Underage sex Watch

This discussion is closed.
Jamie
Badges: 18
#61
Report 13 years ago
#61
(Original post by naelse)
erm... surely that's a contradiction?

the morning after pill is preventing them from getting pregnant... so how is it contributing to a high teen pregnancy rate?

anyway, i just heard from my nurse that girls who have sex before their bodies have stopped growing (and i mean completely, not just when their height stabilises) are more likely to develop cervical cancer. something about disturbing the underdeveloped cells and causing them to mutate into cancerous ones.
More likely to get cervical cancer yes. explanation for it no.

Its because of physical changes in the epidermal layers, plus the higher levels of oestrogen associated with the age group which favour persistent HPV infection
Jamie
Badges: 18
#62
Report 13 years ago
#62
(Original post by naelse)
in my experience, if they're going to have sex, they do it. when i was 16 my mother confiscated the condoms she found under my bed. So, very stupidly and immaturely, i relied on withdrawal instead. and almost got myself into trouble. my school didn't give out the morning after pill as it was private but it could have saved me a lot of unnecessary worry
withdrawal method at 16....is there even such a thing.... :p:
white_haired_wizard
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#63
Report 13 years ago
#63
(Original post by foolfarian)
(the top sentence in my post was a quote from someone else. you have replied to the wrong post)
Apologies - this post was in addition to your own arguments - this anger was not aimed at you...you share a similar perspective from reading what you've put....it was just in addition to strengthen the point of view.
0
Piggsil
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#64
Report 13 years ago
#64
(Original post by lessthanthree)
no - people are STUPIDLY creative with "makeshift contraception"
I've heard tales of crisp packets, clingfilm, plastic bags.............ugh.
0
PinkPigeon
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#65
Report 13 years ago
#65
I can obviously see the problem with people 12/13 having sex, it's disturbing indeed but what I struggle with is how anyone can put an age on something like that. I was 15 when I first had sex (yes, underage...) and I only did it because I was in a loving relationship where it just occured naturally, I felt ready and I don't regret it- I'm almost certain I never will. Yet some 17 year olds are still so mentally immature that I can't imagine they should be having sex, simply because they wouldn't be able to handle the seriousness of it and the issues that come with it. It depends how much under-age we are talking because it's all about the mental age from...I would say 15, 14 at a very large push.
0
Piggsil
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#66
Report 13 years ago
#66
(Original post by PinkPigeon)
I can obviously see the problem with people 12/13 having sex, it's disturbing indeed but what I struggle with is how anyone can put an age on something like that. I was 15 when I first had sex (yes, underage...) and I only did it because I was in a loving relationship where it just occured naturally, I felt ready and I don't regret it- I'm almost certain I never will. Yet some 17 year olds are still so mentally immature that I can't imagine they should be having sex, simply because they wouldn't be able to handle the seriousness of it and the issues that come with it. It depends how much under-age we are talking because it's all about the mental age from...I would say 15, 14 at a very large push.
That makes real sense. People grow up at different rates, and I think if you are underage and in a loving relationship and have waited until you are entirely ready then that is the best way to have sex/lose your virginity. If you're just having sex because everyone else is, something is seriously wrong.
0
PinkPigeon
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#67
Report 13 years ago
#67
Exactly- my way of judging it was simply that it wasn't even a planned event, we just got naturally closer, both emotionally and physically and eventually we just decided that we needed to think about buying condoms as we were naturally getting to the stage where it felt right- with my previous boyfriend it had always been a case of 'ok, i think im nearly ready. when shall we? where?' which is just horribly planned and without emotion or feeling.
0
Piggsil
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#68
Report 13 years ago
#68
(Original post by PinkPigeon)
Exactly- my way of judging it was simply that it wasn't even a planned event, we just got naturally closer, both emotionally and physically and eventually we just decided that we needed to think about buying condoms as we were naturally getting to the stage where it felt right- with my previous boyfriend it had always been a case of 'ok, i think im nearly ready. when shall we? where?' which is just horribly planned and without emotion or feeling.
Aw. I'm so glad. It sounds perfect.
0
Nellz
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#69
Report 13 years ago
#69
(Original post by Mishael)
If you deny people access to contraception, they will still have sex. They will just have unprotected sex. The kids sleeping together at 12 and so on are generally very naive - denying them any access to contraception will not make them act responsibly.
I'm not sure how many kids under the age of 14 no about all methods of contraception, and more importantly, how to use it properly. If I remember rightly it wasn't until year 10 (possibly 11) that we had the contraception talk.
0
kiaora
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#70
Report 13 years ago
#70
im not being funny, but all the 14 year olds i can think of are NO WHERE NEAR mature enough for sex. it's pathetic when liberal adults say 'well, you can;t stop having kids having sex.' when i was 14, there was no way i could have had sex without my parents finding out. where are these kids' parents half the time? and sex ED and free contraception doesn't work. some of my friends how are 16 regularly have sex without protection, or can't be bothered/get caught up in the heat of the moment/think 'oh i can just get the morning after pill'. now that some of them are on the pill, im almost certain theyll continue having unprotected sex. as long as they dont get pregnant, then they assume it'll be fine (totally forgetting STDs). they're not in a minority at my school either. and they're 16/17/18, from 'nice' middle-class homes, private school, good GCSE results and plenty of sex education. (of course my school might be an exception, but i doubt it very much).
0
glance
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#71
Report 13 years ago
#71
(Original post by Ms Red)
my sister is 10 the thought of her having sex in a few years is disturbing to say the least,
My brother is 19 and the thought of him having sex is incredibly disturbing :eek:
0
anjimcflanji
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#72
Report 13 years ago
#72
the thing that also worries me is that it's not just the fact that they're having sex but a lot of young girls are having sex with much older guys...while they often lie and say they're older sometimes the guys just want young girls and that freaks me out completely. when i was 12 i understood the technicals of sex but i sure as snow didn't know what an orgasm was or how you get one. an ant87 is right..how do these parents not know that their little boys and girls are out there having sex? the world is going crazy!
0
Apricot Fairy
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#73
Report 13 years ago
#73
I never had any sex education at all. Well, I sort of did. I went to a Catholic school. We had one sex ed lesson in RE in year 11, when I suspect half the people had had sex already anyway. My teacher didn't once mention STIs, but informed us that the most reliable form of contraception was "natural family planning".

