The only concrete reasons for sex being bad is (on paper) the danger of STD's, early pregnancies, and all the stuff that usually comes along with the "Don't Be a Fool, Sex Isn't Cool" abstinence groups that visit every grammar school in the world.

Besides the obvious dangers, the only thing that makes sex bad among children is the lack of experience. I'm not talking about sexual experience, of course, otherwise I'd be opposed to all sex, I'm talking about world experience. Kids shouldn't be getting blow jobs before they see their first R rated movie. It's just a matter of how children respond to things, and how they would react to something so much more mature than what they're used to.

I don't know about you, but when I was ten, I was collecting Pokemon cards and having water baloon wars. If my friend walked up to me at that age and said, "Hey, my sister's friend just put her mouth on my weiner," then I'd be pretty freaked out. I actually remember being in 5th grade, and finding out a kid I knew smoked pot. It wrecked my world. I was so scared when I found out that people could be doing illegal things. It really woke me up, and I lost a part of my childhood that day.

So if someone my age was having something as taboo as sex, I'd be freaked out, and not because it's just a social no-no, but because it's so much more intense than anything I've ever experienced.

Of course, it really depends on the maturity and life experience of the kid. There can be exceptiond, as there are in every issue, but the major majority is just not ready for something like sex.

So my vote is No on the kids fucking issue.

What about condoms then eh? Children aren't exactly at a high risk of getting STDs from other children, but for those old enough to ejaculate it would at least prevent pregnancies.

And how is anyone under the age of 10 going to get anyone pregnant?

No, moosemonkey! Bah! But isn't it the main purpose of it all?

Mabye it's because you're thirteen.

The whole 'practice' thing, its a 'meh'. You could say that an eight year old child suffocates it's pet guinea pig to death to practice for hunting later on in life. :|

Yes. I know someone will soon say, 'BUT TAHTS WAT SOCIETY TODL U 2 THINK', but really, children aren't supposed to have sex at an early age. I'm not forbidding it, but I just say that childrens reproductive organs should at least have some time to mature themselves.

And stop with the practice thing. :p

Well yeah but i'm sure lots of people think overwise or some people probably create there own main purpose for sex..meh,just a theory.

Making my main argument look like it's the folly of an idiot is a clever ploy to lessen my chances of using it, but it's not going to work.

Society has given you your values - that's why different parts of the world have different values - they're seperate societies that have grown up and developed totally seperately, they've come up with their own ideas for what's acceptable and what's not. In some parts of the world, eating a camel's penis is common practice. In other parts of the world, it's totally disgusting. It's because we've been told that it's bad, whereas elsewhere that didn't happen. What we accept as normal is merely what we're told is normal, and what we're exposed to under normal circumstances. "Normal" is subjective to as far as what values you have.

And I don't see why I should stop with the practice thing - it's been scientifically proven among animals and it's beleived to be true for prehistoric man. If this is something that comes naturally then it stands to reason that simply supressing it will not suffice, because as anyone who has ever dealt with young children will tell you, kids do not always do what they are told.

Sex usually isn't for pregnancy these days. It's called casual sex.

Sick?! You must be stupid. 16 years old is fine. Just because Europeans are more liberal than other nations doesn't make us 'sick.' Idiot.

Sorry for double post, didn't see this post before.

Dino, my point was that even the children who consensually agree to let themselves be molested end up being troubled and regretting it anyway. I would think that children don't have the emotional capacity to deal with the whole emotional links with sexual intercourse.

And i'm sure if it was natural we'd see some form of it in nature, in the shape of pre-pubescant Chimps fondling each other, when we don't, we see Chimps that are the equivalents of teenagers doing that, but never younglings.

I don't see how saying "Wait until you're such and such an age" is a bad thing neither, and what proof do you have exactly that society says sex is bad?

Your post has a lot of conjecture and speculation in it, which I've deleted so that I can focus on this, which is incorrect.

