That sex is supposed to be sacred is something we've all heard - and in some ways, we all have accepted, somehow. It's supposed to be special. It's only supposed to be with someone we're emotionally connected with - that it's making love.
In the end, it's not - and it only prevents us all, especially women, from truly loving ourselves and enjoying the biological pleasures nature was so kind to have bestowed on us.
What bothers me most about making sex out to be more than what it really is - just an act (although just like walking, eating dinner or any other biological things we enjoy, it can be special if it's with someone special) - is that there is a double standard - not just gender wise, but also age wise.
Boys and men are supposed to seek out sex. We're supposed to have it as much as we can, however we can. This not only leads to men and boys thinking of sex as just a tool to further their masculinities and to rise on the social ladder, it also leads to things like date rape.
For women and girls, however, nice girls don't - and thus, women are supposed to only have sex with someone special, someone who "sweeps [them] off [their] feet," rather than just enjoying it. Further, my making sex special, a heterosexist society also indicates that sex is only to be enjoyed, of course, between a man and a woman - and penis in vagina. Nevermind the throves of people who enjoy sex with people who have the same equipments as they do!
While a lot has been said about the double standard of sex when it comes to gender, I want to also focus on the double standard when it comes to age. By no means am I advocating that adults should be having sex with young teenagers, but can we please stop treating sexual desires as something that gets turned on by a switch at someone's 18th birthday?
I like sex. You like sex. Sixteen-year-olds like sex, 13-year-olds like sex, everyone likes sex - or at least the physical feelings brought forth by sex. Yet, we treat those under 18 as though they are asexual, that they have no feelings "no there." Worst yet, boys are encouraged to explore and have sex, whereas girls, while sexualized and dressed up as adult women, are not supposed to enjoy it - but rather, simply serve as eye candy for men desiring sex with them. What sense does that make, really?
The whole notion of innocence and virginity, too, works to the disadvantage of young women. Apparently, losing a piece of tissue is more traumatic than losing out on enjoying the pleasures your body gives you. Innocence and virginity at something women are supposed to be the gatekeepers of, yet a man, who is a virgin, is considered a loser.
I am a liberal feminist who focuses more on the political movement than I am on the sexual liberation movement, but does it bother me that, because boys are taught to explore, that the majority of boys and young men will learn to enjoy their bodies - through masturbation or otherwise, than the majority of women will? That is to say, women, overwhelmingly, will have their first orgasm at a much later age than will men.
Lastly, it seems the issue of making sex into something special only done in marriage, and the issue of innocence, is also hurting young people in that they are not getting the information they need to keep them safe - and to save their lives. I was horny at 13, so were you, and it hasn't changed within the last decade or so. Thirteen-year-olds, nowadays, also get horny. I was lucky enough to have grown up in the Unitarian Church, and sexuality was dealt with and talked about openly. Imagine if you were 13, horny, ignorant of what you can do to protect yourself, and are still having sex ...your life would be ruined.
My point in all this is that to reduce the numbers of abortions, to ensure everyone can enjoy the pleasures of sex, whether with a partner or with themselves, and to make sure that women's sexuality and pleasures are taken as seriously as men, we need to do away with trying to "protect" young women from the "evils" of sex.
After all, if a 13-year-old can decide to take a walk and be safe, she can also decide to have sex and be safe.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Of sex, "innocence," and "virginity".
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/11078
Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
I think it varies a lot among 13 year olds. I don't think you can necessarily say "you were horny at 13." I sure wasn't. I was a late bloomer. I wasn't the least bit interested in sex until I was almost 20, when I finally bought a vibrator. At 13 I thought kissing sounded icky. At 16 I had a crush on a guy but still had zero interest in getting physical. I was in college before I started thinking I might want to try sex someday. And it wasn't because I was abused or repressed or lied to, I just had never felt that feeling that we call being turned on.
Now, I don't think the statutory cutoff should be 18. I'm not sure there should be any set cutoff since people develop so differently. And I definitely support comprehensive sex ed. But you should be aware that its definitely not true that everyone was horny as a teenager.
I know I'm probably going to take a lot of flak for this on here... but I don't think 13 year-olds should be having sex. That goes for both genders. I'm all for teaching about safe sex and am actually an abstinence only convert... I believe we should have comprehensive sex education but I don't think we should diminish either the emotional aspect of sex or the potential consequences.
And by consequences I don't mean telling 13 year-olds "people will think you're a slut" or "you having sex before marriage = you are like used chewing gum" (to borrow from one of the main posts from a few weeks ago) but actual consequences... because no matter how prepared they are, pregnancy and STDs could still happen, and no 13 year old is prepared for that. Nor should they be.
I definitely don't think young teenagers should be told to deny or suppress their desires and I agree that there's not a "switch that turns on at 18" but perhaps these desires could be explored in other ways. As far as your overall point though - I say right on; sex is not "evil" and sex should be talked about openly so that a young person has all the information they need to make those decisions when the time is right.
I disagree. As someone who lost their virginity at age 13, I knew very well what was going on, had received very comprehensive sex ed, had been sexually interested in myself and others since the age of 9 and was not traumatised or upset by having sex at that age. To categorically say that any sex had by a 13 year old is inherently bad is as bad as the poster saying that all 13 year old kids are horny. Neither is true and to make sweeping statements shows an ignorance of what the first poster said very well: that we all develop differently and at different times.
I'm very well aware that I developed very early both mentally, physically, and sexually. I would never actively advocate that 13 year olds have sex, but I would equally never say that to do so is categorically bad, dangerous, and uninformed.
I was ready, so I did it with someone close to my age. I wasn't "fooled" into it or anything of the sort. I was perfectly aware of what I was doing and am a bit offended by the suggestion that my first experience is viewed by you to be inherently negative.
Perhaps what Kim H is trying to say is that although some thirteen year olds may be developed enough to deal with sexual acts (ie physically and emotionally) that they may not be able to deal with the potential consequences, such as pregnancy or an STI.
I'm not quite sure where I stand on this. My boyfriend's younger brother, who is 14, recently started having sex at parties. In his case he is physically developed enough, but seems to think of sex as just another party activity, along with binge drinking. While he seems as though he will cope with the step fine, I doubt he is mature enough to cope with making one of his friends pregnant and only uses condoms "sometimes" (time to buy him an extra large packet of condoms I think!).
I think that sexual activity at that age should be avoided, if possible, but not openly discouraged. And of course, sex education is a must. I think though that it is a positive thing for all types of sexual activity to have a certain level of 'sanctity' (although that word has all the wrong connotations), as for me, without an emotional connection, sex is fun but nothing like as wonderful as it can be.
No, I agree.
Also, just a little perspective here on casual sex. I've had it. I had it whenever I wanted to in my 20's. For some, as they get older, they find that they just don't get what they want to get out of it, unless there is an emotional connection.
Here's the surprise though - some MEN come to this same conclusion.
This is not about sexism. I am with you on the double standards, and if you're getting what you need out of it, then you should do it, and I do not judge it and no one is any position to do so. However, if you have contempt for those who have come to the conclusion that it's kinda on the empty side, no matter their gender, then you are the one who is judging.
Walk around this earth a few more years. You might be surprised how your needs change.
I think that what should be pointed out is the lack of EXPERIENCE that 13 year olds have, particularly with their sexuality. Sexuality is full of nuance and variation, with different fetishes, preferences, desires, turn-ons, etc etc. Sexuality is something that is explored over time. It's ridiculous to think that a 13 year old - who might not have even hit puberty yet - would fully understand his or her own sexuality enough to act on it in a healthy and (mentally) safe manner like one could expect of someone older. I'm still exploring the nuances of my own sexuality and I'm no longer 13 by a long stretch.
Not to mention the common 13-year-old's knowledge of the consequences of sex or even non-intercourse-sexual activities. STIs and pregnancy and the opinions of your peers are the actual consequences of sex.
I don't mean to be rude, but I don't agree with your point at all. I can appreciate how you're attempting to challenge our presumptions of age, but there's a point when you have to factor in biology and experience.
(Not to mention - it's quite a leap to assume that saying "sex is sacred" is to imply that only heterosexual sex is sacred. Admittedly, we do face a heteronormative society, but I would bet most people would include homosexual sex when they proclaim the sanctity of sex. Unless they're homophobic, which is different.)
"It's quite a leap to assume that saying "sex is sacred" is to imply that only heterosexual sex is sacred."
I disagree. There was a discussion here a few weeks ago posted by a student in a human sexuality course, who was dealing with a majority of classmates who defined "sex" as vaginal intercourse only.
Plus, you have the issue of young people not considering oral sex true "sex". To them, sex requires penetration.
The definition of sex is situational. A lot of Gen Xers & the majority of younger people define sex as only vaginal intercourse (we first saw this during the Clinton impeachment)...for hetero couples. But make no mistake about it these same people would view oral & anal intercourse of any kind as 'sex' if homosexuals are involved.
No one should be surprised. In a hetero-normative society you get a hetero-normative definition of sex when you ask the question in a genreral kind of way.
"Plus, you have the issue of young people not considering oral sex true "sex". To them, sex requires penetration."
Last I checked, half the time oral sex does involve penetration...
Sorry, I was thinking in terms of vaginal penetration, not oral.
I'm glad you've been checking though.
I understand what you mean by talking about experience, but like you say, you're still exploring your own sexuality in adulthood. I don't think anybody 'fully understands' their sexuality straight away - its a process that takes years and a lot of self awareness regardless of the age at which you start. Everybody begins at the same point of inexperience, and while you definitely have more life experience the older you get, it doesnt mean that older is always more emotionally mature or able to deal with sexuality positively.
Yeah, I've heard too many statistics and stories of girls who have sex before 16 regretting it later or realizing it wasn't really what THEY wanted to do but it was what they thought would make the guy happy. It seems many stories of early sex don't involve the girl being respected properly. I think the problem is instead of people looking at this and trying to get BOTH boys and girls to wait until 16 perhaps and trying to teach boys to be more respectful, girls are seen as less sexual than boys and told to wait until marriage to protect them. I felt sexual as a teenager but didn't want sex until after school. I do think our culture associate sexuality and sex too closely.
I know I've already made this point further up, but just because you've "heard stories" about girls who have regretted it, that doesn't mean that we all regret it. As I said before, I lost my virginity at age 13 and I neither feel hoodwinked, upset, disturbed, used, or regretful. I knew as much about protection and the consequences of sex then as I do now and took appropriate measures to ensure that when I had sex it was safe. I don't regret losing my virginity at that age at all. So just because "some girls" do, that doesn't mean all girls do.
I think the real issue isn't so much to discourage or to encourage the physical side of sexual exploration but to encourage logical exploration of what sex means (for both genders), while offering as many resources as we can in terms of sex ed (condoms/protection, books/websites about sexuality and sex ect...).
Currently, as described in the article (most of which I tend to agree with) neither gender is given much of an opportunity to think about sex and sexuality in their own terms (Goanna you are the thoughtful exception in this case I think), and I really wish all forms of sex ed, including the warning and allowing kinds made this kind of room for adolescents who do have questions and feelings they are curious about. To be completely honest it’s all too preachy for me, giving them the space to make their own (informed) decisions is the most moral and constructive thing in my opinion. Ideally it would take the social shame out of thinking about sex (which I think happens for both genders for a while at least) so it can be considered through discussion and reflection at greater length and depth.
This could perhaps create a smarter approach to adolescent sex and decrease the amount of "regret" statistics.
I love this essay on the topic.
My favorite line: "If parents told their kids the truth about sex and drugs, it would be: the reason you should avoid these things is that you have lousy judgement."
Great link, thank you.
