Is having sex at the age of 12 right page 3

238 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by VforVendetta:

I don’t feel like someone is mature enough to have sex at age 12, no.
In an ideal world people would be married before they have sex, but that’s not realistic.

I agree that 12 years is too young to be having sex…but waiting to be married before having sex? Some of us don’t want to get married :(

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by MyTie:
You can’t be serious. Even you can read better than that.

So you mean to say they aren’t then?

Are you asking me if a 60 year old man molests a 12 year old kid if that is worse than two twelve year olds having sex? Yeah. It is. I don’t understand what that has to do with my argument. Take a look at how you brought this up:

Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by MyTie:
The fact that you consider the situation to be “blurry” is just… mind boggling to me.

So you’re saying that a twelve-year old getting it on with an (insert 20+ year here) adult is just as bad (or good, if you care about semantics) as with another twelve-year old?

See this. I’m still trying to figure out why you posted this, what it has to do with my argument, and why I should have to deny something that I never said, or agree with something that has nothing to do with what I was talking about. You quoted part of my post, and then talked about something completely unrelated. WHY!

 
Flag Post

The world of subjective morality. We wonder why society has so many problems.

Is it really better to pretend we have objective morality over teaching it is subjective? But you don’t really get the issue. Most parents teach their kids a particular way about what they think is “right” or “wrong”. There is no way to impose a certain morality system on everyone. Even if you did, you would be a tyranny.

The fact that you consider the situation to be “blurry” is just… mind boggling to me.

Why is your argument “it just is” considered to be good? There is also a difference between two kids having sex and an older person having sex with a kid.

You’ll probably ignore me. Take this as a comment on your post for other posters to see, then.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

The world of subjective morality. We wonder why society has so many problems.

Is it really better to pretend we have objective morality over teaching it is subjective? But you don’t really get the issue. Most parents teach their kids a particular way about what they think is “right” or “wrong”. There is no way to impose a certain morality system on everyone. Even if you did, you would be a tyranny.

The fact that you consider the situation to be “blurry” is just… mind boggling to me.

Why is your argument “it just is” considered to be good? There is also a difference between two kids having sex and an older person having sex with a kid.

You’ll probably ignore me. Take this as a comment on your post for other posters to see, then.

Because we can’t agree on an objective measure of right and wrong, doesn’t mean that we must accept a heinous and completely unacceptable view of morality. If subjective morality is fact, it is the saddest fact that exists.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:

Because we can’t agree on an objective measure of right and wrong, doesn’t mean that we must accept a heinous and completely unacceptable view of morality.

Uhh, I don’t think you quite completed your sentence there.

If subjective morality is fact, it is the saddest fact that exists.

No, the fact that by the time you’re done reading this, dozens of people will probably have died is.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:

If subjective morality is fact, it is the saddest fact that exists.

Why does that follow, please? The implications are unsettling, I realise, but hardly the ‘saddest fact’. The limited intellect of the human animal is a better contender for that title :)

 
Flag Post

Because we can’t agree on an objective measure of right and wrong, doesn’t mean that we must accept a heinous and completely unacceptable view of morality.

But the very nature of your argument implies objective morality: that people of 12 years old having sex is indeed morally wrong. It makes so much sense to you, because there is no other possible way. What you’re telling me is “you think X is okay, but it is actually wrong, so why do you accept it?”. A similar argument would be you telling me that taking a stray cat in our home is okay in our eyes, but because it is wrong I should not accept it.

We agree you think it’s wrong, we agree that others think it’s not necessarily wrong, but we disagree there’s a higher force of morality out there dictating some kind of morality. You subscribe to it, and that’s fine, but not all of society does, so why do you argue that society should accept your source of morality? If you do not argue this, then we do not disagree, as all you are saying is that you would not accept our morality, which is normal.

If subjective morality is fact, it is the saddest fact that exists.