Chimps HAVE been seen fondling each other. Chimps of all ages. Same with monkeys, gorillas, and so on. They all screw and fondle each other, brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, daughters, sons, grandparents, literally everyone and anyone. It's quite repulsive, but it happens.

So, just because animals do such things with families, are you saying we should allow such a thing also?

No. I'm not saying anything, I'm just correcting you. ;)

I'm actually having a hard time working out whether society has got a point with the whole "no sex for kids" thing... sex seems to be very similar to drinking - it's potentially damaging to your health if you don't do it responsibly, it can affect people in adverse ways, you need to be a certain age to be legally allowed to do it, but it's good, enjoyable healthy stuff when done responsibly and safely. But also there's this deep down nagging feeling telling me that sex shouldn't be portrayed as being so vulgar and disgusting.

Wow, interesting topic here.

I don't agree to kids having sex, they don't even know what they're doing.
Would you want to go mountain climbing if you didn't know what you were doing?

An excellent topic, Dino. I have to agree immensely. If society and all the people in it adopted a healthy, matter-of-fact view of sex, all of this nonsense wouldn't be a problem. Children exploring their sexuality pre-puberty makes perfect sense to me. I'm positive it's been the experience of men around the world of being aroused at a relatively young age and not knowing what the hell was going on. If we removed all these arbitrary taboos and were candid with the facts, children would be aware of how natural sex is, and would be in a much better frame of mind to learn about it, which would make the activity safer for everyone across the length of their lives.

Some people seem to think there's no point for children to have sex with one another, so why should they. This seems to exclude anybody from doing anything pleasurable at all. As other people have said, sex without the intent of offspring exists, and if we allow children to be aware of sex and its potential greatness and dangers, then society will benefit by being a healthier, more liberating place to be.

The idea of a single age of consent is also daft, as far as I can make out. I completely understand the reasoning, because there are paedophilic people in society - and this isn't to completely devalue them as people, merely to comment on the dangers they can cause - we need to protect children from their activities if, as Ambi points out, physical damage can result. Psychological damage is a bit harder to understand. Again, it seems to me as though the children's turmoil later on could be from seeing themselves as raped and abused, when in a utopian society, maybe this wouldn't be the case, and it would be normal and healthy as it was in Ancient Greece. Ergo perhaps it would be safer to adapt the law - people under 16 shouldn't be allowed to have sex with anyone of more than one year's age difference on either side, or something along those lines.

And why would we let children smoke and drink and take drugs at a young age? These are all activities which dramatically damage people's bodies with too few positive points to validate them, whereas sex, as has been repeatedly made clear, is fundamentally safe is performed with awareness.

That's ture, but those were the superficial problems I listed. The thing that should really keep them from having sex is the lack of experience.

Well, it's not likely, but it can happen enough to be a statistic.

Everybody has to start some place. Surely if they start practising at a young age, they'll be better at it and have more experience overall. I don't see how having a lack of experience is necessarily bad.

People who **** at 16 have had no previous sexual experience but they seem to get on fine. (Masturbating is a different kettle of fish).

'And why would we let children smoke and drink and take drugs at a young age?'

We don't let them.

Thus far, all of the people who are going on about children having relations at a young age seem to be bringing up speculative points. "It COULD be better for them. It COULD make society a better place" how? How could it? How, in the world, would society be a better place if we allowed children to experiment sexually? And i still haven't been given any proof that society is against sex.

It's also, in my opinion, pointless to bring up the animal agenda. Animals are a completely different specie to humans. We have a higher level of consciousness and are not driven by our primal instinct - animals, however, are. And like i mentioned prior, we have an emotional connection that is often established during sex.

Which brings me to another point - do we really want children having sex at such an early age? Not only will they lose respect for their virginity but they will lose respect for sex and love-making. Which are two different things.

That said, this happened in the 60s with everybody bounding around sexing each other, and because of some random Africans doing it with Chimpanzees, we eventually got a mutated form of SIV (HIV).

