How devastating is it to find out your high school teenage daughter is having sex?

mapshap wrote:

Lol, of course my point does not fail, and you know it. Replace great-uncle with any family member you want, you cannot possible know enough about all of their sex lives, academic history, and things that happened before you were born to make the claim you made with any kind of certainty.

Unless they've lied to me, then yes, I can make those claims. I speak with my family a lot. And so far, I have no reason to doubt they've been dishonest, as they have never done anything that would lead me to that conclusion.

*Although I was wrong about one point -- one of them has failed a course, although I had forgotten about that.

Pretty much what i'm trying to get at. You'll only find out of your sexually compatible with your current significant other by well, engaging in sexual activity. As much as candela want's to dispute, people in 2011 have sex before they are married, and for various reasons. Ive lost count as to how many times i've had sex, but in good faith, and perhaps a bit of responsibilty on my part, their are no mini-me's floating around, and have be clean as virgins vagina if you will.

Anbessa wrote:

As much as candela want's to dispute, people in 2011 have sex before they are married, and for various reasons.

I disputed this in the first few pages of the thread, but have changed my mind. Why do you persist with incorrect information?

jjjjjjjjj wrote:

if harm is your criterion now, there are many other activities that cause more harm. focus on smoking or eating a high sugar or high fat diet.

Yes, and just as I am arguing that premarital sex is impractical, I would argue that smoking or eating fatty foods is impractical as well.

Are there impractical activities that I partake in? Certainly, there are many. And for many people, premarital sex is one of those activities.

In other words, because my internet style of writing doesn't exceed your expectations, your going to consider my points invalid as a whole. Listen babe, you've been nothing but condescending, outlandish, and most of all arrogant. Do you want me to give you an example? You want correct spelling and grammar? You present yourself as a stuck-up scholar simply by the way you write. You want examples? Go read a scholarly journal. This is the internet, and if your looking for a civlized "coherent" argument, then I seriously question how smart you truly are. Your at letsrun fool. Go have sex, and only then will I respond to your claims =)

Maybe this was addressed earlier, but what's the big deal with marriage? If you and a woman have a certain kind of relationship, getting married is just getting someone else to call it official. Whether or not you and your partner are ready to have sex depends only on the relationship.

It makes no sense to have a problem with premarital sex. Even saying no sex before a certain age would be completely arbitrary. Anyway, there's nothing wrong with making mistakes. It's the best way to learn, especially in the realm of life experience and knowing yourself. If you think having sex once is going to make your entire life hollow you're valuing sex way too much. There's more to life than sex. If on the other hand it's not a big deal, then it doesn't really matter if you have premarital sex.

Anbessa wrote:

In other words, because my internet style of writing doesn't exceed your expectations, your going to consider my points invalid as a whole. Listen babe, you've been nothing but condescending, outlandish, and most of all arrogant. Do you want me to give you an example? You want correct spelling and grammar? You present yourself as a stuck-up scholar simply by the way you write. You want examples? Go read a scholarly journal. This is the internet, and if your looking for a civlized "coherent" argument, then I seriously question how smart you truly are. Your at letsrun fool. Go have sex, and only then will I respond to your claims =)

Are you female? I'm going to have to change my tactics.

The only way that I have been condescending was in my response to those who could not read. Other than that, I have simply been sharing my views. Outlandish? No, there are many people that think similarly to me, even if it constitutes a small percentage of the population. Arrogant? Arrogant means "Having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities". Well, except for the "exaggerated" part, then yes... I kid! I kid! :)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the basis for your opinion that premarital sex is inherently bad has stemmed from the dangers to which the participants open expose themselves.

We then determined that being in a motor vehicle or on a public road is more likely to cause harm to an individual than sex, given the level of precautions taken in both activities.

So if you refrain from premarital sex because of perceived dangers (even though abstinence doesn't insulate you from acquiring or transmitting an STD) and because safety is your primary concern, why would you get on a public road now, given that you know you're more likely to get hurt from that activity, than from another from which you're already abstaining?

You've said that it's impractical to never leave your house, but if safety really took priority over all else, you would make it happen. Jemma Pixie Hixon is a world famous singer who hasn't left the confines of her home in two years.