The problem in this case is not subjective morality (it is not a problem to us, but even in this argument it isn’t to you), it is that you are not the teacher of these kids. You do not teach morality, but certain parents, schools, and other religions do. Some of these have moralities that differ from you. This means that they will have a view on life different from you, which annoys you. Completely disregarding the fact that it would be a tyranny, how do you think can you best implement your specific morality in society, how can you be the one and only teacher for all children? How can you teach everyone your view of objective morality and that there is no other way to teach? If you can’t, do you accept there is no way to change society to your liking and that calling others “wrong” has no more meaning than them calling you wrong?

I understand you try to invoke “actions that are by nature wrong” and God, but you understand you have no basis other than the fact that some other individuals agree with you? This is not even an attack on your argument, I’m trying to make you see your own argument in a different light, that it has little hope of changing society, and that it cannot be superior to other arguments.

As a sidenote, not murdering others is superior above murdering others with a certain goal (such as keeping society in order), but when dealing with a psycho keeping your loved ones captive or one that will burn down your home you suddenly see it differently. Children having sex is inferior/superior in certain situations, and isn’t necessarily wrong. Most of us do, by the way, think that an older person having sex with a child is wrong. It isn’t inherently so, but most of us will fight to keep it wrong in society. Let me just say there is no shame in admitting nothing is inherently wrong. I just can’t seem to cope with the idea we should lie to people there is some form of objective morality, even if it would brainwash them into doing good. It seems, ironically, wrong somehow.

 
Flag Post

The problem in this case is not subjective morality (it is not a problem to us, but even in this argument it isn’t to you), it is that you are not the teacher of these kids. You do not teach morality, but certain parents, schools, and other religions do.

But he DOES teach morality, as a preacher. Therefore it’s in his best interests to tell his students – or sheep, as the context allows – to believe in an objective point of view.

differ from you. This means that they will have a view on life different from you, which annoys you. Completely disregarding the fact that it would be a tyranny, how do you think can you best implement your specific morality in society, how can you be the one and only teacher for all children? How can you teach everyone your view of objective morality and that there is no other way to teach? If you can’t, do you accept there is no way to change society to your liking and that calling others “wrong” has no more meaning than them calling you wrong?

The Christians – and I say this as one who has studied the history of Christianity without prejudice – have always been tyrannical towards those who didn’t share their views. The amusing thing is to watch them evolve in that context. When they had the power, through kingship, to destroy alternative points of view, they did so without any difficulty. It’s only recently, when their power has waned, that they’ve sought to disguise their beliefs – that is, ‘’The One True Belief" as merely a worldview, with all the other belief systems as “other worldview”. This is amusing because, even though mytie hasn’t figured it out yet, mainstream christianity has a long-practiced hand at manipulating post-modernist ideas to suit their purposes. Mytie might protest that there is no subjective morality, and if there is, it’s de jure evil, but the powerplayers among christianity have already reconciled with subjective morality, and found much to appeal to them, even if only on a de facto level.

Might want to run some of that through google translate, mytie. Wouldn’t want you to be ignorant.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by fma1:


Why is this? Why are humans the only animals that willingly wait so long after reaching fertility before reproducing?

Because their lives are so long? I mean, if someone had a kid at 13, and lived to the ripe old age of 95, that kid would basically be like their sibling growing old alongside them, by today’s societal standards.

Cats, on the other hand, probably come into estrus around 1, and live around 8 years (up to 18 if they are inside and pampered). They really have to get moving as soon as possible.

 
Flag Post

I love how people are saying it’s too young because they don’t know anything/enough about sex.
I remember when I was 12, and I was online and I knew all about it and completely understood it. That was only a few years ago.

So that shows at least some people can be ready.
But then you think about it, I was never “taught” these things by anyone I knew or have ever seen before. Wouldn’t by someone you know be better?
So with teaching at least some people can be ready at/before 12.