Great article. I often think about how I will end up approaching various topics with my kids.
In grade 9 health, girls and boys had separate sex-ed classes. The girls' class was right after the boys' class, and one day, I remember getting there and reading the left overs from the boys.
On the board it said: "Young men should date around. This will teach them how to act in a mature relationship." (Or something along those lines, it's years ago now, so I'm not absolutely certain). It was actually some pretty good advice: practice makes perfect. And that advice works for sexual or non-sexual relationships.
Our gym teacher wiped it off the board as soon as she arrived, and started the usual: "Boys are manipulative. Don't trust boys. They only want one thing. Be sure that he's a special boy before..." The message being: find true love first. The sexual double standard is definitely taught to us.
That was pretty much when I realized that boys and girls weren't getting the same impressions about sex. Boys are taught: practice, practice, practice. Girls are taught: wait, wait, wait. I remember, in grade 9, realizing that I preferred the teaching the boys were getting on sex. Because it made more sense. At least in my school, they made a point of telling girls that masturbation was ok, and wasn't something to be ashamed of.
While I don't think that every 13 year old has a raging libido, (nor do I think that all 13 year olds are sill in the "cooties" phase), treating a 13 year old like they are completely asexual and can't handle the truth about sex is ridiculous. Teenagers are treated like babies, and then punished when they respond in kind by acting like babies (for example, making stupid decisions about sex). Just about every girl I know started having sex without condoms - not 'cause they didn't know what they were/did/etc, but because no where (including our sex-ed classes) were we getting any honest, to the point sex-ed. Just a bunch of side-stepping BS about making sure we were "in love" and with the "right" boy.
Wow, interesting. One study here found that teens are more likely than adults to use condoms the first time they have sex with someone. I think this might be because not many people are scared of STIs but teens are more scared of pregnancy and condoms don't require a doctor's appointment.
That's good to hear, though!! I'm still pretty young (just a few years off of "kid") so it's possible that my friends were just a disproportionate group of stupid decision-makers. (It took a pretty bad scare to snap me out of the stupid.) Or else, maybe some (semi-positive, if it's all about pregnancy and none about STIs) sex-ed has helped encourage condoms... One way or the other, I'm glad more kids today are wearing rubbers!
This is a very good point. I'm in Australia where we receive very good, comprehensive sex education. There is absolutely NO moralising. It's not "wait for blah blah" or "don't have sex blah blah", it's just saying: "This is how sex works, these are the diseases you can get, these are condoms, this is how they work, this is what they can protect you from, this is the pill, how to stop pregnancy". There's no judgements or telling us when or in what situation we should/should not have sex. It's just information, pure and simple. It's one of the reasons why I feel that I was able to lose my virginity so early and not feel an ounce of regret for having done it: I truly feel that I was well-informed and ready.
I wish it were like that here in the USA. I'm so very sick of all the sexual baggage that's heaped upon us. It's always something no matter how old you are. I'm 40 years old, unmarried, and monogamous. From one group I take crap for not marrying my partner. I must be crazy for not wanting marriage. From another group I take crap for monogamy. What, how dare I not share? What do I mean I only want to f*ck this one guy? How unevolved I am.
GAAAHHH. can I just f*ck my partner without everybody else's stupid baggage???
You can't escape.
I think sex is (1) disgusting, as I find all social activities that require physical contact (2) waste of time.
I'm getting shit for being single from people who think that I'm thirty and pretty and should find a guy before I'm overdue. Other people say that I'm a modern independent woman and as such, I shouldn't possibly get married just now, only maybe later, and meantime demonstrate my independence and modernity by having lots of sex with many people. Yet other people keep insisting that I was raped or something and must have forgotten and send me to their shrinks.
I wonder, why can't I do my stuff without anyone's sexual baggage either? I think the world is coming to an end:)
I have a friend who is a self-proclaimed asexual, and she gets a lot of the same treatment. I think it's just really hard for a lot of people to imagine. If you do have a strong sex drive, imagining a celibate life seems like voluntarily giving up eating or breathing. I kind of feel this way, and so I'm sort of puzzled and somewhat fascinated by the idea of voluntarily avoiding sex, but don't think it's appropriate to expect everyone else to experience life the way I do. People tend to assume that being inside my head is just like being inside your head, which is clearly not the case.
There's one thing I'd like to add as a precondition: women/girls as well as men/boys should be taught from very early on that besides yes means yes that saying no is an option too.
At least here in Holland, the debate on sexuality is aimed at getting to yes. Rather then developing a climate in which people, regardless of their age, can experiment consensually with their sexuality and enjoy it.
I think you touched upon a very interesting subject, glauke. I think there´s immense differences in the way sex and sexuality is conceived of in the netherlands. The cultural notion that sexually active girls are sluts is there, of course - yet I would argue that perhaps it is not as much an issue as it is in the US. The debate on female sexuality here seems less extreme, less ideological, more pragmatic (about birth control, abortion, etc). Although I feel it's changing.
I think the point of sex education should be to openly speak about bodily changes, health (stds and pregancy!), but not actively encouraging it, or something. I think that such attempts at 'liberation' may set new standards of sexual agency and self-determination that work just as normatively oppressive as the standards of virginity/propriety the author of this piece was talking about. Then again, the parameters of the debate here (in the netherlands) are not (partially) set by sex-negative, christian attitudes as much as in the US.
Besides, I think it's vital to also emphasize that sex is also not something that's necessarily to do with another person - 'discovering' yourself and your body are just as important, I believe.
"I was horny at 13"
Pssshh....I was horny at 3! But only for the females. I evolved a little later for guys around 16. Depending on my mood I can get it for them, but never ebbed and flowed with women. Always the same. I remember my friends talking about having sex with guys and not enjoying it, but simply 'doing it' to get it over with. Its sad that girls had to be so detached from the experience due to the oppressive puritan politics revolving around female sexuality. My actual 'first' was with a female. I felt relieved because I thought I avoided the sexual dichotomys surrounding that issue. This made my first sex with a male more liberating because I felt more experienced than the typical hetero first sexual construct wouldve allowed me to feel.
Kids begin to sexually mature and explore on their own terms. At 13 I had experimented with some stuff but was still a virgin, while my best friend had already had an abortion. I remeber also there was a tremendous pressure to at least act as though you were more experienced--to be inexperienced was to be seen as "babyish" and uncool, or perhaps not desirable enough to attract male attention (my school was very homophobic, male attention was the only acceptable sort of attention.)We buttoned up our shirts when we left for school in the morning only to unbutton them when we arrived to show off our hickies like they were medals.
I think it's crucial that we teach kids not to be ashamed of their sexual urges, but not to be ashamed of their lack of them either, if that is the case. I also think, that while it is appropriate for kids to experiment and explore with each other,there is a definite threat of older people who might take advantage of a kid's desire to be "grown up" and "sophisticated" to bring them into emotional and physical situations they're not actually experienced enough to handle. Ideally adolescents should be taught to honor their sexuality and their personal boundaries as well.
I'm the mother of an 11 year old boy. I can't imagine him being anywhere near ready to deal with the emotional consequences of sex in the next few years.
I have taught, and continue to teach him about the physical and emotional consequences of sex. I don't plan on reinforcing any double standards; I plan to teach him, as I would a daughter, that he can explore his sexuality in a safe way with a partner he trusts. But there are too many emotional pitfalls at that age, and I want him to be aware of both what he's feeling, and what a partner may be feeling.
I'm no prude, and I'm not against casual sex. But I do think it's something best reserved for adults, who have the emotional grounding to handle it.
@ Kat
I would agree with you on this. You said it better than I could.
I think there's also a double standard in the other direction, age-wise. We saw "The Producers" (the musical) a few nights ago, and a major running joke throughout the show was how hiLARious it is for older women to want to have sex. If Hugh Hefner was a woman, I think the reaction to his lifestyle would be completely different.
I have to say that I strongly disagree with a lot of this argument.
The final point is fairly spot-on; there is absolutely a double-standard but maybe we should get at that as opposed to the age aspect.
Why can't we treat sex as special, something to be celebrated and enjoyed? There's enormous trust involved and for some, that's sacred. Placing broad stereotypes on it (really, not all men are like that) really serves to cheapen your argument. Why not celebrate men who love women well, who are respectful of their sexuality?
I have a really hard time reading this and it's left a bad taste in my mouth-- I would have hoped for something better from feministing.
Oh and regarding sex education since it was brought up, and also the heteronormative parts... in school we were taught "reproduction" which to the best of my knowledge requires both female and male parts... comprehensive sex education is up to parents and not all of them encourage a double-standard, nor do they define sex as strictly between a man and a woman.
I'm having trouble articulating it, but I really didn't like this entry at all.
Completely.
mountaingirl,
1.) Many, many many parents don't give their children comprehensive sex ed; that's why it's offered in school. Should they? IMO- Hell Yes, but that's not how it is right now, and that's why we have to push for better school education
because,
2.) Solely teaching Reproduction breeds (pun!) Heteronormativity:
IF Men and Women together make babies,
AND Sex is only for making babies,
THEN Only Men and Women should have sex.
Also, [Re: "I have a really hard time reading this and it's left a bad taste in my mouth-- I would have hoped for something better from feministing."] Please keep in mind that is a Community Post, and not penned by the editors.
Wait a second- since when do we rely on schools to do the job of parents? when do we judge parents as not being good because of the way they teach sex? Schools should teaching what reproduction is, including menstruating, wet dreams, etc. and how these are functions of reproduction does not teach heteronormativity. I was never taught that sex is only for making babies but rather that it was how babies are made. Is this different at other schools? Absolutely. Is abstinence-only a surefire way to fail our nation's children? Absolutely.
I'm someone who thinks we should say "sex is for pleasure as well and sometimes it's between two women, two men, or lots of people, etc." but where do we draw the line? Are 13 year olds mature enough to have sex? Are they mature enough to discuss sex for pleasure, sex between same-sex partners? And when you start saying that we can do a better job than parents, you cross a line-- there are plenty of groups out there who feel that parents who teach their kids that pre-marital sex is ok ought to be corrected... so whose "better education" are we pushing for? What I'm trying to say is that there should be some neutral ground here...and with regards to the original article, painting everything as black and white really lost this and I feel like it doesn't serve us or our children.
And while I realize that this was a community post, it was on the main page, hence the comment.
You're bringing up a lot of good, valid questions, but my comment wasn't about your interpretation of Marc's post - which by the way addresses halfway down arguing double-standards of age as well as gender - I was just commenting on your last thought:
"comprehensive sex education is up to parents and not all of them encourage a double-standard, nor do they define sex as strictly between a man and a woman."
And my point is that while personally I agree that comprehensive sex ed should be a parent's job, many of them won't talk to their kids, and that's a fact. Maybe it's because it's an awkward conversation, maybe because they don't want to imagine their kids having sex (or especially non-hetero sex). If I knew someone of the latter who depended on their child's school to teach them these important life lessons then yes, I would judge them for being unrealistic and closed-minded about their adolescent's adolescence. So,
"Wait a second- since when do we rely on schools to do the job of parents?"
