This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Should 13 year old girls be able to get the pill?

Reply 180

DaveSmith99

14

13 being on the pill is preferable to 13 year olds dropping sprogs everywhere, im sure everyone will agree.

Reply 181

neverlander¾

13

I got my period when I was 13. I still played Pokemon ffs...didnt even know the details of sex.

Reply 182

ScheduleII

11

Original post by Clare~Bear

13 year olds can get it on a prescription already if it's for painful/ irregular periods or some other stuff like acne. So I'm sure if they really wanted to use it as contracpetion they could go to the doctor about painful/irregular periods and get it anyways.

Anyway, we only see this from our cultures point of view. Other countries have an age of consent of 13 or 14. It doesn't mean that they're wrong, just because it's different to what we think.

Who is "we"? That "we" does not include me.

I am British and don't think it's wrong to have sex at 12-14, in fact I believe in lowering the age of consent to 14 completely, not with an age gap restriction.

People like the "Salford Stallion", the teacher who had sex with two 14/15 year olds in his class, I don't think should be imprisoned or banned for life.

My views are based on my personal understanding and reasoning, NOT on what the law or culture of this country says. I don't agree with most of the law and culture of this country, to be honest. I far prefer South America from what I've read, but would not go to live there because all my family etc. are here, and I'd rather live in a country that I was born in and have different views than move thousands of miles to "fit in".

Don't expect that "we" will believe something just because we were brought up in this country, at least not reflective people like me. If you're happy just agreeing with what the state and the majority think then fine. I happen to thoroughly disagree with their worldview.

Sch.2

Reply 183

gateshipone

10

Original post by Jimbo1234

No 13 year old is wise enough to make their own decisions. Talking about not all elders being smart is just a strawman.

I just wanted you to tell me who the elders are that we should listen to? It can't be you, you resort to name calling to get your point across, a bit like a child would actually.

The safest thing is to not have sex.

I agree, but that's not something that we can enforce. Never have been able to and never will be able to. Why keep doing something that's clearly not working?

So if abstinence does not work, what is the rest of Europe doing that we are not? Oh right, a strong family unit :redface:

You could have the strongest family unit in the world, but that won't necessarily stop a 13 year old having sex.

Every 13 year old is "unique", oh save the crap for someone who will swallow it. Most struggle to sit down and do homework let alone have the ability to think about the decision of having sex with someone etc.

Sorry, I didn't realise that you only became an individual when you turned 16!

I will bet that most come from broken homes or have a generally bad family life as what could drive a child to have sex?

I'll take that bet. Mainly because that drive would be a little thing called biology.

Source? It really is not normal hence why most don't sleep about.

Most don't, but that doesn't automatically mean those who do are wrong to do so.

Allowing a child to have sex is immoral due to the dangerous physical and mental problems.

Allowing? Again you can't STOP teenagers having sex and you certainly can't just say it's not allowed and expect things to change.

Again, according to whom? Seeing that the vast majority are happy to not **** around at 13 means that those who do are abnormal.

No it doesn't.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 184

InvertedLayman

1

Original post by SnoochToTheBooch

**** that. there's nothing wrong with sex, we're animals and in a perfect world we'd all just spend all day ****ing like animals, there's nothing wrong with it and the whole world needs to just admit it & embrace it. We're all whores deep down, some of us are just more honest about it than others. It needs to be less taboo, made into less of a big deal. The only risks are pregnancy and disease, and both things can be easily prevented for people of all ages.

How disgusting! We are living species, but certainly not "animals". We were designed as human beings, having the same sort of cells as other living beings doesn't make us wild. There's nothing wrong with sex INSIDE marriage. How I long for old Britain, at least they knew where stuff was at.

Reply 185

InvertedLayman

1

Original post by Jimbo1234

No 13 year old is wise enough to make their own decisions. Talking about not all elders being smart is just a strawman.

If they regret having sex than that too is a problem as that could lead to large mental issues. The safest thing is to not have sex.