Great(!)

To you and Rich, I was referring to my previous post.

Sorry, leapt into a long thread and didn't read 100% of it. My fault.

I was refering to an earlier point that asked that question, and was repeating it to introduce my reasons just why we don't, and why that makes sense.

As far as my current train of thought goes, this would merely be an aspect of a much more grown up society, one where sex is not a taboo, and children are introduced to the idea at a young age and made away that's a primal urge as natural as eating, drinking and staying at the right temperature. They won't be embarassed or intrigued by it so much, and we can teach them to perform sex safely and guide them as to its appropriate use. If a society that doesn't titter at matters of natural fact and can eliminate the dangers of a commonplace activity isn't a marked improvement, what would that constitute?

Indeed we do have higher brain functions, which is exactly why people have come up, completely spontaneously, with the ideas that children shouldn't have sex and such. It's arbitrary, and we rationalise it with ideas that have been impregnated in us throughout our lives (that's not to in itself decry them as bad). And animals such as swans and other birds do form lifelong partnerships that any ornathologist could describe as love, or a primitive form of it. I don't think allowing free sex would completely eliminate human emotion. People would still find love-making to be an immense expression of love, maybe even more so if children can be tought the romantic notions of the activity.

I've never understood this. Preach to me here : just what's so special about virginity?

I was unaware of this theory. I understood that humans consumed chimps and contracted the amalgomate retrovirus that the chimps contracted by eating monkeys.

What if the child really, really wants to? If he comes up and asks you why not, exactly how are you going to justify it to him? Sentimentally speaking, I know how awkward it is to lose faith in those Blue Remember Hills of innocence and realise there are other substantial qualities to life, but really in the end we're denying intelligent beings of something they could be emotionally prepared for if we only let them grow uninhibited.

It's not speculative, it's actually based on some very well founded knowledge. Human psychology gives us a lot to draw from, as well as history. As Max pointed out, sex in ancient Greece wasn't a big deal, and people did it all the time, men and women, boys and girls, young and old - homosexuality was just as normal as heterosexuality, and it is well known that ancient Greece was a very successful society. Had this nonchalant attitude toward sex been a bad thing, it would almost certainly have reflected on the success of the society. But the ancient Greeks didn't fall victim to STDs, or psychological problems.

You need to stop thinking about this from the perspective of someone who is used to sex being considered bad. Stop listening to what society has told you for a minute, and just imagine sex as being normal - yes you've still got the same health risks, but other than that, HOW is it bad? If sex doesn't screw with people mentally, and sexual abuse doesn't really happen any more because people can get sex whenever they want so there's no need to abuse or rape to get it, then why is it bad?

I wouldn't be so sure. We are still animals, and we still have primal instincts very much hardwired into us. Fight or flight, sex drive, flirting, and the way we react to stimuli, are all quite primitive. As a species we like to distance ourselves from the rest of the natural world, and arrogantly assume that we're somehow more advanced than they are, but it's really only our use of advanced tools and language that make us more advanced as a species, physically we're just as primal as the ape.

That's speculation. It's not necesserily true that children will lose their respect for virginity or sex, and it's not necesserily true that it even matters if they do. Respecting virginity falls under the catagory of meaningless imposed values of society, as it is part of viewing sex as bad and impure. So if you do not consider sex to be bad, then virginity is not important and carries no meaning. Some people already don't respect sex and virginity anyway, so it's not like considering sex bad ever stopped those detirmined enough. But really I think it should be up to the individual what values he assigns to sex. Values should never be imposed, especially values that don't really make sense.

Also I agree with Max's point about it creating an easier environment to teach kids and people in general about sex. Sex is hard to teach to people because it's been made an embarressing, bad, controversial thing. However if it wasn't any of those things it would be much easier to teach people about the dangers and so on.

That's a dubious myth at best.