All the time; hence the abstinence-only debate.
i'm with mountaingirl here. while there are many public-health issues to sex, and i think some level of sex education (especially disease prevention) is appropriate at school, can we PLEASE stop pretending that there isn't some strain of values/morality that is part of sexuality, too? and the values/morals part of it is NOT the school's place to talk about. it's my job to parent my daughter the way i choose, and that means i can talk to her about appropriate sexual conduct. or take her to church. i personally think sexuality can be enjoyed safely and responsibly without the emotional tangles of love and marriage, but other people don't, and it's their right to teach their children what they believe. as feminists, we should recognize that. just because some parents don't discuss sex with their children doesn't mean i think the schools should do it. that's just enabling lazy parents to be lazier.
this is also why i'm not enthralled with the idea that teenagers can get abortions without parental consent. if my daughter, at the age of 13, shows poor enough judgment to forgo birth control and gets pregnant, i don't think she then has the good judgment and assessment of risk to undergo a medical procedure without parental advice.
however, all of this assessment of a supposed sexual double standard ignores that in many religious communities (including the mormons that everyone loves to dump on right now), both boys and girls are expected to wait until marriage and not masturbate.
this post, among many others on feministing recently, shows a real contempt for religion and religious communities. i would like to see feministing start to tackle this subject more, because i consider myself one of those meryl streep-like "unrepentant feminists", but lately, i'm feeling like there isn't any room for my faith here. almost as if, if one isn't a secular humanist, you can check your "feminist card" at the door. (yes, the comment about a feminist card is a joke.)
While it would be great if all parents of children had an important and informative role in their child's sex education, a lot of teenagers are too shy or embarassed to talk about sex or have parents who don't feel it is an appropriate subject to talk about at home.
I am 18 and luckily for me I have always had a good relationship with my mother and we regularly talk about sex etc. However, the majority of my friends do not talk to their parents about sex and most of the time their parents do not know they are sexually active until long after they have become so. This isn't ideal. I'm sure their parents would have done a much better job of explaining sexuality than my school has done, but it is a common occurence.
School sex education is also far from perfect for many, my year learnt a lot about the anatomical structure of the vagina and penis but not much else. Although this was primarily due to lazy teachers as, on the whole, Australian schools are fairly good on providing unbiased sex education.
My main point though, is that many parents would do a great job giving their children sex education. But, from my experience, the majority of teenagers rely on other sources and school is a much preferable environment when compared to potentially illogical conversations with other teenagers (for example, my friend thought that it was impossible to become pregnant while having her period.)
Feministing just had a large post a few days ago about how religion can co-exist with feminist values- I think it was 'Can one be religious and Feminist?' or something like that and pretty much 90% of what I read was how people are both religious (mostly Christian) and feminist, or how they don't have to reconcile them both because they are both pat of who they are and don't contradict each other. Yes there were a few posts saying how they don't feel the two can co-exist, but for the most part, I found the responses very positive towards religion. I really hope you aren't uncomfortable in this feminist blog because of your faith because for the most part, it seems pretty faith-friendly. I have never read anything by the main blogers attacking religion itself, though they often rightly criticize anti-women practices by religious people and non-religious people. Sometimes individuals will post comments critical of faith itself but I hardly think that, though the comments are valid, they speak for the entire website or the feminist community. I certainly feel like this is a safe place for people of faith because blanket bigoted statements attacking individuals for their faith or other demographics are always protested by someone, usually a majority. I feel that this site reflects the humanist roots of feminism and that I hope feminists of all faiths and no-faith are comfortable here. I am.
errrm... Please realize that not every adolescent has rational parents or a safe home. In fact, lots don't! Is it better to leave them in ignorance because of this? Or is it better for schools to provide sex ed along with the other education they provide? It's easy to say how things should be, but we have to deal with how they actually are. And as for the abortions...Yes, *you* would provide good guidance to your kid. This is not true of all parents. Many of them would beat their daughters for getting pregnant, and a confidential abortion is the safest thing those girls can do. Well, unless you consider suicide an option.
If we do things the way you suggest, only the lucky kids with awesome parents will receive decent education and care. That doesn't work too well in practice. It leaves a lot of people out.
you're right, and i'm aware, some homes aren't safe, and that's horrible. (i don't think having pro-life parents makes one's home unsafe, though....having pro-life parents who would then abuse you, that's something different, which is where a judge can serve in loco parentis). but i don't believe we should impinge on the rights of good parents because bad parents exist.
let me clarify my position: i'm all for sex education in school as long as there's no moralizing in either direction. no "you should wait until you're married!" or "boys, you should go out and try to get experience" crap. bodily functions and changes, basic birth control (b/c there's so many methods), and most especially disease prevention. i feel the morality of sex is personal, and the school/government has no place in anyone's sex life.
I think that denying there is an emotional and trust component to having sex is very dismissive of the full scope of sexuality. I am not a repressed person, I enjoy sex, but I really have to trust a person and know them for more than one night to want to have sex with them. Otherwise, frankly I'm fine on my own.
I think sex is one of those things that only means what you make it mean. It's not special in and of itself unless you decide it means something.
I've had meaningful, special sex with boyfriends, and I've had a lot of random meaningless sex with random hook-ups and fuckbuddies. I don't think this is a contradiction.
I don't think that we should teach that sex is "special." All that does is make the slutty girls (and maybe the slutty boys) feel bad about something they shouldn't have to feel bad about.
Double standard? Absolutely. My feelings about sex are more convoluted; I was raised Catholic, and a more black-and-white church you will not find. EVERYTHING was bad; sex, masturbation, sexual urges, sexual thoughts, sexual desires, fantasies, skimpy clothes, rap, sexy jazz, dirty dancing...I was taught in my confirmation class to keep the image of Mary's face in my mind when I was tempted -- you know, because she was so pure and innocent. But then I lost my virginity at 14, just three months after I had my first period.
I guess my belief is that, age-wise, kids probably shouldn't have sex so young. It was, for me at least, a thoroughly traumatic experience. Everyone develops at their own pace, and I'd like to see more emphasis on being comfortable with your own individual sexuality. I didn't have my first orgasm until I was 24, but I'd been sexually active for 10 years.
Boys and men in general masturbate, but it's still "icky" for women in many cases. You know that scene in The Color Purple, when the two women are looking at their vaginas using a hand mirror? Highly encourage that. The more comfort you have in your own sexuality and genitalia, the easier sex will eventually be.
This article has got to be one of the most ridiculous reasonings I've ever read. - "After all, if a 13-year-old can decide to take a walk and be safe, she can also decide to have sex and be safe."
- Um, first off, the last time I took a walk, I sure as hell didn't get a baby out of it. And if you think raising a child or having an abortion (God forbid) for a 13 year old is as trivial as taking a walk safely... you're insane.
Where does it stop!? I mean SERIOUSLY? Where's the boundary of when a child makes childish choices and an adult makes adult choices? If you're trying to seriously pass the idea that a 13 year old has the reasoning capability of an adult, that is just ludicrous. Okay, let's create a society where not only 13 year olds can have sex, but one that knocks down those boundaries that's "discriminating" them from being "discouraged" from doing so. Okay? Then someone, more insane, will come around and write an article about how we're discriminating against the single digit children... ages 0 - 9! I mean, if the adults are having fulfilled sex lives, and now the accepted 13 year olds are, certainly our littlest ones should be capable of having making "good" decisions regarding sex too, right?
You have got to be kidding!
I can remember being aware of my sexuality as a child. I also have three siblings that are ten or so years younger than me, and I remember seeing in them an effort to express their sexuality from a very young age. (Age 4 or 5)
I regard our parents as fairly open-minded about sex, but they always reacted in the same way in regards to any sexual expression on our part: "No! Don't touch there, don't do that, this isn't appropriate."
When I talk about a child's desire to express their sexuality, I'm not saying it's okay for children to have sex. It's absolutely NOT OKAY for an adult to engage in sexual acts with a child. And I'm not saying it's okay for children to engage in sexual acts with one another. But to ignore, chastize, or punish a child's effort to express their sexual desire seems to be sending the wrong message entirely. Is there an appropriate, healthy way for children to express their sexuality without engaging in sexual acts? Should comprehensive sex education include a discussion of sex and sexuality from a very early age? Wouldn't this set a better foundation for when children transition into puberty, especially if they desire to experiment with sex as teenagers?
It also seems that many children today are disgusted by the idea of their parents having sex. (I know this isn't a standard, but I've heard it expressed often enough.) If children are uncomfortable with their parent's sexuality, how are they supposed to have a supportive and honest discussion about sex and sexuality? What about a discussion that's inclusive of their grandparent's sexuality? It seems we need to accept sexual desire and expression at any and all ages, because it's only then that we can facilitate constructive conversations and education around sex and sexuality.
I consider that I lost my virginity at age 14 because I engaged in heterosexual penis-vagina sex. I experimeneted with many different male partners as a teenager, being called "loose" and "slut" by many people.
I don't regret exploring sex at a young age. However, since I didn't have any education or guidance on how to engage my sexuality in an empowering way, I basically went along with the ideas/desires of my male partners. The majority of my experiences, (if not all of them) centered on the fulfillment of their sexual pleasure rather than mine. I didn't know how to give myself pleasure let alone ask for it in a specific way! I eventually had my first orgasm by accident alone in the bath, and I had no idea what had happened or why.
Again, I don't regret having sex at a young age, only that I went about it without any education or really any clue. My experiences were based on what my male counterparts wanted because I didn't know how to recognize, name, or specify what I wanted. I just wish that my desire for sexual expression could have been accepted and facilitated in a more supportive, honest, and constructive way. If that had happened, I might have engaged in sexual acts at the same age, but I could have done it in a way that was inclusive of my desires and pleasure. This in and of itself would have made my experiences far more meaningful and "special." (Not to mention safe.)
Nice comment. I think perhaps sexuality for young women would be a less complicated issue (although it will always be complex) if young women were not pressured to such a degree to act in a sexual way (ie through lolita style advertisements and elements of America's raunch culture).
Perhaps if these social forces were lessened it would be easier for young women and men to determine if they are becoming sexually active because they desire to do so, or because they believe it is what is expected of them.
Then maybe we could find a way of allowing children to develop their sexuality individually, although with some parental guidance, and in a way that focuses on being comfortable with one's own body.
I can remember being aware of my sexuality as a child. I also have three siblings that are ten or so years younger than me, and I remember seeing in them an effort to express their sexuality from a very young age. (Age 4 or 5)
I regard our parents as fairly open-minded about sex, but they always reacted in the same way in regards to any sexual expression on our part: "No! Don't touch there, don't do that, this isn't appropriate."
When I talk about a child's desire to express their sexuality, I'm not saying it's okay for children to have sex. It's absolutely NOT OKAY for an adult to engage in sexual acts with a child. And I'm not saying it's okay for children to engage in sexual acts with one another. But to ignore, chastize, or punish a child's effort to express their sexual desire seems to be sending the wrong message entirely. Is there an appropriate, healthy way for children to express their sexuality without engaging in sexual acts? Should comprehensive sex education include a discussion of sex and sexuality from a very early age? Wouldn't this set a better foundation for when children transition into puberty, especially if they desire to experiment with sex as teenagers?
It also seems that many children today are disgusted by the idea of their parents having sex. (I know this isn't a standard, but I've heard it expressed often enough.) If children are uncomfortable with their parent's sexuality, how are they supposed to have a supportive and honest discussion about sex and sexuality? What about a discussion that's inclusive of their grandparent's sexuality? It seems we need to accept sexual desire and expression at any and all ages, because it's only then that we can facilitate constructive conversations and education around sex and sexuality.
I consider that I lost my virginity at age 14 because I engaged in heterosexual penis-vagina sex. I experimeneted with many different male partners as a teenager, being called "loose" and "slut" by many people.
I don't regret exploring sex at a young age. However, since I didn't have any education or guidance on how to engage my sexuality in an empowering way, I basically went along with the ideas/desires of my male partners. The majority of my experiences, (if not all of them) centered on the fulfillment of their sexual pleasure rather than mine. I didn't know how to give myself pleasure let alone ask for it in a specific way! I eventually had my first orgasm by accident alone in the bath, and I had no idea what had happened or why.