So if abstinence does not work, what is the rest of Europe doing that we are not? Oh right, a strong family unit :redface:

Every 13 year old is "unique", oh save the crap for someone who will swallow it. Most struggle to sit down and do homework let alone have the ability to think about the decision of having sex with someone etc. I will bet that most come from broken homes or have a generally bad family life as what could drive a child to have sex?

Source? It really is not normal hence why most don't sleep about.

Allowing a child to have sex is immoral due to the dangerous physical and mental problems.

Again, according to whom? Seeing that the vast majority are happy to not **** around at 13 means that those who do are abnormal.

I think we should leave these people, both you and I know society is too degenerated and is only getting worse at a rate and force that we cannot stop. Sad but true, we need better things to do.

Reply 186

ScheduleII

11

Original post by tc92

That's completely darting around the point.

If it's wrong for under-16s to be having sex, should we spend taxpayers' money protecting those who are breaking the law? Yes or no, it should be applied equally to males & females.

No, it shouldn't be applied equally to males and females because the consequences for females are more severe;
Apart from condoms, legislation already allows protective measures to be taken with drug addicts even though they break the law by possessing illicit drugs. So criminal law doesn't work that way.

Reply 187

gateshipone

10

Original post by InvertedLayman

How disgusting! We are living species, but certainly not "animals". We were designed as human beings, having the same sort of cells as other living beings doesn't make us wild. There's nothing wrong with sex INSIDE marriage. How I long for old Britain, at least they knew where stuff was at.

Yes, old Britain, where marriage was simply a way to make an alliance by using women as currency! Those were the days!

Oh, and we are animals, get over yourself.

Reply 188

thecrimsonidol

13

Not read through the last 10 pages, so don't know if this has already been said, but will say it now anyway: A 13 year old boy could buy condoms from a machine in a supermarket toilet if he wanted (safe, Durex ones too), so I don't see this as being any worse or different. I don't see not having the pill available as likely to put off many kids who choose to have it at that age, so better to be safe I suppose.

That said, they shouldn't just be 'dished out' e.g. by schools in the way condoms are; individual medical tests/consultations should still always be compulsory.

Reply 189

SnoochToTheBooch

17

Original post by InvertedLayman

How disgusting! We are living species, but certainly not "animals". We were designed as human beings, having the same sort of cells as other living beings doesn't make us wild. There's nothing wrong with sex INSIDE marriage. How I long for old Britain, at least they knew where stuff was at.

1) how are we not animals
2) I very much doubt we were "designed"
3) we might think we're "civilised" or "sophisticated" but really we're still driven by the same basic urges as everything else - food, sex, territory etc.

Reply 190

InvertedLayman

1

Original post by SnoochToTheBooch

1) how are we not animals
2) I very much doubt we were "designed"
3) we might think we're "civilised" or "sophisticated" but really we're still driven by the same basic urges as everything else - food, sex, territory etc.

We are animals biologically, not mentally.
You are an idiot. Even knowledge of GCSE Biology makes it impossible that we were not designed.
We do have urges. But we are not animals and must control them. Everyone needs sex. Humans need it in marriage. Copulating like animals.. pathetic. I have nothing more to say.

Reply 191

SnoochToTheBooch

17

Original post by InvertedLayman

Copulating like animals.. pathetic. I have nothing more to say.

I wasn't planning on indulging your trollery any further anyway.

Reply 192

Clare~Bear

15

Original post by ScheduleII

Who is "we"? That "we" does not include me..

Sch.2

Sorry, i meant us/we as a culture. Most people in the uk think you should wait til at least 16 to have sex. We give children a childhood so dont expect them to be doing such things. But in other cultures and times where life expectancy is low, children have greater responsibilities and do get married and have kids at such a young age and it is considered normal.

Reply 193

RollerBall

20

Original post by Jimbo1234

Or I am stunned and amazed that you think that a 13 year old will have more wisdom and insight than their elders so should be able to make their own choice.