The lesson was cut short by a call on his mobile from his sister in law saying his wife had just gone into labour (for the fifth time) and could he go to the hospital? At which point he legged it and left us unattended for the rest of the lesson.



I lost my virginity at 17, and I think any younger would have been too young.
0
Clodagh
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#74
Report 13 years ago
#74
What is this "natural family planning"? As in no contraceptive at all? Isn't that just like...reversing all the sexual education because contraceptives are the only effective way of birth control?!?! or we'd all be able to do it without condoms etc because it would be "natural" planning.....ha.
0
Doom_and_Gloom
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#75
Report 13 years ago
#75
(Original post by Clodagh)
What is this "natural family planning"? As in no contraceptive at all? Isn't that just like...reversing all the sexual education because contraceptives are the only effective way of birth control?!?! or we'd all be able to do it without condoms etc because it would be "natural" planning.....ha.
Catholics don't believe in any type of contraceptive as it is not natural to have something preventing a pregnancy. They also don't believe in abortion so you usually end up with lots of children if you are a Catholic. Probably why that was her teachers fith child overall.
0
Clodagh
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#76
Report 13 years ago
#76
I know that..I was just intruiged as to how they think this "natural family planning" works.

I wouldn't for fear of anything rely on such a silly method!
0
Apricot Fairy
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#77
Report 13 years ago
#77
Natural family planning is where you have a calendar on the wall, and you write down exactly when the woman gets her periods, and you try to predict when it will be "safe" to have sex, and when there is a high risk. You then just avoid having sex during a high risk time. I think you can get very complicated kits which are actually quite scientific and you have to take the woman's temperature every day or something, and you can plot graphs showing the "safe" times and the "unsafe times".

It's basically what Catholics use, because they don't believe in any form of hormonal or barrier contraception, on the grounds that if God wants to give them a baby, it would be a sin to refuse, or something.

But the "safe period" method is why Catholic families have so many children. It's not safe, as every woman's cycle is different, and the only way of finding out exactly when your "safe" times are is trial and error. Which means sometimes there will be errors.

It's all very well doing this if you're devoutly religious, stay a virgin until you get married, and then practice natural family planning with your spouse. In that situation it isn't the end of the world if you do get pregnant. At least you're married and stable.

But I think it's highly irresponsible to be promoting that to teenagers who have no intention of remaining a virgin until they get married, and have probably already had sex anyway.

Just a final thought - if it's all the chavs who tend to be the ones stupid enough to get pregnant accidentally, surely they're diluting the average intelligence of the population?
0
CrispyDuck
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#78
Report 13 years ago
#78
Yeah, i mean there is the whole issue of sex before marriage. Sorry, I know it's slightly off topic but what does everyone think about that?
0
Piggsil
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#79
Report 13 years ago
#79
You can get kits (I'm not sure how they work) which tell you when you are most fertile/ovulating, so I guess you could just not have sex when you're ovulating...........still risky though!
0
Apricot Fairy
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#80
Report 13 years ago
#80
Yeah, they basically work by plotting your periods and body temperature on a graph, I think. Very hit and miss. Not something you really want to do unless getting pregnant wouldn't be a big problem.
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are you chained to your phone?

Yes (109)
19.82%
Yes, but I'm trying to cut back (223)
40.55%
Nope, not that interesting (218)
39.64%

Watched Threads

View All