Again, I don't regret having sex at a young age, only that I went about it without any education or really any clue. My experiences were based on what my male counterparts wanted because I didn't know how to recognize, name, or specify what I wanted. I just wish that my desire for sexual expression could have been accepted and facilitated in a more supportive, honest, and constructive way. If that had happened, I might have engaged in sexual acts at the same age, but I could have done it in a way that was inclusive of my desires and pleasure. This in and of itself would have made my experiences far more meaningful and "special." (Not to mention safe.)
Thank you! I don’t think it’s healthy at all to teach kids that sex is bad, dirty and deadly while telling them it is sacred and they should only do it with someone they love. You cannot expect someone who has been filled with negative messages about sex to suddenly have a healthy and happy sex life on their wedding night. The pastor in “The Education of Shelby Knox” literally told compared sexually active people with dogs mating in the street. Not only is this insulting to teens’ intelligence, it’s a really messed up way to view human sexuality.
Speaking from experience as a mother of not one but TWO 13 year old boys, I can tell you that there is no double standard in my house. We do not encourage our boys to "explore" only to explore their own bodies! We explain that while sex in it self is not bad, the potential consequences are ( unwanted, pregnancy,STD,HIV/AIDS).There is plenty of time for sex,just not now.
My sons are not only 13 but are very well develop.One of my sons is already in High School and is 5'9 and we have to take him to the barber shop for a shave so he does not look older! I see all the " older" high school girls looking at him and calling my house.( they assume he is at least 16 since he is a fresh man).But just because he looks like a man and is develop like one does not mean he has the mental capacity to understand the consequences of having sex. Shit, I still have to remind him to brush his teeth!
I know when I was growing there was a double standard, but I can tell you from experience that these young girls nowadays are not SHY at all! lol! They pursue my sons with no compunction. I have to say that I now understand how some fathers must feel about their daughters.
Ok so this post rubs me the wrong way. I can't help but think there is something suspicious about an adult male championing for the cause of greater acceptance of young female sexuality. At the very least, I think the author takes a poor position to the issue. I do not think we should be trying to think of sex as less sacred, something all ages should enjoy without stigma, but rather I think the emphasis should be on consent. I think the issue of consent is at the very heart of all of this. We should be fighting for our children to learn what consent is. Male children especially need to be taught that a female's wishes and opinions and desires are equally important to his own. As some have mentioned on this site before, this is part of the danger of abstinence only education: girls are supposed to say no by default, so there is no universal recognition or discussion of what consent means.
As for the issue of 18 being a magic number, I do find this problematic, but at the same time this age minimum is in place to protect young people from the power dynamics and potential sexual pressures of relationships between adults and minors.
I agree. I also do not hear about teaching children about control of their bodies.With my two 13 year old sons, we had to explain to them since they matured early and I still have other young children in the house that they never, ever touch anyone against their will or anyone who cannot speak for themselves( example, a young child). I told them that I understand that their bodies are changing and they may be curious,but they have to learn early on to control themselves, their actions and their bodies, because their actions can cause permanent damage to someone who does not deserve it.
Some states have implemented laws where you can get your driver's license when you're 16, but for at least the first year or so you're only allowed to drive by yourself, not with other teenage passengers.
Regardless of what one might think of those policies, I think it's a reasonable model for thinking about young people and sex. There's really no age at which you're too young to think of yourself as a sexual person and explore your sexuality on your own. But I really do think that young people should be encouraged to wait until they're pretty mature before exploring their sexuality with other people. Fuck yourself all you want, starting as young as you want (with the caveat that very young children need to be taught when it is not appropriate to touch their genitals in public, and that if you're masturbating so much it interferes with other life activities then that's a problem). By all means discuss your solo sex life with your friends.
But there's no need to rush into having sex with other people, for all sorts of reasons discussed above. (I would argue that most people should postpone sex with other people until they've achieve some degree of self-sufficiency, but obviously people will disagree on this.)
I will say that this is one area where I am, for all his faults, grateful to James Dobson. When I was going through puberty my mother and I went through Dobson's "Preparing for Adolescence" audio series together, and in one of the tapes, Dobson discusses masturbation, and is surprisingly positive about it. Basically, his take is "you're going to have urges, and this is one way to deal with them, and it's not sinful, just be careful not to get too obsessed with it." (I think he sort of implied that guys needed to be careful not to like masturbating too much because it might lead them to neglect their wives after they married.)
Now obviously, it's creepy to think of James Dobson and masturbation at the same time, but it did create an opening for me to have an honest conversation with my mom about masturbation where she was like "by all means, do it, everyone does," which I think was pretty helpful to me in developing a fairly healthy sexuality.
There's a lot in the post I disagree with. Children become adults gradually, and they exercise poor judgment along the way. As a parent, I think my job is to teach them to exercise better judgment, knowing that their ability to do that will always lag until their maturity catches up to their intelligence.
I've already written over at Yes Means Yes Blog about how I think my kids ought to think about deciding to be sexual with a partner. The short version is that they have to be prepared (1) to understand consent, which is affirmative, as in the "presence of yes", not the "absence of no"; (2) to talk about limits and boundaries and know how to communicate them; (3) to respect their partners and demand respect, whatever the context of the relationship; and (4) to understand and negotiate safety around contraception and STIs.
I haven't met the thirteen year old yet that is really ready to communicate with a sex partner in those ways; in fact, I meet plenty of adults who cannot. But I think they do a lot better at getting there is we tell them where "there" is.
Someone once said, "The only socially acceptable time when you can fuck a teenager is when you are a teenager." Exactly. I have always been aware of my sexual urges from a young age and even felt that I must have the sex drive of a man (before I discovered feminism and knew it was normal). My parents were very open with their sex life (my dad writes erotic poetry and my mom could often be found walking around the house naked or in lingerie), yet I was never given "the talk" and can only recall three times when my mother approached the subject. Once, when her friend at work was talking about his daughter and told my mom she was stupid if she thought I wasn't having sex. (I wasn't. I was 14 and it was strange having to tell my mom "I'm still a virgin.") Second, when my boyfriend came over for my birthday party and we were lying on the floor together, innocently cuddling and watching a movie. The third time was when I fainted at work and she came to pick me up when I was 17 and the first thing that she said was "We aren't pregnant, are we?" (I wasn't. In retrospect I know I had just had a nervous breakdown at work.)
Then, when she finally found out I wasn't a virgin she screamed at me, yanked my arm, and said "You're a woman now, huh, how does it feel." It was thoroughly traumatic and then afterwards my mother assumed I was having sex with every person and friend that I brought home, male or female.
So yeah, I'm 21 and I do wish someone (parents, school) sat me down when I was younger and had a no shame, fact based, funny conversation with me about sex and sexuality. Everything I learned I taught myself from novels (Judy Blume, etc.), the Internet, dictionaries, movies, TV, Loveline, Real Sex on HBO, friends, and my imagination. Plus I didn't learn about the joys of masturbation until about a year ago or so.
"My parents were very open with their sex life (my dad writes erotic poetry and my mom could often be found walking around the house naked or in lingerie), yet I was never given "the talk" and can only recall three times when my mother approached the subject. "
Uh oh. The "cool parents". The affectation of comfort hides a well of shame and silence.
"Then, when she finally found out I wasn't a virgin she screamed at me, yanked my arm, and said "You're a woman now, huh, how does it feel." It was thoroughly traumatic and then afterwards my mother assumed I was having sex with every person and friend that I brought home, male or female."
There's that shame. She has too many issues with sexuality to deal with you openly and honestly about it when you were young. Like someone ignoring a problem as the clock ticks away to a deadline, she's shocked, SHOCKED! to realize her time is up; you've figured it all out on your own, and she abdicated her responsibilities.
This is your mother's issue. It's not your fault.
I am definitely against anyone who hasn't graduated from high-school, or is under the age of 18, from having penetrative sexual intercourse, as no BC device or device to prevent the transmission of STDs is %100 effective. If you haven't at least graduated from high-school, or are younger than 18, then you definitely are not ready to deal with all of the risk associated with penetrative sex.
But that wasn't what bothered me the most about this article.
Marc, do you consider the experience of having an orgasm just an act?
I don't know about you, but every orgasm I have had has felt like a religious experience, and every women who has experienced an orgasm with me certainly looked like she was in heaven.
Sex is sacred bro (I agree with Obama %100 on that one), or at least it should never be treated casually (certainly not penetrative sex), and no one should be having sex with someone they don't at least have a good opinion of and trust (I have no problem with fuck buddies, as long as they are people you have a good opinion of and trust).
I can have far more orgasms on my own than with any guy. Using orgasm as the justification for considering sex sacred just sounds silly to me.
"or at least it should never be treated casually (certainly not penetrative sex)"
I personally am someone who finds oral-sex much more "intimate" and emotion-inducing than penetrative sex. So ther is where all these distinctions start to break down...
Hmm, it makes me ask the question "Is the orgasm any less sacred because you achieved it on your own? Or with a casual partner rather than your one true-and-forever-love?"
I'm a firm believer in the sacredness of sex not in a "sex is sacred so lock yourself up until marriage!" was, but in recognizing something very primal and divine in sexual energy itself.
"Is the orgasm any less sacred because you achieved it on your own?"
I would say no, but a shared experience is certainly more intense.
Who is to say that you are not experiencing a religious moment with god(dess) when you masturbate?
So minors shouldn't be allowed to masturbate, either, because that's sacred?
I can't figure out your argument...
And come on, after awhile through masturbation an orgasm becomes routine, like scratching an itch.
I will not have anyone else tell me my masturbation is sacred, (at least not without cracking a goofy grin on my face)...
When did I ever say minor should not engage in sacred activities?
Of course minors can masturbate (in privacy), there's no law against that.
I should probably clarify that the only sexual activity that I think children should absolutely hold off on is penetrative sex (vaginal or anal), but I thought I had made that point clear.
Are you grinning because you realize how religious and you?
Lots of people prey everyday to get in touch with god(dess), so what is wrong with masturbating everyday to get in touch with god(dess).
After I masturbate I almost always feel a clarity of mind.
My position to discouraging minors from engaging in penetrative sex (vaginal or anal) is not due to religious or spiritual reasons, but due to social reasons.
The results of an accidental pregnancy or contracting an STD is just too devastating to minors, and I have seen too many GIRLS get pressured into sex (when they weren't ready) by their ADULT boyfriends.
I am not against minors masturbating (I did when I was a minor), or their choose to engage in oral sex or mutual masturbation, but I wouldn't encourage it.
Sorry, I meant to write
Are you grinning because you realized how religious you are?
No of course not, and I think you realized that. I'm grinning because I think it's a ridiculous thing to say, not at all how I think about masturbation, and not how I'm going to be persuaded to think about masturbation. Please keep your religion to yourself before you ruin sex for some of us.
Interesting notion that my religious beliefs could ruin sex for you.
Do you claim yourself as tolerant of others?
Do you feel anything special when you have an orgasm, self induced or with others?
Don't answer that question, but you should think about it.
"finds oral-sex much more "intimate""
So do I, especially 69ing, and I also think masturbating together is more intimate than penetrative sex. But all of those are far less risky than penetrative sex, which was the point I was trying to make.
Sorry that my religious beliefs sound "silly" to you, but I'm keeping them.
Are you even religious?
I don't think there's a magic date when people suddenly become responsible. I'm in college and there are a lot of people who don't use condoms with their one-night stands. On the other hand, I started having sex in high school and I was always completely OCD about protection. To this day I've never had sex without a condom.