Removing the impact is removing all responsibility from the persons actions as they can not learn from their mistakes as there is no "mistake".
Who talked about abstinence? Oh, you did :rolleyes:

For 13 years old, yes, this should be the case, but when they are 18+ then they should be able to make their own choice.
Your analogy is stupid as the equivalent of a thief would actually be a rapist :giggle:

Anyone who wants to have sex at that age has serious issues and I shall stand by this comment as they are the minority and you can not argue a reason for why 13 year olds should sleep about. You are simply a new age spineless liberal who has no morals and will people act in the most deprived way "because it is their right".

I wrote a big post but I've deleted it because I can't be bothered to argue with you anymore. You're so blatently a troll you're not worth wasting any time on. I'd neg you but I'm pretty sure that would give you some enjoyment as it makes you feel like a succsessful troll based on your excessive red gems.

Your exclusive straw manning has got boring already, look up some more logical fallacies next time to mix it up a bit. For the record, to label me as a liberal is laughable.

Reply 194

ScheduleII

11

Original post by Clare~Bear

Sorry, i meant us/we as a culture. Most people in the uk think you should wait til at least 16 to have sex. We give children a childhood so dont expect them to be doing such things. But in other cultures and times where life expectancy is low, children have greater responsibilities and do get married and have kids at such a young age and it is considered normal.

Well that's what I mean. I am from the uk but I don't agree with that. I prefer 13,I don't think two 13 year olds having sex is more undesirable than two 16 year olds depending on circumstances- and I certainly don't believe in putting all adults in prison for sex with 13-15 year olds. I would support changing the law to make it more like Spain/Mexico.

It is patronising for teenagers to be told to have a "childhood" when their bodies have told them in no uncertain terms they are out of childhood. I use the proper medical definition of child, i.e. from birth to puberty and no further. Beyond that is adolescent.

Reply 195

Jimbo1234

20

Original post by gateshipone

I just wanted you to tell me who the elders are that we should listen to? It can't be you, you resort to name calling to get your point across, a bit like a child would actually.

I agree, but that's not something that we can enforce. Never have been able to and never will be able to. Why keep doing something that's clearly not working?

You could have the strongest family unit in the world, but that won't necessarily stop a 13 year old having sex.

Sorry, I didn't realise that you only became an individual when you turned 16!

I'll take that bet. Mainly because that drive would be a little thing called biology.

Most don't, but that doesn't automatically mean those who do are wrong to do so.

Allowing? Again you can't STOP teenagers having sex and you certainly can't just say it's not allowed and expect things to change.

No it doesn't.

Society and standing law? And as for name calling ? :confused:

Anything can be enforced, somethings are simply more complex to enforce than others. As I have said, Europe does not have this problem so what is going wrong here?

I beg to differ. A child from a strong family unit would not have sex because they would not feel the need to due to emotional insecurities and their parents would know what the child is doing. You need to remember that the sex drive of any 13 year old is very low.

It is called maturity :facepalm:

Everyone has a better chance of making the right decision at 16 rather than 13.

If it was natural to have sex at 13, then why is it so pregnancy at that age so dangerous? :redface:

This shows that it is not natural and those children are likely having sex due to very large problems.

Yes, you can stop teenagers having sex. It is called being a parent.

Having sex at 13 is abnormal. You would be denying the truth to argue that point.

Reply 196

gateshipone

10

Original post by Jimbo1234

Society and standing law? And as for name calling ? :confused:

Read your own posts, you resort to name calling multiple times.

Anything can be enforced, somethings are simply more complex to enforce than others. As I have said, Europe does not have this problem so what is going wrong here?

So in Europe no 13 year old has ever had sex or even thought about it? Your version of the world sounds incredible.

I beg to differ. A child from a strong family unit would not have sex because they would not feel the need to due to emotional insecurities and their parents would know what the child is doing.

That relies on emotional insecurity being the only reason for a 13 year old having sex which clearly cannot be the case.

You need to remember that the sex drive of any 13 year old is very low.

You skipped being 13 then huh?

It is called maturity :facepalm:

Everyone has a better chance of making the right decision at 16 rather than 13.