Personally I think you are ready at 14 as of the average person. Although I believe it could and should be lower if people didn’t shelter their kids and try to keep them away from “grown up stuff”.

I say the age of consent laws should be 14-16 now, although with teaching less.
I’d rather have marriage being required or it being around 24 than these magical 18s.

Most 18year olds that I’m around, see, or generally anything are worse than many kids and are basically a kinder-gardener to most 24+ year olds.
It’s as if between 17-22 (most people just become extremely retarded. They get all these freedoms and then they don’t use them like you should, but they abuse them. For example drinking, having sex, going to bars and all those other things.

Now I’m just getting off-topic, but it’s just disgusting.
I’m going to be even more miserable in late high-school/early college if this keeps up.

 
Flag Post

in our earlier days of being human, we didn’t live very long so you’d start having children earlier. if humanity at the time had followed today’s lead, there’d be no humans, nobody would have lived long enough to reproduce. now with longer lifespans we can put it off.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Jantonaitis:The Christians – and I say this as one who has studied the history of Christianity without prejudice – have always been tyrannical towards those who didn’t share their views.

Christianity is the only religion that is socially acceptable to be biased and stereotypical toward all the adherents. Never-mind the people out there, the millions of them, that want you dead because you don’t follow their religion.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Murder_Machine:

in our earlier days of being human, we didn’t live very long so you’d start having children earlier. if humanity at the time had followed today’s lead, there’d be no humans, nobody would have lived long enough to reproduce. now with longer lifespans we can put it off.

Them starting earlier actually had more to do with people not having to go through so much education before starting their adult life and marriage(more often than not an arranged one) actually being one of the first steps along the path.
This culture of early marriage and the limited contraception available was actually more of a cause for the lowered life expectancy than the other way around.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:
Originally posted by Jantonaitis:The Christians – and I say this as one who has studied the history of Christianity without prejudice – have always been tyrannical towards those who didn’t share their views.

Christianity is the only religion that is socially acceptable to be biased and stereotypical toward all the adherents. Never-mind the people out there, the millions of them, that want you dead because you don’t follow their religion.

1 million viewers stopped watching Felix Baumgartner’s jump when his parachute deployed successfully. They clearly wanted to watch him die regardless of his or their religion. Some people are just sick and use religion as an excuse to carry out their violent natures, no true follower of any (major) religion should wish anyone else dead but then we are not talking about true followers are we, we are tarring true followers with a brush dipped in the extremist minority.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Zachary_Greene:

So with teaching at least some people can be ready at/before 12.

That goes with what I was saying earlier,and the bell curve Karma always talks about.Yes, some will be cognitively mature at 12, and some will be cognitively mature at 16, or even 18. It all depends on when the right structures form in the brain. Like with everything else related to puberty, different individuals gain assets at different rates.

This is why I’m in favor of using an evidence-based test to see if the right regions of the brain are functioning. Poke around with an optogenetic probe, and see if you get a response from the correct area (the central sulcus). If it responds to an external signal generation,then it’s in place. (fMRI will confirm this). If it doesn’t, it’s not fully formed.

The evidence-based test is as involved as it sounds, and it is certainly not a five minute job, but would prove medically how mature someone is. If their sulcus is fully formed at 12 by such a test, then they are a legal adult at 12, as the evidence backs that up. If it is not fully formed at 18, then they are not a legal adult at 18, as their decision-making procss has not yet matured.

It’s a way of proving when a given individual is ready for adulthood, as they have a brain capable of adult decision-making, rather than using an arbitrary law.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by dd790:

1 million viewers stopped watching Felix Baumgartner’s jump when his parachute deployed successfully. They clearly wanted to watch him die regardless of his or their religion. Some people are just sick and use religion as an excuse to carry out their violent natures, no true follower of any (major) religion should wish anyone else dead but then we are not talking about true followers are we, we are tarring true followers with a brush dipped in the extremist minority.