I don't think people should be having sex if they don't know about protection. That's why we need sex-ed instead of ridiculous abstinence-only crap. People mature at different rates, and if a fifteen year old wants to have sex, I can believe that she's ready for it if she knows about protecting herself.
If you're too embarrassed to buy a condom or poke around Scarleteen for information, you're too immature to have sex. If you're stupid enough not to use a condom with that guy you met an hour ago, you're too dumb to have sex. I don't care how old you are.
Sex and orgasms mean whatever you want them to mean. If it's religious for you, that's great. If it's just an act for someone else, that's also fine.
Every standard I hold has some level of flexibility.
Are there girls under the age of 18 who could handle an unexpected pregnancy and/or STD?
Remember condoms are not %100 effective, which was the point I was trying.
Sure, but I think they (independent girls under the age of 18) are far and in between, and I think it is less likely that they would be able to find a male partner who was similarly responsible.
Personally I would be horrified if my daughter was having penetrative sex (anal or vaginal) before she was able to take care of herself.
Yes, I know a lot of women over the 18 who can't take care of themselves, but they at least are old enough to apply for social assistance on their own.
Independent girls under the age of 18 aren't nearly as rare as you think. I know a lot of people, both male and female, who started having sex when they were underage and were always very responsible. Maybe it has something to do with the environment I grew up in. We went to the schools that taught comprehensive sex-ed and/or we got the talk and/or we were comfortable enough to look up the information ourselves. Which is exactly the point I'm making here. Age doesn't matter nearly as much as knowledge.
By responsible do you mean they would have been able to get, on their own, the medical attention they would need if they got pregnant or contracted an STD?
I am going to heavily encourage my daughter not to take that risk before she turns 18 or finishes high-school.
In most places teenagers can get medical attention for STIs and pregnancies, and prevention is very easy to come by. Pregnancy is fairly easy to prevent -- you keep saying that condoms aren't 100% effective, and they aren't, but they're pretty damn close -- and there are ways to avoid STIs that are also pretty effective.
Anyway, if your daughter gets pregnant or if she gets chlamydia while she's underage, you have a responsibility to help her. No sixteen year old is going to put off having sex with her boyfriend because you don't want to deal with hassle. I know I wouldn't have. But like I said, I had the education I needed to be very responsible with my choices, and I've never had an STI or been pregnant.
"In most places teenagers can get medical attention for STIs and pregnancies, and prevention is very easy to come by."
You really believe that?????
That has got to be the most naive thing I have ever heard.
Hello, nattles_thing... this is America we are talking about, where deliveries cost upwards of 7 grand, not to mention the price of pre-natal care, and C-secections (which are really common in teenage pregnancies) cost upwards of 13 grand.
Yeah, I can take care of my own kids, but can every American parent take care of their kids? What about teenaged girls of dead beat dads raised by single mothers? I don't think there is a parent in the world who wants to be burdened with a pregnant daughter (I know I certainly don't).
Also, from what I have researched condoms don't do much to prevent the transmission of genital warts.
You are going to lose this argument, but we can continue it if you want.
So you can only have sex if you're rich? By your logic a thirteen year old with lawyer parents can have sex responsibly, but a thirty year old waitress needs to abstain.
And yes, condoms are relatively easy to find. You can buy them in any gas station or convenience store. They're inexpensive, and there's no age limit on them. I live in NYC and they hand them out like candy.
There are resources for people who can't afford this, and how many and what kind depend on where you are. Which again, is like saying that a teenager in the middle of nowhere in Kansas can't have sex, but a teenager in New York city can.
It's ridiculous to say you have to prepare for the worst. That's like not driving a car unless you know you can live with yourself if you get drunk and crash into a schoolbus. Condoms are inexpensive or free if you know where to look, and emergency contraception rarely costs more that $40, and often costs much less. Even places with fairly restrictive EC laws have ways around. A teenager can get an older friend to buy the pill, or go to a doctor. Where I live there are lots of places that do free or very cheap STI screening.
Education is important. An educated teenager knows his or her options, and knows there are ways -- possibly inconvenient, but still possible -- to get what he or she needs. An educated teenager also knows better than to have unprotected sex. Someone who doesn't know these things shouldn't be having sex, regardless of age.
Wrong!!!!
By my logic I am against all children under the of 18 having sex. There is no way you will ever change my opinion on that one.
Don't forget that, I AM AGAINST ALL CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF 18 HAVING SEX.
I think convicted pedophiles and statutory rapists should go to prison for a minimum of 20 years, and I think all minors should be taught that the risks are too great for children under the age of 18 to be having sex.
I am a parent, and if you were a parent you would agree with me.
I am pro-choice, I am pro-contraception, I am against pharmacists citing moral reasons to refuse fulfill prescriptions for the pill, and I never cast judgment on the sexual activities that consenting adults choose to engage in, but I draw the line at kiddy porn, minors having sex, beastiality, rape, skat, and for the most part necrophilia.
Like most men, I didn't start having sex till after I turned 18.
I also am against abstinence training, because it doesn't work, and I think sex ed should be taught, I just think an emphasis should be put on informing children that under age sex is not worth risk.
Because sex becomes magically unrisky the minute you turn eighteen. As soon as you are eighteen, you can afford all the worst case scenario health care. You're not making any sense. You keep changing your arguments and none of them are very good.
It's pretty fucked up to equate a couple of sixteen year olds having safe consensual sex to kiddy porn or rape. There is a world of difference. And somehow necrophilia is a better option? Are teenagers allowed to have sex with dead bodies?
"I just think an emphasis should be put on informing children that under age sex is not worth risk."
Okay, so how do you feel about countries where the age of consent isn't 18?
For instance, where I'm from the overall age of consent is 16 (and until very recently it was 14), but children as young as 12 are considered able to consent to sex with people within their own age group. Currently the average age of first sexual intercourse for teens in my country is 16.5, which is comparable to the U.S., so the policy doesn't seem to be causing damage.
Most states have the age of consent set at the age of 16, but most also have laws in place to stipulate that sex between 16-18 year olds is only legal when both kids are between the ages of 16 and 18.
By US law the age of consent for every US citizen abroad is 18. No state has an age of consent law lower than 16, and an increasing number of states are setting their age of consent laws to the age of 18.
I agree with those laws, and certainly am not going to challenge them (or write anything that would encourage minors to undermine them).
It is not a matter of making sense, it is a matter of principle and setting guidelines and standards that will keep our children safe, and protect them from sexual exploitation.
"It is not a matter of making sense, it is a matter of principle and setting guidelines and standards that will keep our children safe, and protect them from sexual exploitation."
Oh right! I forgot that making sense was a waste of time. I'll start moralizing now. It generally goes like this: "I am right because.. umm.. I am right!", "Statistics may show otherwise, but I have a REALLY GOOD FEELING that I'm right!", "Well the law MAY say that, but I think THIS because, umm, I JUST KNOW it's right!"
Because it's "not a matter of making sense", it's just about defining sexual exploitation as whatever you think it is and not looking at facts or real lives or anything seperate from your "feeling" and "principle". Good work there, I'm sure you convinced all the nay-sayers with that one!
P.S. I lost my virginity at 13 with a 16 year old boy.. I was perfectly well educated, I knew exactly what I was doing, I wanted to do it, I did it, I don't regret it, I wouldn't take it back. On the flipside, I definitely regret and WOULD take back the majority of the sexual experiences I had after the age of 18. Bad experiences and exploitation can occur regardless of age, and have a lot more to do with shitty luck in meeting the wrong person than with how old you are.
I'm not going to sacrifice my principles for you, or for anyone else.
You choose what guidelines and standards you want to follow, and I'll follow the guidelines and standards I intend to follow.
And when our kids are fully grown, which I peg at the age of 18 (for physical reasons as well as emotional, mental, and social), we'll see who was right.
i'm a parent, and i disagree with you.....
So you have no problem with your underage daughter having penetrative sex?
Yeap, we are miles apart on how we parent our kids. To each their own.
I'll say no more on that one.
well, she's 5, and she still can't read, so right now, yeah, i have a problem with it.
but she might be emotionally ready (and will certainly be educated about it) when she's 17.
!7 (or 16) doesn't sound too far off the mark, but I would still discourage it (engaging in penetrative sex).
A parent allowing (or not discouraging) their 13 year old daughter to have penetrative sex sounds stupid and criminal, and I would definitely consider that grounds for calling child protective services if I was a neighbor of said parent.
I would be happy if my daughter graduated from high-school before she was 17, and then she can do whatever she wants sexually (within reason, and I hope she observes all safety precautions).
Prior to my daughter graduating from high-school I will do everything I can to discourage her from having penetrative sex, but I will educated her about sex, and after she graduates from high-school I'll trust her judgment.
Right now my daughter is 6.
I gotta say, that while an interesting topic, I disagree with most of this post.
Sex is not “just an act” for me, nor has it ever been.
I think sex is something really personal for everyone—some people are more comfortable having it casually, some people take it really seriously, and some fall somewhere in between. Personally, I’ve never wanted to separate the emotional from the physical, and I’m glad most of the sex I’ve had, while not all “deep and meaningful,” has been with someone who has cared about me. The one time I treated sex as “just an act,” I regretted it—not because I think “sex is dirty,” or that I’m not a feminist, or because our patriarchal society told me to. I regretted it because I tried to be someone other than myself.
I am a feminist, I’m intelligent, I’m capable of making my own choices when it comes to sex, and I’m not going to feel bad for valuing the emotional aspect of sex, and realizing that, for me, sex has meaning beyond a physical urge.
Well said!
GatsbysLover - I must say I completely agree with you. I am a radical feminist myself and I'm all about women taking control of their sexualities. But I don't think that control comes from detaching meaning from sex. I believe if comes from knowledge (about bodies, sex, sexuality, relationships) and communication (talking with a partner, being open with yourself). I have COMPLETE CONTROL (as much as society will let me, you know - patriarchy for ya) over my sexuality and sex is so much more to me than physical pleasure. That is definitely the bulk of it, but I can't have it without love and trust. They are linked for me and that in no way is a heteronormative concept or deligitimizing of me, my sexuality, or my control over my own body.
Thanks for your post GatsbyLover.
I've also struggled with figuring out an age that it's "ok" for kids to have sex. I lost my virginity when I was fifteen, and that was a good age for me to do it. I've never regretted it and I see no reason why I should have waited longer. But, I also remember figuring out masturbation in elementary school. I know people who didn't start having sexual feelings until they were fourteen or so, while I started when I was more like eight.
My Mom was always open about sex education and I value that a lot more than any age it's considered acceptable to have sex. All I can come up with is that age that's appropriate is different for everyone, but that doesn't really help on a mass level...
I'm in favor of everyone masturbating a great deal before they have sex. It helps figure out what you like and what your boundaries are.
lezbianthezbian, i agree with you 100% here....the age that's "appropriate" is different for everyone. our society goes with age 18 for a lot of things (voting, jury duty, driver's license without parental consent, joining the military, etc.), because human development is a complicated, imperfect science. there simply isn't one age that everyone is all of a sudden an "adult". and that maturity takes time, and, honestly, it doesn't ever end. if we're lucky, we all continue to grow and change as we get older, and hopefully our judgment improves, too.
i don't see a better societal solution than to pick one age threshold for these things, knowing full well that some people will be emotionally mature enough sooner, and some will be later.
in response to the o.p., sexuality is a complicated enough aspect of human existence that i think it takes most people a while to learn and grow and become the sexual beings they want to be. love, sexual/gender orientation, religion, risk assessment, health, culture....all of these are related to sexuality, and shouldn't be negated. i've yet to find a 13-year-old that had it figured out.
"i've yet to find a 13-year-old that had it figured out."