Not really. Plenty of 16 year olds are complete morons.

If it was natural to have sex at 13, then why is it so pregnancy at that age so dangerous? :redface:

This shows that it is not natural and those children are likely having sex due to very large problems.

Of course it's natural. Puberty starts around that age for a reason ya know. Puberty gears your whole body towards sex, you can't deny that. You may not like it but it's worked that way for a few hundred thousand years...

Yes, you can stop teenagers having sex. It is called being a parent.

Unless you watch them non stop 24 hours a day, no you can't stop them.

Having sex at 13 is abnormal. You would be denying the truth to argue that point.

What truth? Your truth? What makes your opinion true exactly?

Reply 197

ScheduleII

11

Original post by Jimbo1234

Society and standing law? And as for name calling ? :confused:

Anything can be enforced, somethings are simply more complex to enforce than others. As I have said, Europe does not have this problem so what is going wrong here?

I beg to differ. A child from a strong family unit would not have sex because they would not feel the need to due to emotional insecurities and their parents would know what the child is doing. You need to remember that the sex drive of any 13 year old is very low.

It is called maturity :facepalm:

Everyone has a better chance of making the right decision at 16 rather than 13.

If it was natural to have sex at 13, then why is it so pregnancy at that age so dangerous? :redface:

This shows that it is not natural and those children are likely having sex due to very large problems.

Yes, you can stop teenagers having sex. It is called being a parent.

Having sex at 13 is abnormal. You would be denying the truth to argue that point.

Europe enforces stopping young people having sex better than Britain?
Do you mean Spain where you can have full sex with your 51 year old headteacher at 13 and he doesn't go down?
Or Germany, which produced teenie porn (14-17, not 18-19) legally until 2008?
Or France and Holland which have a long cultural tradition of celebrating boys being delicately broken into sex by an experienced woman in her thirties or beyond at 13-15?
There's always the Nordic countries where teen sex is accepted by just about everyone and parents are likely to let their young teenage daughters have a boy (or girl) in their bedroom overnight.

Honestly, the UK is probably the *most* restrictive culture in all of Europe with respect to adolescent sexuality. The fact that so many here are seeing it as a problem of "children" who "shouldn't be doing it" and teenage sex is often associated with the underclass underlines that fact.

The teen pregnancy rates are lower in Europe partially because youths are more fulfilled and have a better quality of life with less moral/cultural deprivation (as opposed to material poverty) so do not feel like having a baby early as "someone to love them" and a route out of boredom.

Reply 198

Jimbo1234

20

Original post by gateshipone

Read your own posts, you resort to name calling multiple times.

So in Europe no 13 year old has ever had sex or even thought about it? Your version of the world sounds incredible.

That relies on emotional insecurity being the only reason for a 13 year old having sex which clearly cannot be the case.

You skipped being 13 then huh?

Not really. Plenty of 16 year olds are complete morons.

Of course it's natural. Puberty starts around that age for a reason ya know. Puberty gears your whole body towards sex, you can't deny that. You may not like it but it's worked that way for a few hundred thousand years...

Unless you watch them non stop 24 hours a day, no you can't stop them.

What truth? Your truth? What makes your opinion true exactly?

Nice strawman. The UK has one of the worst underage sex problems hence why studies like this are being developed.

I think emotional insecurity is 100% the reason why 13 year olds have sex. Why do you think it is after considering the risks and maturity of the child?

Actually at 13 my sex drive was not as high as when I was 16 and that was the same for everyone I knew.

Again, another starwman. Most 16 year olds will make better decisions and be more emotionally ready for sex - though that is not to say that they actually are ready, simply closer to it. But of course you will always have the stupid 16 year olds.

So it is natural for a species to have a very high miscarriage and paternal fatality risk for pregnancy ? :facepalm2:

Oh dear.....
Puberty does not happen over night. It takes years. What you are saying is that same as claiming that everyone should sit their final degree exams at the start of the first year.

Or, now brace yourself for this idea, the child respects the parent and listens to them :eek: