipped to know when they are ready to take such steps - not that many 10 year olds would be interested enough in sex for this to be that much of an issue. I would prefer to see sex ruled by education rather than legal restriction which essentially places an external party in control of our bodies until they feel we are ready to take the reins for ourselves.
 

Gamzee

light my fire
38
Posts
12
Years
  • Seen Apr 23, 2012
It's a perfectly natural thing that's quite lovely to partake in. We can thank censorship and the government choosing to teach very little about it and instead advocate abstinence for it being seen as weird and taboo in modern day society.
 

femtrooper

Starfleet Commander
272
Posts
13
Years
Honestly, I think it's taboo in western cultures due to religion. This is why gay marriage is not accepted in the United States, or certain sexual positions are not legal. It's complete garbage. I am so open about sex because it's a natural thing...in fact, it's one of the most natural things human beings do!!! I am an atheist and I do not agree with religion, thus when I hear things like, 'masturbation is evil'...it's like ARE YOU SERIOUS? I hate stuff like that.

In Canada, we are taught about safe sex, but it looks like in the United States they are taught about abstinence...the roots there are religious...and that is in public schools. Terrible!!! It's obvious that kids are going to have sex so teach them how to do it safely.

I wish sex wasn't so taboo. It's normal! It's also a wonderful thing; a beautiful thing. Why is it so condemned? Makes me so mad. It's weird because if you mention something like an erection people get all upset, but if you talk about some murder it's okay? WHY? Why isn't the murder a taboo thing and the erection an okay thing. ALL GUYS GET THEM! Argh. I can't change the way people think, but I just wish sex was more of a normal day to day conversation and not a hush hush thing. I hate how it's so secretive...like, "Shhhh, don't tell anyone, but I have sex!" Well, no kidding, you're human. I'm proud to say I have sex and that I love my boyfriend, but you can't just blurt that out in day to day life because I would be being dirty and rude, yet I can discuss terrorism, murders and whatever else and I'm just talking about the news. I don't know what else to say, but it does drive me nuts that sex is such a 'under the covers' subject. Cultures that are not dominated by religion don't find sex to be a taboo thing...so once religious beliefs go away, I think that views on sex won't be so hush hush. Look at your grandparent's/great grandparent's generations...sex was between a man and a woman, you didn't talk about it, and you only did it if you were married. Plus birth control was a sin and every seed was sacred, yadda yadda yadda...all those beliefs' roots are in religion. I wish that wasn't the case, but it is. *sigh*
 
82
Posts
12
Years
I think it's silly. We live in a culture/world that makes sex into this naughty, "evil" concept, which leads to a lot of sexual repression, sex/**** shaming, and other completely pointless things.
 

Halmtier

THE HOBO
21
Posts
12
Years
Sex as an act needs to be taught and approached with an air of maturity, but the action itself shouldn't be encouraged by anyone to young to deal with the potential consequences of it. (STD's, Pregnancy) By Hiding the sexual acts kids and teens might encounter, they would then approach them without knowledge of how to do it safely- so I don't think hiding it is a good thing. But I don't agree with 13 year olds getting it on either.

I find each country takes it differently as well. In Brittan and to a lesser extent, Canada, sex and nudity isn't as taboo. Sex is talked about and taught in schools as early as elementary level (I was given sex Ed at grade 4!) and safe sex was encouraged over all else. But in the US it seems that kids are just told about the science behind it, then told not to do it. Period. That seems like asking for trouble to me.

I don't feel that sexual acts between two consenting adults should be shameful though. Everyone has sexual urges and it's a natural part of our body and mind.
 

Bluerang1

pin pin
2,543
Posts
14
Years
I just want to you, so some of you are saying that kids in my school, high school, even younger, middle school, are fine to have sex?

I really think they're too young and have far more pressing issues. Sex has become a game for them and it's disgusting. A guy becomes a girls personal ride because she satisfies him, no. Urgh, society today T^T
 

Akio123

Sadness forever...
5,094
Posts
19
Years
Sex is completely natural. I mean it's how we are all born (well...minus the test tube babies, but that still involves reproductive cells...). I mean it is something that does need to be taught rather than just found out on the streets. I don't know why it's so taboo. What needs to be taught is safe sex, use of a condom (to reduce the chances of STI transference and pregnancy), and that it's okay to have to sex.

It seems most people lose their virginity between the ages of 16-19
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolescent_sexuality_in_the_United_States (Yeah it's wiki, but I'm not going to sift through hundreds of sites), I mean sometimes its urges, sometimes it's peer pressure, regardless it happens. Despite how much knowledge is readily available to people, many still don't know how to use a condom, feel awkward buying them, etc. I mean this way the youth are at least practicing safe sex.
 

Pudz

Incredible Edible Vegetarian
55
Posts
12
Years
I truly don't see the big deal about sex. Not in as much as what society makes a big fuss about, as in taboo and the like. More along the lines of... I guess I don't /get/ it. I've never really enjoyed it. The thing that bothers me is that I can be almost guaranteed that if I mention this to anybody, I'll be met with "oh, you're just not doing it right". Why is it so hard for people to believe that some people just don't enjoy the act?

I digress.

I don't think it should be taboo, and I don't think it should be expected. It's just sex. It's no different to going for a walk with someone you really like spending time with, or beating a co-op game together.