Okay, so, with the most part i agree with you - sexual relations needs to be taught properly and we do need to get rid of the embarassment that surrounds it, i just don't see how allowing children who are not emotionally, mentally or physically mature enough to perform such deeds to do so will help.

'I was unaware of this theory. I understood that humans consumed chimps and contracted the amalgomate retrovirus that the chimps contracted by eating monkeys.'

I've heard of that theory also.

On the topic of the Greeks, the Greeks only taught/did things with young teenagers when they deemed them physically and mentally mature. Which is completely different to saying "Oh, the Greeks shagged kids, surely we can!" besides, even if that was the case our two societies are incredibly different now and so that argument is obsolete.

On the animal topic - i'm not arrogant enough to distance ourselves from animals that much, and i agree totally that we are animals, but our emotions are far more developed than that of an animals and thus we're far more capable of being emotionally fudged up.

You still haven't answered my question on exactly how does society make sex bad?

You're saying that as though it isn't true that children don't screw anyway.

The fact of the matter is that they do. We just don't like to admit it as being sexual because that would harm their "innocence" or whatever crap. They fondle each other, they fool around, they're horny little beasts, who actually ARE capable of orgasm, even boys.

Why is there this preconcieved "mature enough" barrier in terms of emotions, mental state and physical development? I assure you that it doesn't exist. If it was the case that kids weren't capable of it, then they wouldn't be doing it, but the fact of the matter is that they are, and it's pissing society off.

But they did shag kids. Young teenagers ARE kids. The fact that they're physically and mentally mature is subjective to who is making those observations, but beyond that it still doesn't change the fact that they are just kids - kids who are capable of ejaculating or becoming pregnant, but still kids nonetheless. If these greeks did what they did then in today's society they would be branded pedophiles, and demonized by the news media. But back then it was fine with them, it wasn't an issue. Young or old, it didn't matter, sex was NOT taboo. So surely that's the whole point? They were a society in which sex wasn't an issue - our current society is one where sex very much is an issue. And look how it is affecting us. We see sex with kids as wrong, and we are a society which considers sex to be an issue. They saw sex with kids as normal, and they were a society which considered sex to not be an issue.

I don't follow your logic. It would seem to me that the fact that our two societies are indredibly different is the very essense and basis of the argument. We're comparing our society, one which considers sex to be a taboo, to a society which wasn't bothered by sex.

But in that sense you're comparing rape victims to consensual (for want of a better word) fuckers. Yes, someone forcing you to have sex with them is scary and can mess some people up, but I don't see how just plain having sex with people, no forcing involved, would mess someone up if sex wasn't a bad thing. Being 11 years old and having consensual sex with a 34 year old housewife in a society that doesn't consider sex to be bad, or a violation of innocence, or whatever, then it's not going to have any kind of adverse affect on someone.

Society doesn't make sex bad, society simply says that sex is bad. It stems from religion, the christian faith as it likes to call itself, which preached pretty early on in the modern world's development that god says sex is sinful, and should only be done if you intend on getting a woman pregnant. As an atheist I don't particularly enjoy being part of a society who's values come from a religion that I don't subscribe to, but there we go. There are some things that I guess we just have to live with.

Ah yes, enjoyable it is and I like you (probably) wouldn't say it's wrong if your'e under 18, sure why the hell not?, let's all go have sex right now (not with each other) with diffrent people did that sound "wrong" to you in any way?, I think this is what Dino is getting at society has poisened our minds thinking it's wrong to have sex if we have safe sex where is the problem? no body's gonna get pregnant etc. (although you can still get herpes) so why not?. If you got confused during the reading of this post I reccomend reading it again untill you understand it.

