No Sex Under Age 18? Think Again!

[amicus]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090423/ap_on_he_me/us_morning_after_pill

WASHINGTON –

Seventeen-year-olds will be able to buy the "morning-after" emergency contraceptive without a doctor's prescription, a decision that conservatives denounced as a blow to parental supervision of teens but that women's groups said represents sound science.

Viewed as a victory by the left, the FDA approval overturns the Bush Administrations order that the contraceptive be available to only those over 18 years of age.

Now...pardon me, but, ahm, I thought even consensual sex under age 18 was a crime? Be this not some sort of legal contradiction or am I just imagining things?

~~~

Ah, well, my first, 'double dipper', this was on the same, Yahoo News Page:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090423/ap_on_re_us/us_young_volunteers

Volunteering has helped define a generation of young Americans who are known for their do-gooder ways. Many high schools require community service before graduation. And these days, donating time to a charitable organization is all but expected on a young person's college or job application.

High Schools require? I didn't know that, sneaky bastards!

Even so, an analysis of federal data has found that the percentage of teens who volunteer dipped in recent years, ending an upward trend that began after the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Patriotic kids, eh? Who'da thunk it?

But many agree that the reasons behind such numbers are more complicated than young people simply losing interest in giving back, especially in an era when so many worked without pay for the Obama campaign, while some who can't find jobs are volunteering to make use of their time and talents. Some nonprofit directors confirm that they've seen a surge in people seeking to volunteer since the recession hit.

I wonder if the Teacher's Union sent out a memoranda to 'require' kids to volunteer for the N'Obama campaign?

Oh, it never ends, does it?

Amicus

 

[slyc_willie]

I know that, around here (San Antonio/Bexar county, Texas), the statutory laws say that minors under eighteen may date, and that a minor can date anyone up to four years older than him or her. So, for example, a fifteen-year-old could date a nineteen-year-old, without fear of the older partner violating statutory rape laws.

The inclusion of "statutory rape" in that statement means that the legislature is well aware that sex may occur between the partners. But there's still something of a grey area there, which is called into question when, as a recent example, a sixteen-year-old girl became pregnant by her nineteen-year-old boyfriend. I'm not sure exactly what became of that case; it was only a blurb on the nightly news a few months back.

Regarding voluntary/mandatory volunteer service . . . don't know much about the reality of the situation, but it doesn't surprise me that many colleges -- or collegiate programs -- would look more favorably upon a high school graduate who donated their free time to whatever charities. Nor does it surprise me that teachers would make their own suggestions, based upon personal political or ethical ideals, to students seeking such endeavors.

Some teachers and instructors go a little far when it comes to guiding the students beneath them. I like to believe that most of them only have their students' best interest at heart, and their suggestions are merely that. But there have been many cases in which teachers have pushed their own moral, political, ethical and even religious views upon students. That's an abuse of power, but it's hardly a new story.

ETA: Regarding the selling of the 'morning after' pill to 17-year-olds . . . why the hell not? The vast majority of people I know lost their virginity before they were old enough to legally drive, or at least, around the same time. I know of numerous mothers who had their daughters put on birth control when they were sixteen, fifteen, even fourteen.

The only thing this new development does is circumvent some aspects of religion (such as the Roman Catholic Church's stance against birth control), which makes it an entirely different issue.

 

[amicus]

Thank you, Slyc...both are interesting issues from several aspects.

I have five grown daughters and I wonder what contemporary parents think about the laws that basically bypass or supercede parental influence with regards to their daughters. I pulled a kid out of a school that had an HIV positive student in attendance; the reason being the disease can be transmitted via toilet seats and feminine hygiene apparatus. That caused one hell of a ruckus at the school, but ask me if I cared. Stubborn old shit, eh?

I don't like even the idea of 'mandatory' required public service at any level. I understand the new administration has plans in the works for, 'mandatory' public service for all children before they can enter college and that scares the hell out of me, sounds like, 'conscription' or the draft, except for public service instead of military.

Even so, the very concept of helping others, charity, of giving because one chooses to, loses all meaning when one is not given a choice.