Me neither, but I have met a lot of girls that claim they have figured it out, and a lot of women who claim they had it figured out when they were younger than 18.
Is it safe to trust someone's judgment of themselves?
I have lived by the rule of trusting what people do more so than by what they say.
is it safe to go by one's self-assessment? for what purpose? legal? social? sexual? ethical? legally, we've sort of come to a consensus around age 18 as the age at which one has both more freedoms as well as the lack of protections and support of parents. so, except in specialized cases in which children are emancipated from their parents (that's overseen by lots of medical, mental-health, and legal professionals), i don't think one should go by a minor's "self-assessment" that they're prepared to undertake all of the rights and responsibilities of adulthood.
until science devises a better way to confer rights, we go with the 18th birthday. not perfect by any stretch, but the best we've got.
Agreed.
In general I think is not a good idea to go by a person's judgment of themselves, or to go strictly by your own judgment of yourself.
If you can't receive other's criticism of you, then you are seriously self deluded.
I do enjoy believeing I can make my own decisions, but apparently I am seriously self-deluded :)
Back to the point : I resent the fact that you set yourself up as being able to tell me what I should have done.
So I'm nineteen now, and in my third year at uni. I started when I was fifteen, because, strangely enough, I wanted to.
Even then I knew how to protect myself. Teenagers don't have to be stupid. Some people aren't ready to have sex before eighteen, some aren't ready at eighteen, some were ready a long time before that. I find it incredibly patronizing that you imagine that you can set a line, saying this is right or this is wrong.
So I've always had safe sex, never gave in to pressure, and always did what I wanted. No means no. And I've never regretted starting then. I tend to enjoy myself.
I live in France, and here you can get free and anonymous contraception, STD testing, and help to secure abortions at the Planning Familial.
And I never knew anyone who didn't know what the Planning was.
Some people make stupid decisions, some people get coerced into them, not all sex is good, this is true. But starting from here it's not possible to say that all underage sex is like this.
And fifteen is the legal age here, as long as it's with someone of under eighteen.
I just don't believe you can make that kind of sweeping assumptions. After that, as pertains to your daughter, educate her however you like, it's none of my business and I'm not interested.
But this "I am a parent, and if you were a parent you would agree with me"
Well, my parents wouldn't agree with you. They gave me the tools I needed to deal with it, and then trusted me to act responsibly, so far so good.
No.
You are seriously self deluded if you can't receive other's criticism of you (that goes for everyone).
I said nothing about personal judgment or decision making.
If you are going to twist what I write, then please be nice about it.
Also I am curious to know, did your parents know and condone the penetrative sex you were having before you were 18?
If they did, then you are right, they probably wouldn't agree with me, and I definitely wouldn't agree with them on parenting.
Eighteen isn't some magical age where a maturity switch flips on. The only difference between 17 and 18 is, you as a parent, are no longer responsible for the decisions of your children. So, if your kids wait to have sex until they are 18 it doesn't mean they're going to be wise about it, but if they wind up pregnant you don't have to hold legal responsibility. I don't see how this is better parenting than a parent who is open with their kids about sex, gets them protected, talks to them about back ups (like Plan B) and is an active listener to their kid's problems. My mom was open about sex, and I didn't have sex until 18, but she would have been fine if I had sex when I was 16 or 17. My choice to have sex at 18 was a choice I made, and it had nothing to do with turning 18 it had to do with a variety of factors.
But to assume someone is self-sufficient and intelligent about sex at the age of 18 is ridiculous. As a college student, I can tell you my 18-24 year old peers are not financially sufficient. They are either still receiving money for parents/guardians or financial aid/government. None of them would be able to support a child yet, and furthermore would probably have to drop out of college if they did end up with a kid. Furthermore, this hasn't discouraged them from having sex and sometimes making stupid decisions about it (myself included). Luckily, back ups exist for broken condoms and missed birth control pills. Before, I get a back lash for admitting that I've made foolish decisions about sex (and so has every person I know who has had sex), let's try to remember that we're human. People make mistakes, it's a part of learning and growing. Almost everyone who is sexually active will, at some point, have a lapse in judgment. And I bet, Svutlov, you have too. Instead of judging people for having sex, or judging parents for "allowing" their kids to have sex before 18 the best we as a society, in my opinion, can do is provide education, support, and access to birth control/condoms/plan B/health care so that people can be healthy about their choices. Telling people 18 is the age to have sex isn't going to do anything. It's a lot like the drinking age, very few people abstain from a drink until age 21. It's not very realistic. Finally, just because a parent tries to prevent their kid from having sex until they are 18 doesn't mean they will be successful. You can't watch and control every move your kid makes and if they decide to have sex, they're going to have sex. It's not the parent's decision.
To daytrippinariel
You go girl!!!
You parent the way you want to parent, and I'll parent how I want to parent, and neither of us will judge the other.
However, there is such a thing as child protective services, and allowing your underage children to have penetrative sex is illegal.
It is a matter a principle, the consent laws are in place to be used as standards and guidelines to keep our children safe, and to protect them from sexual exploitation.
I agree with the consent laws, I am certainly not going to challenge them, or write anything to encourage minors to undermine them.
I'm not going to argue with you about which child or adult is or isn't ready for sex, I'm just going to stick to my principles, and hope that I prove to be a good parent by following the standards and guidelines that I believe in.
allowing your underage children to have penetrative sex is illegal
In most states it's only illegal if the person with whom they are sleeping is more than 24 months older than them. And I'm not sure how child protective services would enforce rules about parental control of sex between 2 consenting teens. When you're in your teens you don't normally have sex around your parents, so how would they stop you, and how could they be held accountable?
It seems like the best approach is to be honest with your kids and discuss the implications of being sexually active, the consequences, etc. I'll straight-up tell my girls that I don't think they should be sexually active because when you're young you tend to have poor judgment and be unprepared for the subtleties of a sex life. But I'll also make sure they know how to protect themselves.
We don't have a difference in philosophy on this subject.
Of course I am going to assure that my kids will get a thorough and appropriate education on sex and sexual issues, but I am going to do everything I can to discourage them from having sex (especially penetrative sex) before they graduate from high-school.
"I agree with the consent laws, I am certainly not going to challenge them, or write anything to encourage minors to undermine them."
So if the consent laws changed to 14, you wouldn't challenge them? I have to challenge laws that state you have to be 18 years or older to have sex because I believe it's ridiculously unrealistic and encourages parents to delude themselves into thinking that their children won't have or aren't interested in having sex. I wonder, what would you do if you found out that your daughter aged 15 had had sex with another 15 year old? Say they both consented and were practicing safe sex, completely aware of the possible implications? Say they had been friends since they were very young so knew and trusted each other well, and both felt physically and emotionally ready?
To answer your question.
I would be upset, ground her, and go through the steps of punishment that parents usually implement upon their underage child when they get caught having underage sex (and prey that the condoms didn't fail), such as no car, no after school socializing, no cell phone, and etc.
The consent laws are already set at 16 in most US states, and I think they should be upped to the age of 18, as a matter of principle.
I've figured out at 13 or around that sex is one of the things, along with smoking, alcoholism, petty theft and being an elementary school teacher, that I can live without.
I guess that since I've persisted in this opinion, it was developed pretty okay those almost 20 years ago.
I don't really appreciate the insinuation that asexuality is a problem ("everyone likes sex"). No, it shouldn't be assumed of everyone, but people seem to think that an absence of sexual activity (not just with other people, masturbation as well) can be chalked up to ignorance, repression, blah blah. I'm conflicted, really. I know being physically sexual is normal for most of the population, and therefore should be taught as healthy, etc.. . .but this also leads to the assumption that people who aren't sexual are unhealthy. It's really fucking awkward to be told that everyone masturbates when the only reason I've ever tried it is because of that statement (and I didn't get anything out of it), the only reason I've pretended to sexually desire men is because I was told I had to (I feel attraction to both genders--but on the level of close, personal friendships, not sexual relationships), etc. etc..
Point is, where do actual asexuals fit in these conversations? I rarely hear "some people might not feel those urges, and that's OK, too". I understand that it's because sex has been painted as shameful for so long, so that's what has to be put in a positive light, but still. I really wish I wouldn't be seen as naïve or a freak for not wanting to fuck.
I have a pretty flexible outlook on sexuality, though. I find it difficult to believe "true" hetero or homosexuality exists, that there are people who've never wondered what it would be like to fuck someone other than the gender they prefer. Nor do I think that sexuality can't change across someone's life. I'm asexual now but that hardly means I'll feel the same in ten years. I think sexuality should be respected, so long as it's not a blatantly harmful one (like pedophilia or bestiality), no matter how long that sexuality lasts.
I haven't felt entirely comfortable with that, though, because people take that interpretation to mean a particular choice people consciously make, and I don't think it is. I think someone could, over time, open up to a different experience than their natural inclination, through an honest effort (meaning, out of interest in other sexualities, not being forced or feeling guilty)--but that it's not something that should necessarily be done, or that this should mean "homosexuality is curable" or any such bullshit. It's not an illness, it's a feeling. It's difficult for some people to understand that sexuality can be mutable and deserving of respect at the same time.
Asexuality: Not Just For Amoebas Anymore
I think that you have some interesting points, but I also think it's important to not over-sexualize adolescents. You might have been horny at 13 (and I certainly was) but I know several former 13-year-olds who were not. I agree to a certain extent that sexual desires are present at many ages, but we need to be careful about how we frame this conversation and its outcomes. The discussions about sex should be changed, but they should also still be age-appropriate -- more focused on developing sexuality and how it can be expressed (which includes conversations about masturbation and sexual expression through art) rather than on the act of intercourse.
I'm pretty sure I invented masturbation when I was about 11. At least that was the perception.
When it comes to the double standard, I would like to seek out the "we" that are doing it. I didn't spend my puberty years in this country so maybe I missed it.
The key is education. Luckily, I was educated well as a young girl. I waited until I was comfortable and felt safe with a person before I had sex. That's what is important, I think. The whole "virginity" thing is bullshit. But I do think it's important to wait to have sex, and not just hop into bed with anyone because you're horny. I agree with emmakitty, things need to be changed in our discussions with adolescences about sex.
"After all, if a 13-year-old can decide to take a walk and be safe, she can also decide to have sex and be safe."
Oh yes, taking a walk and having sex safely require just about exactly the same level of judgment and maturity.
I'm a 17 year old high school student who not too long ago used to be thirteen myself. I lost my virginity when i was fifteen with no qualms about it. I agree that young women should not be afraid or persecuted for exploring their sexuality but I don't think that you should encourage the over-sexualized ideal that is presented to young women now. That if you sleep with a lot of men (or women) that you are empowered and are truly grasping your sexuality thus defeating that double standard. To me it makes young women seem less empowered and instead more confused about who they are. To me it seems that young women are trying to find themselves through sex and by using their bodies and sexuality they feel powerful and secure. It seems to defeat the message of being an empowered woman if you're doing what society says you should: making yourself a sex object.
I see my peers doing this constantly. In my opinion, sex is something that I don't want to toss around. That isn't to say others can't if that is what they want but I think that sex should have meaning behind it. After all, humans are one of the only creatures to have sex for pleasure and we are the only creatures on this earth that have elaborate emotions involved in our lives. To detach the meaning from sex takes out of the profound experience it can be. If you care for someone (not love necessarily) sex is an entirely better experience because it becomes an exploration of your feelings for one another as well as a way to seek pleasure.
I agree that everyone should have more education available to them about the positives and negatives about sex. About contraceptives and where they can go for help in bad circumstances.
To be informed is to be empowered and after that it's up to them to make their own choices.
i definitely disagree that thirteen year old girls AND boys have the level of maturity and understanding of themselves to handle sex not that they don't do it but most of my friends who lost their virginity at that age regretted it when they got older.