Dino, I very much feel your point,and I cant empathize with you enough, I think it is trully wonderfull such topic pops up

Jacob, First of all...I can see that most of your point, is that sexual intercourse is a very emotionally complex thing, I do not agree...the only reason it is, is because of all the preconceptions our society attaches to it first , are you a whore if you do it? are you taking advantage of someone? should you **** whitout love? why are you ruining your virginity? would you ruin a friendship with sex? whitout all those doubts and insecurities it is just plain old fun. and wouldnt that be what happened if kids did it? I sure as hell would have liked it to awaken to this when I was a kid. it would have just taken a lot of the complexities of it away.

Jacob, I seem to gather that you think of yourself as being a bit more open about this than you actually are.

"'NAMBLA stands for 'National Man-Boy Love Association' which is basically a group of Paedophiles and Child molesters stating that abusing a child is healthy for both the abuser and the abusee. I believe this also extends to children performing acts upon each other."

http://216.220.97.17/ does this really seem like the kind of webpage of molesters and abusers? it is simply advocating it's cause, and according to wikipedia they also made protestings against rape. Do people who passively advocate their cause and protest against raping really deserve these biased tags? I just wanted you to realize how you're acting about this.

You also mention the posiblity of emotionally being damaged by all of this, which I belives relates to psychology, and if I remember right the founder of this very field was the first one to record childs behaving sexually, little girls spontanueously humping their beds rythmically to obtain orgasm. now it was based on observations of this amongst other things that he set the foundation of psychology and theorised that traumas and emotional damage came from the inhibition of these very sexual desires. if psycholgy is such a well renowed field, how is it even remotely rational to still generate these sexual traumas to all of our kids?

because society doesnt want it, these child sexual studies were the only ones, and even though this person's memes made it and formed a very well renowed field, we still deny it's very foundations.

Ask Religious fools and the people on BBC Teens.

I see it as a disadvantage. As you gain nothing, where as being a whore at least you're feeling good!

Okay, i'm going to explain -
Young teenagers (as in 12+) i can see your point, vaguely. However, when it falls beneath that age bracket i really can't see how it would help society.

'We see sex with kids as wrong'

I'm sorry, but how exactly is it right?

' Yes, someone forcing you to have sex with them is scary and can mess some people up, but I don't see how just plain having sex with people, no forcing involved, would mess someone up if sex wasn't a bad thing.'

Because kids can be talked into it, so they consent. It's all very well saying "Oh, well this kid consented" but did he/she really? That's where the line blurs and that's where damage is done.

'does this really seem like the kind of webpage of molesters and abusers?'

Christ, go on the BNP website and i'm sure they don't brand themselves as mindless thugs with racist intent, but the good majority of them are.

I'm still trying to get my head around exactly how this is damaging society and exactly how allowing a 35 year old man have relations with a 5 year old would help. Okay, so kids are sexually mature at an earlier age, that doesn't mean we have to throw them in the deep end and hand them other to Fred West.

In a perfect world kids would have proper parenting and proper sex education. If they, then, wanted to pursue their sexual education and put it to literal use, i'm sure they could find somebody of their own age to experiment with. But allowing someone not of their generation to do it is rather obscene.

And NAMBLA only want to abolish the age of consent so that when they groom the kids into having sex with them, they don't get charged with statutory rape.

Consent laws ought to be at 18, period.

88Th8e 8ab88ov8e88 s8en88t88ence t8oo888k8 8838 an8d 8a8 h88a8l8f8 8m8in8ute8s 8to8 8ty8p8e.8
8
Fu8c8k8 8t8he8 8n8um8b8er 88 8i8n 8the 8ear8 8a88l8l8 8n8ig8ht8 8l8o88ng.8

Why? Just because the average American doesn't know which bit the condom goes on?

I couldn't agree more. I think you genuinely hit the nail on the head there and you've outlined my own point quite nicely. Well done.

Also, I'd like to commend you on your mention of NAMBLA. That's quite a controversial topic and I think you handled yourself well, and raised another very good point.

So, props to you sir.

I still think you should outline your arguments properly, since the subject matter has moved on quite rapidly from the original titles point. Which is about sexual abuse.