You are a bit of a nite owl too, aren't you?

ami

 

[slyc_willie]

Thank you, Slyc...both are interesting issues from several aspects.

I have five grown daughters and I wonder what contemporary parents think about the laws that basically bypass or supercede parental influence with regards to their daughters. I pulled a kid out of a school that had an HIV positive student in attendance; the reason being the disease can be transmitted via toilet seats and feminine hygiene apparatus. That caused one hell of a ruckus at the school, but ask me if I cared. Stubborn old shit, eh?

I don't like even the idea of 'mandatory' required public service at any level. I understand the new administration has plans in the works for, 'mandatory' public service for all children before they can enter college and that scares the hell out of me, sounds like, 'conscription' or the draft, except for public service instead of military.

Even so, the very concept of helping others, charity, of giving because one chooses to, loses all meaning when one is not given a choice.

You are a bit of a nite owl too, aren't you?

ami

Oh, now you ask . . .

Yeah, I stay up until the painkillers kick in. Damn ulcer on my foot. Anyway . . . .

I question your stance as to whether HIV can be transmitted via toilet seats. To my knowledge, the virus isn't that durable. It can only be passed through direct contact, mainly through fluid exchange.

Back in my college days, when I was a feature writer, then managing editor, for my college newspaper, I did a story on a place called Providence Home. It was a specialty care center for children born with HIV. As part of my interviewing, I took a tour of the place and was introduced to some of the babies. This was back in 1990, when the particulars of HIV were still being decided upon.

I remember a precious little thing, Juanita, born to a drug-addicted prostitute who took her own life shortly after giving birth. Juanita was just like any other infant . . . at least in appearance. I remember being told I had to put on a plastic smock and don rubber gloves before I could hold her, but for some reason, I took off one of the gloves and touched my bare skin to hers.

Little tyke threw up on me. Some of it got on my face. But she smiled and giggled afterward.

Afterward, at the urging of the caretakers, I had myself tested for HIV. Came up negative.

As far as 'mandatory' public service for high school students . . . honestly, apart from the initial reaction, what would be the harm? The US has become too much of a 'me first' culture. A little altruism could be a good thing.

 

[amicus]

Yes, the HIV thing in schools, I was told the same thing, but a big push was on to make it publicly acceptable and I spoke to my childrens' doctor and he said the disease was transmissible under those conditions and I was not willing to take even a remote chance of infection.

And, perhaps for the first time, I totally disagree with your last paragraph. I would pull my kids out of any school that demanded public service of any kind. Happily, I am past that hurdle, they are all past college age.

I am not going to press the point with you as I suspect you are goading me, ahm, in a good natured way, but as I said volunteer service should be volunteer not forced and it should be in a manner chosen by the volunteer. I think we need more self centered egoists in our society instead of so many me'too'er's.

But then, thas me.



Amicus

 

[xssve]

You aren't magically protected against unwanted pregnancy until you're 18 are you? Men lie and women fall for it, it's evolution at work.

 

[Submissioness]

They aren't saying that the morning after pill shouldn't be available for girls under 18. They are saying that 17 yr old should still have to consult her parents to get it. And I agree with that. They are still a minor and if a minor can't buy spray paint, fireworks or matches then they shouldn't be able to buy the morning after pill. It's stripping that right away from the parent. Allowing minors to buy it at 17 is telling them it's okay to be sexually irresponsible. (Not that all circumstances will be a result of irresponsibility). I'm not saying not to make it available. I'm saying parents should be involved before 18.

 

[Verdad]

I tend to agree with one of your points, Ami. I suppose you can guess which one. There's something repulsive about mandatory volunteering. Not that it seems like a bad idea to instill some communal spirit in the kids, but still, volunteering should be voluntary. I've seen elsewhere what can happen if it's not. While it's good for kids to learn some unselfishness, the next thing you know, young adults can't get a job before they've done their share of volunteering. A person in their twenties is stymied in building their adult life because they first have to 'donate' a year, or two, or three of their time. They're forced to live with their parents, and the parents have to pay for the bus ticket that gets the struggling volunteer to his workplace. Meanwhile, some employers rub their hands, because there's no need to open that one job more, since the position is continually filled by a parade of unwilling volunteers. It is a worst-case scenario, but it can happen.

