50th anniversary of Playboy Magazine

[Jonathan]

Wow, this is moving too fast for my once a day visits to this site. Anyway, I find it interesting that many of you think thta the US is too repressed, esp with female sexuality, even though the stats you all keep going on about seem to show that the teen sex rates are the same for the US and Euro, it is only the difference of contraceptives use. Once again I have to disagree, contraceptives use that is important, they are really easy to get in the US, though they are just not handed to you, you have to get it yourself. And the teenagers have spoken, they'd rather be pregnant than embarassed. Even then there are many places that have coin operated contraceptive dispensers in the bathrooms, so no one would even know you bought any if you did. This I feel is very indicative of the stupidity and immaturity of teenagers. I also disagree with chroot, humans for thousands of years were just fine without porn, it isn't necessary, and it is not a luxury that teenagers have a right to, the only rights a teenager has is to a good upbringing: food, clothes, education, love. They have no other rights until they are 18.
I also disagree with kat, who I think said that my indicator was ridiculus. She brought up the case of multigenerational households, but this doesn't apply to my indicator, she has misunderstood what I said:

There is one major indicator in my mind of when it has been long enough: do you still live with mom and dad? If yes, then no.

I did not say, 'do mom and dad live with you?' It depends on who the genreation in their prime is. That generation and older can have sex, those below can't. If I had kids, I wouldn't want them having sex while living under my roof. If this kid is say 16 and wants to have sex, he/she can get a job and move out. If they can do that and don't flounder, then they are ready.
In fact I think that it was better way back when kids were apprenticed in the real world, so by the time they hit puberty they were mature and and ready, and they could avoid this whole problem. Then again people didn't live long back then, so I would change that part if I had completely control over this hypothetical scenario...

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by Jonathan
I also disagree with chroot, humans for thousands of years were just fine without porn, it isn't necessary

I never said it was necessary. Furthermore, for thousands of years, sex was practiced out in the open, or, at best, behind a tree. Only in the quite recent past of h. sapiens has sex been "privatized" and been socially deemed appropriate only behind closed doors.

They have no other rights until they are 18.

Spoken like a true American. What's this age, 18? And why does it matter? Who's to say a person becomes sexually capable at 18? How can you draw a line so arbitrarily? Other countries have different lines, and they probably also think their line is best. It's all pretty silly, IMO. It's just sex. If you're emotionally ready to do it, do it -- just do it safely, whatever age you are. There's no way you, or any government, can deem a person ready or not based on their age.

If I had kids, I wouldn't want them having sex while living under my roof. If this kid is say 16 and wants to have sex, he/she can get a job and move out.

You're living in a fantasy world. In our society, people become sexually mature (both physically and emotionally) long before their education is complete. It takes a person 20+ years to become educated these days. Until their education is done, they can't get jobs -- at least not good ones. So you'd rather kick your son or daughter out for doing what is natural at their age, under the reasoning that they shouldn't have sex unless they can support themselves? That seems silly and arbitrary. Being able to hold a good job has nothing to do with being ready for sex.

In fact I think that it was better way back when kids were apprenticed in the real world, so by the time they hit puberty they were mature and and ready

Kids at 16 are just as mature today as apprentices at 16 were in "way back when." The only difference is the educational structure. Sixteen years of education is no longer adequate to be a functioning member of our more advanced society. Once again, none of this has any bearings on sexuality. Quit thinking in terms of "educational maturity," and more in terms of physical and emotional maturity.

- Warren

 

[Jonathan]

1)Sorry, that was the impression I got.
2)You are right, 18 is arbitrary, I was speaking from a legal point of veiw, in which case it doesn't have to make sense, it's the law. :)
3+4)I think you are still misunderstanding what I mean. I was using the emotional capability to cope with the real world as an indicator of one emotional capability to deal with real, serious relationships. Of course it is not the only indicator, it is far more subjective than that (as per #2), but I do think that it is a pretty good indicator.
I didn't say it had to be a good job, what I meant was that they had to be able to get by.
Also, it is not the method of education that was as important as what they learned. I used apprenicship as an example, because it is really in hte real world, you have to deal with real problems like learning the trade, learning how to make good money in this trade, and you would undoubtably see first hand how cruel the real world can be sometimes, as in say a time of war when all the men were out fighting so the economy really got slow. It was not the method of education, but the exposer to the harshness of reality that I am saying is important. Many children brought up today were completely unprepared for the real world by the time they were eightteen, and now 20 years later they are still losers living with their parents. Of course this doesn't happen all the time and there are always exceptions, this was merely a vague indicator and an example. And of course there is such thing as growing up too fast and having the weight of the world on your shoulders that comes with it's own bunch of problems.

 

[Andy]

I also disagree with chroot, humans for thousands of years were just fine without porn, it isn't necessary, and it is not a luxury that teenagers have a right to, the only rights a teenager has is to a good upbringing: food, clothes, education, love. They have no other rights until they are 18.

What are you going on about? If you only provide food clothes and education how is the kid supposed to know that you love him/her? I am emotionally mature enough now to know that my parents love me even though all they provide is food, clothes and education, but when i was a very immature young child/teenager i didnt apreciate those things just the luxuries that they gave me.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Kerrie


and zero, she would have the best form of proof by living in europe and seeing it for herself (sometimes better proof over "stats")...much closer then you and i...

Ummm...what are you talking about?!?

 

[Jonathan]

I ask the same question of Andy, I did say:

...the only rights a teenager has is to a good upbringing: food, clothes, education, love.

I didn't extend this to children because that is not what I was talking about. But love was definitely there in the list (boldness was added), go back and look, so I don't know what you're talking about. I just went and looked at your post, and it is even there too!

 

[Andy]

I was saying that a child doesn't understand love to apreciate what there parents provide. How does a child know what love is without you providing the luxuries?

 

[Kerrie]

Originally posted by Zero
Ummm...what are you talking about?!?

i was referring to your question of her stats on the teenage pregnancy rate...my point was stats are okay, but someone actually witnessing the reality of a situation that stats are suppossed to "portray" is sometimes a more reliable form of proof...