I have to agree with this.
And it makes me a little sad to say so...
But, I don't see much madonna/whore complex where I'm at.
What I see a lot more of (at least from young men and women) is more of a glorifying of young women who've had a lot of experience, and a shaming of women who haven't or who have had unenjoyable experiences...
I think women are still being judged, but the ways in which they are being judged are being shifted a little.
And I know that's not what you want of course, Marc, but how do we eliminate the peer and societal pressure for young girls to behave a certain way (whatever that way is)? I don't know, and it makes me sad.
I agree we should be telling girls that they should pursue their own pleasure though...
Recently I unintentionally made a female coworker of mine upset, and later cry, because I made a joke that many men could validate that she was heterosexual. She was being teased by everyone in the office over a slip of her tongue, which had suggested she was gay, so I made my joke which I had meant to be harmless.
What made her upset was that she knew I knew a lot of the men that she had had short term relationships with.
This woman is not at all what I would consider weak, and in fact I had always seen as her rather a prideful woman with nothing that she felt ashamed of or regretted, as least not when it came to her sexuality.
She never wanted to talk about why she had become upset, and after I had earned her forgiveness I never brought it up again, but I think it is obvious that somebody's notion that she had had many male lovers was not a matter she found funny.
Try that with a man, say that many women could verify his heterosexuality, and I am sure 99% of men would take that as a huge complement (especially if it was true).
The day that women boast of the number and quality of men they have slept with will be the dawn of a new era.
You are totally wrong. Because I said for YOUNG PEOPLE (we know you have kids so I'm not considering you) women who have had experience are glorified. I KNOW of women both in high school and college who've talked with a boastful manner of their conquests/the number of desirable men they've been with. Hell, I'VE been guility of it from time to time.
And I still think it amounts to unhealthy peer pressure.
Plus Svutlov, let me get this straight. You think that your daughters would be better off growing up in a world in which they can boast about having many partners, yet you don't want them to even consider having sex until they are 18 (past the average age of people beginning to have sex in this country). Can I say "mixed signals"? You remind me a little too much of my parents in just lacking total self-awareness about how narrow-minded and yet how confusing and contradictory your ideology is, so I better stop before I get too invested...
Not necessarily better, but dramatically different.
But I do hope that my daughter will always have a good opinion of the men (and/or women) that she sleeps with (even after she has broken up with them), and that she will never feel bad when people mention her past lovers.
Also,
Can I just point out that usually there's a huge difference from what goes on in a professional setting and what you'd say around friends?
This woman was being harassed over her orientation to begin with, then you start telling everyone else about her sex life. I may be very open about who I've had sex with around friends, but that doesn't mean I want someone else telling a bunch of coworkers. That's totally inappropriate. Because who knows what my coworkers ideologies are, and whether they'd judge me? Either way, to me this whole scenario speaks to a lack of professional respect for this woman from her coworkers. And having her orientation questioned amounts to sexual harassment to begin with anyway.
The point of the story was that if the gender roles had been reversed, men in my work get harassed for possibly being gay due to something they said far more often than women do, %99 of the men in question would have seen it as a huge complement if a woman claimed that many women could validate his heterosexuality.
Also, I didn't mention anything about the woman's past lovers, or any details about her sex life.
All I said was, "Come on guys, many men could validate her heterosexuality." But the fact that she knew I knew many of the men that she had short terms relationships with was enough to make her upset (she and I have worked together for over five years, and I consider us friends).
Have you noticed that most women speak of their past male (or female) lovers as if they had been bad rashes and that the sex with them had been terrible, where as men usually talk about their past lovers like successful conquests that they take proud in adding to their list of scores?
I wouldn't necessarily say it would be better if women saw their past lovers as trophies (like men typically do), but it would be interesting.
I think sex ed must have talk of when it is appropriate and responsible to have sex. This age could be anywhere from 15-ish until marriage depending on the person. Somewhere I saw a list of ten questions to consider before having sex such as is it consensual, will it be regretted, is there birth control?
You really hit the nail on the head with this essay. But I would like to add to one part of the argument.
You said that it's only "acceptable" that women should wait for some guy to sweep them off their feet. That's definitely true, but the stereotype connects romance to sex.
It's like women have to be seduced and just follow the "heat of the moment" for it to be acceptable, even when they're young women. And when a woman plans to have sex, by getting birth control and condoms, she's seen as a slut.
Judith Levine's book "Harmful to Minors" has a much more complete and insightful take on this topic. Also the article, "Must We Fear Adolescent Sexuality" by Amy Schalet has some great research comparing how teenage sexuality is treated in the Netherlands v. U.S. (Levine touches on this, too). Interestingly, despite the huge differences, the average age of first intercourse in both countries is 17.
On the subject of heteronomative penis-in-vaginia penetration sex perceptions and teachings: I would also like to add that many women who do have oral sex, mutual mastubation, and bonafide penis-in-vagina sex with their male partners are sometimes looked down upon for enjoying other kinds of sex more than penetration. Which is totally ridiculous!
I think one of the things this article is trying to do (among other things) is debunk the myth that the only sacred kind of sex is pentrative pennis-in-vagina kind.
I give marc props for that!
My sentiments exactly! Extremely eloquent post.
I do not agree with the statutory rape laws, which is a topic I feel relates to your post.
"I like sex. You like sex. Sixteen-year-olds like sex, 13-year-olds like sex, everyone likes sex..."
Actually, NOT everyone likes sex. For whatever reason (abuse/assault, lack of orgasm, etc.) there are some of us out there who are simply not interested in sex.
Instead of telling thirteen–year–olds to wait until they've found that "special someone," or their "true love," shouldn't adults just tell them to wait until they've found someone who truly respects them as an individual? Last I checked that's not limited to any age group.
"And when you start saying that we can do a better job than parents, you cross a line-- there are plenty of groups out there who feel that parents who teach their kids that pre-marital sex is ok ought to be corrected"
I would feel extremely uncomfortable talking to my parents about this. That's why I'm glad my school teaches it.
Nice write up. I for one am going on 17 and I have been sexual since 15. I pratice safe sex and I have only had sex with 4 men in my life and yet I'm seen as a slut because I don't always wait for love.
But yet I met boys my age that are encouraged to be horn dogs while a girl like me shouldn't be engaging in such immoral sexual activities.
I can't even imagine all the times I've been told that I should be ashamed of myself and that I should "enjoy" the last years of being a teen and become "pure" again. It just fucks with my head so much because in our society, if you a sexually active teenage girls you're either a whore, a girl with "daddy issues," or she's been sexually assaulted at some point in her lives. It's never crossed anyone's mind that maybe teenage girls like to fuck.
I think the reason I hate people telling me to enjoy my teen years and become pure again is because I am enjoying my life and I don't feel the need to be "pure" to enjoy life. But my rant is kinda over.
I don't think that people should equate virginity with innocence anyway. I've never had sex (I'm 21), but I would not consider myself innocent. I've enjoyed pornography and masturbation as much as the next man (and before I was 13).
I agree that people shouldn't put virginity with innocence either (which is why pure is in quotations). I have a friend who's still a virgin but she likes to drink a lot and party. Doesn't really make her innocent does it?
It's just another thing that society puts on people. If you have sex you're obviously a person who's a sex maniac who does nothing good.
And if you're a virgin you must be pure and don't think about sex or being sexual at all.
It depends upon your definition of "pure", as the concept of "pure" seems to mean a lot more than "uncorrupted" to those of the political hard right/stringently religious.
Personally I doubt god cares, if there is a god, how much alcohol or sex we have, as long as we are not harming someone else.
As a parent I would be less upset, but still very upset, if my underage daughter got drunk at a party and didn't have sex than I would if my underage daughter had had sex but didn't get drunk at a party (that would go for my son as well).
But I vow I will never use the term "pure" to describe my daughter (or son for that matter), and I definitely would never set the concept of "pure" as a standard I would aspire for my daughter (or son) to uphold.
I am going to accept that my daughter is going to be her own person, regardless of what I want, and I'll just be happy as long as she is happy.
The best a parent can do is give good guidance and hope for the best.
I agree with you in the sense that women should be as sexually liberated as men, but I don't agree that a 13 year old can really fully understand what sex truely is, being safe yes anyone can be taught a rule at 13 and understand it if its explained the right way, but what exactly sex is, no I don't.
Like I said I agree with the liberation of sex for women like it is for men, absolutly, but I know for myself personally think I want sex to mean something to be with a special someone, and enjoy it, not just to do it to prove a point.
But I don't think that casual sex (i.e. sex that is not "with a special someone") has to just be something that you do to prove a point. That would be really weird, actually. It's also a strange idea that it can't be enjoyable. I think it's much worse to remain celibate for years waiting for the "soulmate" (as if) that our culture conditions people, especially women, to expect.
I hate the term "casual sex", as there is nothing ever casual about sex. It is like saying I had a casual fist fight with someone.
I have no problem with peoples' decision to engage in sexual activity with a fuck buddy (a sexual partner with whom one doesn't have an emotional connection with), or in strictly recreational sex, as long as safety precautions are observed and the fuck buddy or recreational sex partner(s) in question are trustworthy people.
The term "casual sex" is an oxymoron, but the term "strictly recreational sex" (not at all a bad thing if safety precautions are observed) is a more accurate description of what is actually happening.
Never will I speak out against recreational sex (when safety precautions are observed), unless we are talking about minors having penetrative sex, in which case I am %100 against it.
Yeah, I don't think it's the best phrase either, but it's the most commonly used expression for sex that isn't with your "soulmate." As if.
The problem with "recreational sex" is that it's too broad. It sounds to me like non-procreative sex, in which case most sex that occurs in committed relationships is recreational.
Sorry.
The comment I wrote about "strictly recreational sex", was meant to be a reply to your reply to me.;)
I disagree. Maybe sex isn't casual for you, but I've certainly had sex I considered casual. One of the definitions of casual is "done without serious intent or commitment" which describes some situations.
"Recreational sex" isn't more accurate. Most sex is recreational. If it's not for procreation or money, it's recreational. I can't think of a single time I've had sex that wasn't recreational.
So there were times that you didn't take the sex seriously?
I don't see how anyone could possibly not take sex seriously, which was what I meant when I wrote "casual sex" is an oxymoron. With all of the risks, all of the preparation, and all of the time that goes into it, sex is always a serious matter.
Saying sex can be casual is like saying a fist fight or surgery could be casual.
Yeah, all of the sex I have had was recreational, but there is a difference between strictly recreational, and recreational with emotional involvement.
Just because you had sex with little or no emotional involvement, doesn't mean it wasn't a serious matter.
Somethings in life are never a casual matter; sex is one of them.
I also think it is possible for something to be intensely romantic and intimate without being emotional. Some of the best sex I have ever had was with women that I did not want to be emotionally involved with. Before I become infected with terminal monogamy (and got married), I loathed relationship drama (now I have learned how to tolerate it and deal with it).
What do you mean by taking it seriously?
I don't think I take sex that seriously, as a rule. I'm pretty careful with the safety precautions but once they're done they're done and I stop worrying. I'm not sure what you mean about preparation -- my "preparation" is usually a shower. I know people who spend hours and hours playing video games, but I doubt they'd argue that Halo is deadly serious.
I don't really treat sex like a huge deal. I enjoy it, and I do it as frequently as possible, and I get annoyed if I haven't had sex in a couple of weeks. Your experience might be different, but I don't think you can say that there is no such thing as casual sex for everyone.
I also think it's possible to have strictly recreational sex with someone you're in love with.