As for contraception, Xssve already said it. Being underage is no protection against unwanted pregnancy. Indeed, the majority of unwanted pregnancies occurs right there. Anyone as offended by abortion as you seem to be, ought to applaud the preventive measures.

 

[JamesSD]

Now...pardon me, but, ahm, I thought even consensual sex under age 18 was a crime? Be this not some sort of legal contradiction or am I just imagining things?

As noted, age of consent laws vary greatly by states. Specifically, what age a person must be to give consent to sex with any adult. For purposes of interstate commerce (i.e. porn, and in some cases transporting a minor across state lines) it's 18.

In cases where sex is consentual and both parties are under the age of consent, I don't think there is legal precedent for prosecuting either party for statutory rape. In the awful cases involved pre-pubescent children a different set of rules apply.

So, in practice, a 16 year old boy and 15 year old girl can have sex and it is not viewed as illegal. In practice this happens a lot (note the average age most teens lose their virginity).

Avoiding a lengthy discussion, the legal status of older teens is complex, to say the least. On most matters in the eyes of the law an 18-year old is a full adult (except drinking alcohol, in an odd legal precedent). For 16 and 17 year olds it is much more complex, particularly in cases where the desires of the teen can be in conflict of those with the parent. Again, state laws vary drastically, and I'm not sure of the details of a lot of them.

 

[glynndah]

My son's high school had mandatory community service as a requirement set by the senior English teacher. Ten hours and the venue was wide open. Some seniors came to the preschools and grade schools and read with the little ones; some volunteered at nursing homes; still others picked up trash at a local park. The teacher provided a list of suggestions, but accepted just about any "helping" activity.

 

[amicus]

Verdad...nice post, and you expanded the concept of 'volunteerism', very educational.

Abortion and contraception is a rather special issue, not personally so, but intellectually, and I will try to explain that.

The sexual nature of the species is intense and, 'pleasure' is sought even before a child can walk as I have observed babies of both sexes fondling genitalia because it, 'feels' good to them.

Although it is 'claimed', that some Polynesian societies encourage sexual exploration and have no taboo's on age; most societies view the sexual interaction between opposite genders as something 'unique', and attempt to 'guide' behavior.

In my process of thinking on such issues, I try to eliminate from consideration, all religious and societal boundaries imposed on human actions and thoughts, and attempt to study the nature of the individual and his relationships with others, in and out of the social aspect.

I have concluded, and you may agree or disagree, that a romantic sexual encounter between two opposite sex individuals is the most profound and intense personal relationship available to the species.

It can and should be a magnificent moment of personal fulfillment for both and a source of answering all, or many of the questions, that have been building since birth: what is is all about?

As such, it should not be treated lightly or casually or viewed as recreational pleasure for either, as I suggest that doing so, devalues the experience for both.

Since we know that nature's purpose in the evolution of sex, is to provide a means for species continuation and survival, the act then, includes that knowledge and the responsibilities that go along with it.

Thus, and I trust you can follow the logic, thus to contravene a possible creation of life by contraception, is, again, a 'devaluing' of the act by removing the possible responsibility that one has for the act.

Abortion falls into the same category but at an even high valuation. Once the intent of nature has been fulfilled, the creation of a new human life; that responsibility should and must be honored if the act is to sustain value.

Again, whether you agree or not, is not the issue; what I provided is an intellectual route to comprehending a moral system that does not depend upon the divine deity to determine right and wrong, but finds value in merely that nature of being that humans possess.

Thanks for the inspiration...

amicus

 

[Submissioness]

As for contraception, Xssve already said it. Being underage is no protection against unwanted pregnancy. Indeed, the majority of unwanted pregnancies occurs right there. Anyone as offended by abortion as you seem to be, ought to applaud the preventive measures.

Is this directed to me? I never said anthing about abortion.

 

[slyc_willie]

My son's high school had mandatory community service as a requirement set by the senior English teacher. Ten hours and the venue was wide open. Some seniors came to the preschools and grade schools and read with the little ones; some volunteered at nursing homes; still others picked up trash at a local park. The teacher provided a list of suggestions, but accepted just about any "helping" activity.