…No, not everyone has that sick fascination. I’m a Christian, by the way, and I watched the full video of Felix Baumgartner several times to the end. Why? I’m interested in all things outer space, and had a lot of questions (physics related) about his jump.

Religion isn’t there to help people work out violent tendencies; I think you could make a better argument for kickboxing being there to help people work out violent tendencies, and no one’s maligning that. Some people in the past have abused religion for their purposes, sure, but don’t throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.

 
Flag Post

Christianity is the only religion that is socially acceptable to be biased and stereotypical toward all the adherents.

Stop pretending to be a victim.

Never-mind the people out there, the millions of them, that want you dead because you don’t follow their religion.

Nevermind the fact that such religions are attacked too.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Darkruler2005:Stop pretending to be a victim.

I was a “victim” of being stereotyped, by an opinion that is, by definition, bigoted. I’m not pretending anything. Refute my argument or move along.

Originally posted by Darkruler2005:Nevermind the fact that such religions are attacked too.

You missed when I said “socially acceptable”. Come on man, read the posts.

 
Flag Post

You missed when I said “socially acceptable”. Come on man, read the posts.

Read mine. There is more to the world than America.

I was a “victim” of being stereotyped, by an opinion that is, by definition, bigoted.

You’re being far too sensitive about it. Being stereotyped, at best, could trigger you to call the person out on ignorance, nothing more.

Refute my argument or move along.

I tried that, didn’t keep the conversation going.

 
Flag Post

I think that 12 year olds should only have sex if THEY USE PROTECTION. I mean, think about it. The age of consent is to prevent parents who are emotionally immature and cannot handle the responsibilities of having a child. If they use protection there will be no child, so…

Even if the protection doesn’t work(“condom breaks”), there’s always abortion. And please don’t go “ABORTION ISN’T RIGHT” on me as that’s a discussion for another thread.

 
Flag Post

While it’s true that the child is too emotionally immature to handle being a parent, I think they’re also too emotionally immature at that age to handle having sex. It comes with it’s own set of “stuff”, some of which even adults have issues with. This may not be for all cultures, but in the U.S., certainly, 12 is still the age of being a child and coming into one’s own. It doesn’t need to be sullied and complicated with intimate relations.

 
Flag Post
The age of consent is to prevent parents who are emotionally immature and cannot handle the responsibilities of having a child

no. the primary reason for age of consent is as a means to combat child-abuse. at least, now that all other reasons are pretty much obsolete or out-dated anyway.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:

While it’s true that the child is too emotionally immature to handle being a parent, I think they’re also too emotionally immature at that age to handle having sex. It comes with it’s own set of “stuff”, some of which even adults have issues with. This may not be for all cultures, but in the U.S., certainly, 12 is still the age of being a child and coming into one’s own. It doesn’t need to be sullied and complicated with intimate relations.

Your post deserves to be repeated as I agree with you 110%. Before you joined the forum (I believe) there were a couple of threads on sex and children. Some of the posters were just disgusting and in America would be imprisoned for being a pedophile. As you stated, children are children and need to be able to enjoy their childhood without the BS some on this forum propagate.

I might ask them how they feel about the little girl in Aurora, Colorado who was 12 years old on her way to school when some dipstick abducted her, raped her, and then mutilated her body before leaving her in an empty field. Would that be ok in their delusional idea of sex with minors?

Helltank, do you honestly think a 12 YO should have sex if they use a condom or something similar? The age of consent is to protect a child from predators who are screwed up in the head and prey on children to satisfy their odd idea of a sexual encounter. I can honestly say, if I found out someone was stalking one of my grandchildren, this old dog would hunt.

 
Flag Post

Jhco, there is a vast difference between two people of 12 year old having sex and an adult having sex with a 12 year old. One of these (the latter, obviously), as argued, should always be illegal. The other might not have to be.

 
Flag Post

jhco, do you really think the age of consent is to protect from sexual predators? Please. We have rape laws for that.