?

Log in

No account? Create an account
the girl with violets in her lap [userpic]

January 24th, 2008 (12:30 am)
thoughtful

current mood: thoughtful

"In a perfect world, no teenager would be having sex. We all know there isn't a 15-year-old alive who is ready emotionally, physically, spiritually, or financially to live with the consequences." -Nancy Keenan, NARAL president*

I find it very hard to decide whether I agree with that or not. I mean, okay, so I know that the statement as it reads is dumb - the statement that there "isn't a 15-year-old alive" who's ready for sex is ridiculous - but I'm thinking of it less on a literal level, and wondering more about generalities. Is it true that there is only a statistically negligible percentage of fifteen-year-olds who are ready for sex at fifteen? Can we make the blanket statement that teenagers should not have sex? Even if I concede the issue on ideological grounds, I'm not sure it has any contact with a reality in which teenagers' sex drives start to run amok when they hit fourteen or fifteen. But my question goes beyond that; I'm honestly not sure that I agree that teenagers are almost inevitably too immature for sex. I should figure out whether I do agree. It would be helpful knowledge in writing the Beth book.

Anyway, I posted it because if y'all want to discuss, I'd love to hear your thoughts. Comment away.

*Quote is a passing remark in this link, leading to a Slate article that I find interesting, thought-provoking, and somewhat shallow and poorly considered in its own approach to the subject. I feel that way about a whole lot of Slate articles.

Comments

Posted by: Blue (hobbitblue)
Posted at: January 24th, 2008 11:05 am (UTC)

Given that the age of consent for sex (MF and MM) here in the UK is 16, it seems odd to think these 15 year olds will mature in all manners in just a year, if that statement is so accurate. I still prefer the "teens shouldn't be having sex, but they will and they do so lets give them the knowledge they need to do it safely without risk of disease or unwanted pregnancy" approach myself.

Posted by: electric misfit love machine (eyelid)
Posted at: January 24th, 2008 03:52 pm (UTC)

I still prefer the "teens shouldn't be having sex,

but why shouldn't they? ...I think is the point.

Posted by: Blue (hobbitblue)
Posted at: January 24th, 2008 07:39 pm (UTC)
facepalm

Good point, I wasn't clear, I was expanding on what *should* follow the "they shouldn't be doing it" mantra, don't seem to get anybody saying why shouldn't they, let them alone, exploration is good so I missed the fact I missed it, if that makes sense?

Edit: ack, still not saying what I mean. I disagree with the idea that teens shouldn't have sex, and I disagree with the initial statement giving a blanket assumption that being 15 means one is incapable of all the necessary things, also the assumption one will need a financial input because of course its going to result in pregnancy, and I bet that mainly applies to girls not boys. The only time I'd agree with "shouldn't" is with the extras I added instead of a blanket "thou shalt not, ever, and we'll keep it all a secret so you'll not be tempted".

Edited at 2008-01-24 07:46 pm (UTC)

75 Read Comments