See, now I think that's a good idea. Keeping it open-ended like that allows the student to select something that suits him or her. This, of course, leaves the door open for cheap exits ("I 'helped out' at my dad's store, is that cool?"), but those who take it seriously will find the experience rewarding.

 

[glynndah]

See, now I think that's a good idea. Keeping it open-ended like that allows the student to select something that suits him or her. This, of course, leaves the door open for cheap exits ("I 'helped out' at my dad's store, is that cool?"), but those who take it seriously will find the experience rewarding.

The service had to be documented. There was a form to be filled out.

 

[slyc_willie]

The service had to be documented. There was a form to be filled out.

Do you have an idea of how the students felt about it?

 

[glynndah]

Do you have an idea of how the students felt about it?

Most of them felt it was just another hoop to jump through on the way to graduation and waited until the last few weeks to find something "worthwhile" to do.

 

[slyc_willie]

Most of them felt it was just another hoop to jump through on the way to graduation and waited until the last few weeks to find something "worthwhile" to do.

Can't exactly say I'm surprised. Most high school students (at least, in the last two decades) I've known have been preoccupied with themselves first. I guess we can attribute that to both age and American society.

To be fair, I was a very introverted kid in high school. I graduated early (age 16) and rarely found ways to involve myself in the world outside my tiny social bubble. But I can now appreciate those kids who made the effort. If I had been "persuaded" into serving for volunteer duty in some way, I think I would have gained an earlier appreciation for those less fortunate. As it was, it took me more than a decade before I looked upon the homeless, for example, with anything but disdain.

 

[Verdad]

Verdad...nice post, and you expanded the concept of 'volunteerism', very educational.

Abortion and contraception is a rather special issue, not personally so, but intellectually, and I will try to explain that.

The sexual nature of the species is intense and, 'pleasure' is sought even before a child can walk as I have observed babies of both sexes fondling genitalia because it, 'feels' good to them.

Although it is 'claimed', that some Polynesian societies encourage sexual exploration and have no taboo's on age; most societies view the sexual interaction between opposite genders as something 'unique', and attempt to 'guide' behavior.

In my process of thinking on such issues, I try to eliminate from consideration, all religious and societal boundaries imposed on human actions and thoughts, and attempt to study the nature of the individual and his relationships with others, in and out of the social aspect.

I have concluded, and you may agree or disagree, that a romantic sexual encounter between two opposite sex individuals is the most profound and intense personal relationship available to the species.

It can and should be a magnificent moment of personal fulfillment for both and a source of answering all, or many of the questions, that have been building since birth: what is is all about?

As such, it should not be treated lightly or casually or viewed as recreational pleasure for either, as I suggest that doing so, devalues the experience for both.

Since we know that nature's purpose in the evolution of sex, is to provide a means for species continuation and survival, the act then, includes that knowledge and the responsibilities that go along with it.

Thus, and I trust you can follow the logic, thus to contravene a possible creation of life by contraception, is, again, a 'devaluing' of the act by removing the possible responsibility that one has for the act.

Abortion falls into the same category but at an even high valuation. Once the intent of nature has been fulfilled, the creation of a new human life; that responsibility should and must be honored if the act is to sustain value.

Again, whether you agree or not, is not the issue; what I provided is an intellectual route to comprehending a moral system that does not depend upon the divine deity to determine right and wrong, but finds value in merely that nature of being that humans possess.

Thanks for the inspiration...

amicus

That's a lot to respond to Ami, but I'm in the mood today, so I'll see if I can cover it.

Let's first suppose, for the sake of argument, that I shared your concern for cheapening of sex. Would that say anything toward the issue of contraception?

Not at all, I'm afraid. The link you're trying to suggest—that available contraception leads to more meaningless sexual activity—just isn't there. An individual will have as much sex as they want, need, can have, and think they should have. Availability of contraception neither increases appetites nor changes attitudes. All it does is prevent unwanted pregnancies.

Any argument about contraception encouraging promiscuity is, thus, unsound.