In-fact, I rather enjoy those things /more/ ♥
 

Unforgettable

Melodies of Life
1,620
Posts
16
Years
It is the year 2012. I don't see the big deal about talking about sex. It's not like that many people actually wait until marriage anymore. (If you are one of them doing that, then that is your choice, I mean no disrespect by that). They curse, show images of war, and everything else in the world on TV, but it kills me that they act like sex is so taboo. That it's horrible to talk about. It's natural, and they even teach sex ed in schools at a young age. (Mind you it's just what sex is and that they shouldn't be doing it.) I think it's better that the kids be taught about it and how to have safe sex since they are all having sex anyways at such a young age. You see young teens pregnant every day, and if they were taught about it instead of it being hushed up, it could have been different.
 

-ty-

Don't Ask, Just Tell
792
Posts
14
Years
  • Age 32
  • USA
  • Seen May 2, 2015
The other problem with the sex education in public schools is the lack of information they provide for gay teens. Not once do teachers mention that male-to-male/female-to-female genital contact and other methods that transfer diseases such as HIV in these classes, and how to prevent transmission. They also do not mention the process of same-sex "sex". The class is very much directed toward heterosexual students, whereas the homosexual students are left in the dark.
 

Nihilego

[color=#95b4d4]ユービーゼロイチ パラサイト[/color]
8,875
Posts
12
Years
The other problem with the sex education in public schools is the lack of information they provide for gay teens. Not once do teachers mention that male-to-male/female-to-female genital contact and other methods that transfer diseases such as HIV in these classes, and how to prevent transmission. They also do not mention the process of same-sex "sex". The class is very much directed toward heterosexual students, whereas the homosexual students are left in the dark.

My best guess regarding why that is would be because there's a sort of gray area around how much kids should be exposed to at a younger age in terms of sexuality. While I fully agree that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality, I don't imagine the majority of parents would be happy for their children to be told about homosexual sex, especially when a good number of them disagree with sexual education in the first place. Schools have always catered for the majority, anyway, and the majority of the population is heterosexual. So it would make sense to teach students about heterosexual sex rather than homosexual. Not saying that just because homosexuals are the minority, they should be ignored, but I'm saying that in an already touchy area of education it's best to play it safe and go with the majority.
 
3,509
Posts
15
Years
  • Age 30
  • Seen Nov 5, 2017

Schools have always catered for the majority, anyway, and the majority of the population is heterosexual. So it would make sense to teach students about heterosexual sex rather than homosexual. Not saying that just because homosexuals are the minority, they should be ignored, but I'm saying that in an already touchy area of education it's best to play it safe and go with the majority.

They said the same thing about black people in the 50s. So many people would have been horrified if their kids were being taught about all the persecution blacks had to face. Same for women; they freaked out if a female to want to take a class that wasn't related to textiles or cooking. Arguably it's just a minor thing, but these minor things reflect the ongoing battle minorities have to put up with.

I think that's the exact reason why it should be taught. If education (and society as a whole) just cater to the majority all of the time, nothing will ever change. It's why if you get prejudiced parents you nearly always end up with prejudiced kids, because the education system is too afraid to teach them any different.

Eventually we're going to have to start branching out from telling everyone the best thing to be is a middle class heterosexual white male.
 

-ty-

Don't Ask, Just Tell
792
Posts
14
Years
  • Age 32
  • USA
  • Seen May 2, 2015
Well, these are high school "children" we are talking about. They should be mature enough to handle "touchy" subjects at ages 15-16; they are essential young adults. Not to mention, the teachers would not be condoning or condemning homosexuality, they would be teaching factual content. I don't see any justification in saying that we need to protect heterosexual students for learning about homosexual sexual education, when the result of that "protection" could leave millions of gay teens uneducated about sex and std's.

Vendak makes a good point, ignoring the fact that other people exist beside hetero-normative white people, is only going to lead to ignorant and misinformed students. I am not even suggesting that the classes be taught 50/50, I would just like to see some education for homosexual students. One chapter on the subject would be enough, the other 20-some chapters can be information for neutral-orientation or heterosexual students.
 

Nihilego

[color=#95b4d4]ユービーゼロイチ パラサイト[/color]
8,875
Posts
12
Years
I think that's the exact reason why it should be taught. If education (and society as a whole) just cater to the majority all of the time, nothing will ever change. It's why if you get prejudiced parents you nearly always end up with prejudiced kids, because the education system is too afraid to teach them any different.

Eventually we're going to have to start branching out from telling everyone the best thing to be is a middle class heterosexual white male.

I guess it depends on age. It's hard to tell a young child different to what ~mummy and daddy~ say, but at the same time it's hard to tell convince older child that what they've been taught is wrong. Although I want to agree with you, since I do wish schools would teach more controversial things in an effort to reduce ignorance, it probably won't ever happen. Anything against social norms is something I just can't see appearing on any sort of educational syllabus because of complaints from parents, children being taught the 'wrong things', etc. All sorts of controversy would come up if children were being taught to accept homosexuality, something which a good number of people still see as wrong. And although I know that, like you said, intolerant parents generally means intolerant kids unless there's intervention somewhere, that intervention is very difficult to place. Especially so for schools. It's a shame.

Well, these are high school "children" we are talking about. They should be mature enough to handle "touchy" subjects at ages 15-16; they are essential young adults. Not to mention, the teachers would not be condoning or condemning homosexuality, they would be teaching factual content. I don't see any justification in saying that we need to protect heterosexual students for learning about homosexual sexual education, when the result of that "protection" could leave millions of gay teens uneducated about sex and std's.

Looks like we've got a bit of a confusion between ages here. I've only ever heard of sexual education between the ages of 11 and 12 or sometimes 13 depending on where in the year their birthday lies, not 15 or 16. Kids in their mid teens definitely should be aware of (and probably already are aware of, through talking to their colleagues and such) such things. So if it's the latter of those age ranges that we're talking about then I agree with you entirely. I think sex ed should happen earlier than the age of 15 but that's a whole other topic lol.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top