"I also think it's possible to have strictly recreational sex with someone you're in love with."
Your adding the word "strictly" to that sentence defeats the narrative I was trying to build with the phrase "strictly recreational sex".
Okay, then what phrase do you want to use to describe recreational sex, that was taken seriously, but didn't involvement emotional attachments like love or anything else?
"I don't think I take sex that seriously, as a rule. I'm pretty careful with the safety precautions..."
The fact that you are careful with the safety precautions proves my point that you take it seriously.
By writing preparations I was thinking of all of the dating, the conversation, the interacting, the wining and dinning, the dressing up, and the readying of a BC method/protection from STDs.
I'm not sure if "Halo" is one of those games that can be played interactively with other players, but most players that play interactive games say they take them pretty seriously, and there is no fear of damaged reputation, unwanted pregnancy, or contracting an STD from playing a video game.
I'm sorry I defeated your narrative, whatever that means. I do think it's possible to have STRICTLY recreational sex with someone you're in love with. You're much more likely to bring your emotions into it, but sometimes you're going to just have sex because it's fun, and you're not going to think at all about what it makes you feel.
I'm serious about protecting myself. I don't think that's the same thing as being serious about the sex.
You could use no-strings-attached if you really hate casual. But, like I said before, one of the definitions is "done without serious intent or commitment" which describes the situation pretty well. The more I think about it, the more I think that "casual" refers to the relationship between the people rather than the sex itself.
The more I think about it, the more I think that "casual" refers to the relationship between the people rather than the sex itself.
I think that's a really useful distinction.
What I find irksome is the implication that sex is not taken seriously by feminists.
It sounds like you think that if it is taken seriously, then it can't be fun.
Part of maturity is learning to take matters seriously, and that there are almost always serious consequences to your actions, but the fact that it is a serious matter is what makes it all the more fun.
As a rule I try not to burden children with serious matters, because they are not mature yet.
Why is it so difficult for you to accept that sex is a mature serious issues, and if you are not fully mature, mentally, emotional, physically, socially, and spiritually, then you shouldn't be having it (at least not penetrative sex)?
I didn't say sex isn't taken seriously by feminists. I said that I, personally, don't always take sex seriously. I don't think that serious means it can't be fun. I never said that, and I have no idea where you're getting that from.
Of course, you completely refuse to define what you MEAN by "taking sex seriously" so I don't even know if you're arguing philosophy or semantics.
Penetrative sex isn't all that different from oral sex in terms of emotional impact and STI risk. You're including anal in that, which doesn't even carry a risk of pregnancy. I'm not sure why you're making that distinction.
I think you're projecting your own experiences onto everyone else a little too much.
I am still trying to figure out what the acronym SDI stands for. In sex education, I always saw it as STDs (sexually transmitted diseases).
Serious, which I had always thought of as the opposite as casual, means that the issue at hand or in discussion is given a lot of care and concern.
Casual implies carefree, or without worry or concern. For example; to walk casual usually implies to walk without concern to the surrounds or the way that you look.
Casual sex sounds like you really don't care about anything (pregnancy, STDs, reputation, and etc), as long as you are having sex.
Sound extremely repugnant, and it also doesn't really sound like something that actually happens.
Whether you are admitting it or not, a lot of preparation, care, concern (for both yourself and your partner(s)), and time goes into your sex life before you actually have sex.
I have never had sex and not put a lot of effort into trying to read the woman's body language to determine if she was enjoying what I was doing. I also put a lot of care into everything I did to make sure that I was totally respectful to the woman.
Sex is too interactive for it to ever be casual.
STI = Sexually Transmitted Infection.
There's a different between taking the things you're mentioning seriously and taking sex itself seriously. Or maybe you're just using a different definition of seriously.
Do you think of sex as an abstract concept?
I always think of sex as an interaction, and otherwise it is just solo-masturbation.
Once I heard a woman describe sex with her boyfriend as him masturbating between her legs.
Maybe to him the sex was completely casual.
The beauty of sex is that it is a very intense social interaction, and possibly the most intimate.
PS Thanks for not jumping down my throat for mistyping SDI.
"I think you're projecting your own experiences onto everyone else a little too much."
I think you disregard the stories behind your own experiences.
Based on what you write I am betting that you are a much more conscientious person to everything around you than you pretend to be.
And it is hard to imagine you being casual about anything (certainly not about how your lovers felt). Admit it, you really care, and you want to make the world a better place.
It is alright to admit that you care, and that you take matters seriously.
I care about the health and safety of children, which is why I am against encouraging minors to engage in penetrative sex (but I want them to get educated about sex and sexual issues, which I know can be done without encouraging them to have sex).
I have seen too many pregnant teenagers, and too many children in third world countries forced into sex slavery to be anything other than totally against underage (penetrative) sex.
The phrase I was advocating was "strictly recreational sex", as opposed to recreational sex with emotional elements, or sex strictly to procreate.
Of those three categories of sex, the later most is by far the least popular, and I am guessing that the middle category is only marginally more popular than the former most.
I don't think I ever engaged in sex strictly to procreate, because even when I was having sex with the intent to procreate, It was still very recreational.
I didn't want to get too deep into my principles regarding underage penetrative sex (I was more interestws in starting discourse on whether sex is scared), but my reasoning for my principles is that I don't see a girl with a 16 or 17 year old body as being physically or socially ready for the risks associated with penetrative sex (STDs and unwanted pregnancy), even if she claims she is emotionally and mentally ready for it.
I think it is best to set the broad standard that minors (any child under the age of 18) are not physically or socially ready for the risks associated with penetrative sex, because they physically haven't grown up yet, and society doesn't view them as grown ups (that goes for boys too).
I think of penetrative sex (anal or vaginal) as like a roller coaster ride; a lot of risk, can be scary, but if you are old enough for it (and observe all of the safety precautions) then it can be a lot of fun.
In my opinion penetrative sex is a ride for grown adults, and I don't think anyone is physically or socially grown up until they reach the age of 18.
As a parent and a voting citizen I don't have a problem with the age of consent laws, I'm definitely not going to challenge them, and I definitely am not going to write anything to encourage minors to undermine them (and I think it would be very bad for feminism if it became associated with encouraging underage penetrative sex).
It really boggles me as to how you can't see your ideology as being prescriptive.
People mature at different ages. You cannot say definitively: a girl under 18 is not "physically or socially ready" for sex.
Furthermore I see an element of hypocrisy. Why only penetrative sex? So you'd be OK with your daughter having lesbian sex or oral sex before the age of 18? Oral sex also carries a risk of STIs and STDs. If it's purely about procreation, then why the concern about anal sex? It seems that you're just obsessed with this idea of "penetration" because you somehow see it as a form of abuse. If the rest of your comments had shown a viewpoint arguing the "all sex is rape" mentality then this could be just part of your ideology.
However, your other comments show that you want women to be open and honest about their sexuality. At the same time you tell coworkers about your colleague, saying she's been with "many men" (which I can tell you a lot of people would interpret as you calling her a slut, in the workplace: ANY COMMENT about another person's sexuality or sexual practice is COMPLETELY INAPPROPRIATE). If you castigate sex before the age of 18, does that mean that one day (the day before your daughter's 18th birthday) you would be pissed off, and the next day (when she turns 18) she's suddenly ready and you're fine with it?
Can't you see that if you keep such a closed mind and put this horrible restrictive mindset upon your daughter, that not only will she not tell you if she has sex before 18, but she will have sex in places other than your home. In a car, at the boyfriend's/girlfriend's house, on a golf course, at a party, who knows!
You see yourself as being a liberal feminist, but from the sounds of it you are just another parent putting your own prejudices and moralising attitude in such a way that it is more likely to hurt your daughter, rather than help her.
Effectively you are advocating abstinence-only education for your own child. Even if you tell her all about condoms etc., if you then turn around and say "but abstinence is the only acceptable option until you're 18" then that is essentially an abstinence-only approach.
I had a mother who was always honest and upfront about sex and sexuality. She never tried shaming me for having sex, and at 16 when I asked her about BC she told me that she was happy I was going to take it and reminded me to still use condoms. She never moralised or told me that I was too stupid to know what I was doing, because do you know how I would have reacted? I would have rebelled.. THAT'S WHAT TEENAGERS DO.
Instead, I continued to practice safe sex with a full understanding of the risks and consequences THANKS TO my mother supporting me. Because of that I have NEVER felt ashamed of my body, my sexuality, or the amount of sex I engage in. All this because of a good mother who supported me and didn't chastise me for following my instincts and enjoying a completely natural desire.
If you want your daughter to be ashamed of sex, to never talk to you about it, and to have it in places where it is unsafe and possibly dangerous, then keep going with your moralising and your punishment angle. But I can guarantee you that your daughter will not ever be completely honest with you if you choose that road, and I can guarantee you that if she doesn't want you to find out about her having sex.. you won't find out.
Even if you disapprove of people having sex before the age of 18, that is no reason to JUDGE people for doing so. Our bodies are physically ready to bear children since the day of our period, so don't even try to argue that a mid-late teenager isn't physically ready for sex.
You are just the biggest hypocrite I have ever found in the feminist movement. This is your argument:
"I support women's rights over their own bodies, but when it's my daughter SHE BETTER NOT DO ANYTHING I DON'T APPROVE OF OR ELSE."
Well I'm sorry, but that's not a very productive or coherent viewpoint. Furthermore, it's not safe for your daughter, and it's not going to lead to a healthy and open relationship between you both. Wouldn't you rather she have sex in a safe environment, and wouldn't you rather she be honest with you about it?
I absolutely understand that it's your right to decide what's best when you bring her up, but it's an entire other thing to just yell that at people on a forum and not even listen to their criticisms. Further up you accused someone of having a closed mind, well I would argue that a lot of good criticisms have been made about your viewpoint and you've not responded to ONE in a logical and intellectual manner. This wouldn't bother me if it was just your viewpoint, but when I have lived the experience of a great, supportive mother, and then come out to be a successful, intelligent, and sexually liberated woman, I find it VERY difficult to see how placing restrictions on your daughter is going to benefit her feelings on sexuality or her safety overall.
Sexual restrictions are the opposite of sexual freedom: remember that.
So you really think a girl (or boy) of 16 or 17 years of age is physically all grown up?
Do you think society will see 16 and 17 year olds as physically grown up?
And, do you really want 16 and 17 years olds to be treated as adults?
I don't think the majority of the voting masses of America will ever agree with you, and neither do I.
No, non-penetrative sex (oral, mutual masturbation, and etc), isn't as risky as penetrative sex (anal or vaginal), and doesn't bother me that much.
I remember once when I was 13 I was sitting in a room with relatives in WV, and my great aunts and uncles tried to tell me that AIDS was sent by god to punish the sin of homosexuality. I replied, "Then god must really love Lesbians, because what they do hardly ever spreads AIDS."
Read Svutlana's blog if you want to know how I speak to my kids, and how I will raise them (just click on my user handle).
Sex is about experience, but you can not gain experience without experiencing. It does not matter what the age. Also, young peoples lives are NOT RUINED by such things becoming parents or STD's (even if the disease is HIV). Their lives are changed but not devastated. We just assume that if children do not live a normal childhood they will be damaged for the rest of their lives. We must find ways to support children who make mistakes. Prevention such as comprehensive sex ed. and abstinence education are important but not always effective. if we want to eliminate children who makes these mistakes from slipping into poverty, ignorance and further marginalization we must finds ways to support them. Insisting that children do not have the emotional maturity or resources to deal with the consequences of sex will not help those who end up in these situations. we must realize that we do not control what children do but we are often responsible for the consequences, especially when we are parents and deal with it.