It's still the parents' responsibility to instill the values they deem appropriate, and if there's something on the societal level a parent has a hard time battling, it's not contraception. It's the cultural double bind in which the kids are put, especially girls.

On the one side there's the message that a girl is only as good as she pleases some schmuck in bed, and on the other, there's the ever-present threat of slutdom. Adding the impossibility of protection in the mix is not just cruel and unusual, but also provably ineffective as a deterrent. The number of teen pregnancies says all that needs to be said about that.

Raise the kids with a healthy regard for who they are and what role sexuality plays in their lives, and when the time comes, they'll know how to employ contraception in their best interest. This best interest doesn't normally involve spending one life on one's backs with feet pointed toward the ceiling, so it's silly to think that's where it would lead.

But what about your premise that 'casual' sex is immoral in the first place? Well, I'm afraid that doesn't fly either. It doesn't fly as an extension of your 'sanctity of life' principle because one doesn't follow from the other. "Life is valuable" doesn't lead to "it's immoral to refrain from creating life" any more than "music is valuable" leads to "it's immoral to refrain from making music." Much less does it allow one to say that because hands are used to play piano, a potential for playing piano must be there every time you use your hands.

Too, contrary to what you said, not every intercourse carries a potential for new life. There's only a narrow window every month, so your reasoning would lead to intercourse being immoral some 25 out of 28 days, immoral between couples who are infertile or past the child-bearing age, immoral whenever it ends in coitus interuptus, and every other sexual intimacy that doesn't lead to the 'goal', including solo masturbation, would be immoral too.

Even the RC church had to back out of there.

They had to, because the function of sex in humans isn't procreation only. You often go after Xssve for his evolutionary approach, disapproving of his generalizations from animals to humans, yet in this instance you're doing the same. Even among primates, sex serves more than reproduction. Among humans, it's a means of bonding and satisfying physical and emotional needs, which is enough to make these reasons as valid, as meaningful, and yes, as 'natural' as procreation.

The last possible ground you have for condemning promiscuity is if you consider sexuality in terms of virtue. Not in the hysterical, religious meaning of virtue, but in the Aristotelian sense of that which leads to good living. In that sense, I can agree with you that a disproportionate focus on anything, sex included, isn't likely to be conducive to eudaemonia. It's probably bad for begonia and chrysanthemums too, but the problem is just that you can't decide what too much means for a given person.

Some people get fat on the same diet that barely sustains others. Some need to talk to a dozen friends a day to feel connected, where others would experience that as an assault on their privacy. There are those that can't be happy without a plethora of interests to pursue, while others dedicate themselves to perfection in a single field. So too with sex. The ideal, most fulfilling quantity, quality, and variety of sexual behaviors can only be left to an individual to figure out. A society dedicated to individual's flourishing should enable him to make the best choices and then stand back.

In short, or not so short, I guess we've just disagreed as thoroughly as possible. I hope it was as good for you as it was for me.

 

[Verdad]

Is this directed to me? I never said anthing about abortion.

Nope, I addressed Amicus by his name. Hi there, regardless.

 

[xssve]

You make me so hot when you use words like "eudaemonia".

I'm quite sure that the fact that amicus is the father of a bunch of girls reaching sexual maturity has a lot do with his attempt to make moral relativism sound more rational than it is, in the objective sense. It is rational, but only subjectively so.

Most people would just admit that, but...

 

[Submissioness]

Nope, I addressed Amicus by his name. Hi there, regardless.

Thought since you didn't quote, and it was directly after mine that you were talking to me. Then I saw my quote, "a very happy unborthday to you" and figured you might have thought that was anti-abortion. LOL. Silly misunderstanding.

 

[amicus]

That's a lot to respond to Ami, but I'm in the mood today, so I'll see if I can cover it.

Let's first suppose, for the sake of argument, that I shared your concern for cheapening of sex. Would that say anything toward the issue of contraception?

Not at all, I'm afraid. The link you're trying to suggest—that available contraception leads to more meaningless sexual activity—just isn't there. An individual will have as much sex as they want, need, can have, and think they should have. Availability of contraception neither increases appetites nor changes attitudes. All it does is prevent unwanted pregnancies.

Any argument about contraception encouraging promiscuity is, thus, unsound.

~~~

A well written and excellently worded rebuttal, Verdad, thank you for the investment of time and effort and the civil manner in which you responded.

First off, you make the case that the availability of contraception does not lead to more sexual activity and I add, at increasingly younger ages.

"...An individual will have as much sex as they want, need, can have, and think they should have. Availability of contraception neither increases appetites nor changes attitudes...."

I fully agree that becoming sexually active is indeed an individual choice. But, please view the word, 'choice' as the key word, and know that, 'choice', requires knowledge of the risks, both mental and physical, and that the concept of 'moral', plays a role in making choices.

Prior to the 'sexual revolution' said to have begun in the 1950's, for a girl to become sexually active while still in high school, was almost unheard of and had heavy social repercussions concerning her, 'reputation', not just among peers but the community at large.

It was commonly expected that a young lady would be chaste, a virgin, at marriage, and that too, was a 'value' at that time and place in our history.

"...Current research indicates that fifty-three percent of females between the ages of 15 and 19 are sexually experienced. Teenagers at the end of the 1980s were more likely to be sexually active than teenagers at the beginning of the decade..."

Most similar studies will confirm that teenagers are more sexually active now than they were in previous times. Assuming you can confirm that and accept it, I pose the question: why?

There is also a difference between teenagers from strict two parent homes, those attending religious instead of public schools and those from rural or urban and inner city environs.

Thus, I make my case that sexual activity before marriage is a 'values choice', and that those values differ between families and individuals.

As with all my attempts to present issues for discussion on this forum, the intent is to 'discover', a basic premise, or truth, that might enlighten one concerning human moral and ethical choices.

I suggest it is just common sense to conclude that the easy availability of contraception, birth control pills and condoms, is in part responsible for the increase in sexually active teen agers. The larger part, is a matter of upbringing and again, the casual attitude towards sexual activity that you and others advocate, removes the social stigma from promiscuity and has led now, to a majority of children 15 to 19, becoming sexually active.

I reject the supposition that increased sexually active young people is the result of a more, 'enlightened era', an example of women achieving equality and simply a result of changing times.

Most societies as far back in history as you choose to acknowledge, have acted to prevent females from becoming sexually active at an early age. In America and other western nations, 'Chaperones', often accompanied young people to various outings to insure the chastity of the female was maintained and could be attested to.

"...An individual will have as much sex as they want, need, can have, and think they should have. Availability of contraception neither increases appetites nor changes attitudes...."

I quote again your premise that the availability does not increase appetite, and on that I can agree, but with reservations, the easy availability of a bowl of smooth creamy chocolate ice cream, placed on a table before you, 'may' increase your appetite. And, 'attitudes' are not innate, they are learned from those surrounding the individual and the home and school environment, and those, 'attitudes' are malleable and peer pressure plays a role.

This is already overly long, so I will address the other issues you, 'rebutted' in another post.

regards...

amicus

 

[xssve]

Amicus, all that emphasis on "virtue" is for, is so that men don't have to wonder whether they're the father of their children or not - considering that in the times you speak, most marriages were arranged by the family with little regard to what the bride wanted, her "value" lay predominantly in her virginity.

"Virtuous" sv. "damaged goods" has nothing to do with character, it has to do with paternity assurances.

When virginity is not an issue, men usually prefer more experienced women, except lazy men, who prefer women who don't know what they're missing.

 

[amicus]

Difficult as always to sort out your, 'personal' opinions, those dime a dozen kind, and the few attempts you make at rational commentary.

For example, studies have shown, some of which you might have stumbled upon, that females choose a 'virile' appearing male with certain visible attributes, to father their children to pass on strong genetic traits. Secondly, many women commit to a long term relationship with a 'good provider', but keep the genetic possibilities open by engaging in extra marital sex with those, 'dangerous boys' that attract them, but are poor providers.

One out of every five humans are Muslim and although you may question the practice of sequestering their females, they do so for a reason.

It is such a shame that you treat women as though the were just little men with teats and lacking a penis; they are so much more than that.

Amicus

 

[JackLuis]

This a strange trend for a porn site?

<Thread Un-Jacked>