I would offer that just as most people leave their homes and go about their daily lives while risking injury and death on the roads, most people engage in sex prior to marriage because, it would seem, just as you think it's impractical to never leave home, most seem to think that it's impractical to develop a relationship to the point of a lifetime commitment without establishing a sexual relationship at some point along the way. And that's biologically driven, and just as cars and roads are safer because of improved technology and traffic laws, better availability of contraceptives and education has reduced the risks of sex, to the point that fewer people contract life threatening STDs each year in the US than are injured in car accidents.

You don't like that risk, so you sit it out, just as someone who is afraid of being struck by a car stays home. You're both in the minority, as most accept the risks and use their education and technology to keep themselves as safe as possible. Those who are more cavalier put themselves at greater risk. But most everybody leaves the house, and most everybody has sex before getting married. Some people have no desire to get married. It's not for everybody.

What I think is odd about your position, is that by your rules, you would find fault with a sexually active, unmarried 25 year old (or of any age, for that matter), but not a sexually active, married 16 year old.

fewafe wrote:

Maybe this was addressed earlier, but what's the big deal with marriage? If you and a woman have a certain kind of relationship, getting married is just getting someone else to call it official. Whether or not you and your partner are ready to have sex depends only on the relationship.

It makes no sense to have a problem with premarital sex. Even saying no sex before a certain age would be completely arbitrary. Anyway, there's nothing wrong with making mistakes. It's the best way to learn, especially in the realm of life experience and knowing yourself. If you think having sex once is going to make your entire life hollow you're valuing sex way too much. There's more to life than sex. If on the other hand it's not a big deal, then it doesn't really matter if you have premarital sex.

You make (some of the few) good points.

From a PRACTICAL standpoint, you could reshape my argument into one that limits sex to a monogamous, long-term relationship. All of my points are still valid.

Right, you've been condescending, your claims are outlandish because the majority believe them to be, and yes arrogant. Perhaps Professor Philosophy didn't go over this one in class today. Rather than reading the webster dictionary, trying using it in a real world example. For instance, you are arrogant by the way you write. You write as though you are superior to others, specifically those who believe pre-marital sex to be practical. You truly believe every word that you spew to be the truth, hence, you essentially come across to others (me atleast) that you are better than me, in terms of character and education. That's considered arrogance.

See, people like you see the world in black and white. And as an example, I use you and me! I say your arrogant, you say your not and give me a definition of what arrogance means. I give you an instance where your actions could be considered arrogant, but might not meet the exact meaning of the word. In your head therefore, you arent arrogant.

You say pre-marital sex is impractical, I say it's not. You tell me the horrible dangers that are associated with it, but somebody tells you the horrible dangers associted with smoking, or having a bad diet. What's considered impractical? Again, there's no black and white, and you can debate your views until the cows come home, but what good are you doing repeating yourself that 'pre-marital sex is impractical'? Go have sex, please, and do yourself a favor =)

Candela, you may be good at science and math but, at least from the evidence on here, are absolutely abhorrent at moral reasoning, or argumentation in general.

You have made sweeping claims then backed off by adding the qualifier (4 pages later) that it only reflects "your own personal beliefs" and you are not trying to tell people what to do. Then you further backtrack by saying you will no longer address moral issues. All of this without actually providing any premises to support your claims (sweeping or otherwise). Instead, you blame people for trying to be relativistic about their moral arguments. This may be the first time (and if what you said about the majority of people around you agreeing with, it could very well be) the first time you have made a sweeping claim without any support and been called out on it. If so I am very sorry for you. Pre-marital sex may or may not be immoral but not seriously considering or making a moral argument until after college (I assume you're a grad student) certainly is.

Then when people try to make arguments by comparison (something you were fond of earlier) you find a point to distinguish it on and say their entire argument fails. For example, you said the example about driving never being perfectly safe is invalid because unlike driving premarital sex is not necessary in todays society and thus they are impossible to compare. However, on page 2 you compared a psychopath's stealing to premarital sex, then when people said that stealing, unlike premarital sex, is illegal you responded, "My analogies are valid. Shocking perhaps, but no less valid. If it is the "shocking" part that bothers you, then I can see why so many are irritated. But you can't possibly be bothered by the reasoning." (page 8).

Similarly, in response to your argument that your family has never failed a class, been homeless, had an STD, and so on, people aptly responding that that is a worthless argument. They said the conclusion was irrelevant (you responding that just because a 45 year old parent is older does not mean he knows more about parenting then 22 year old you) and your premises were faulty. You have tried, and failed to hide these flaws in your argumentation with sounds and fury signifying nothing.

On page 7 you said, “All that I said was that I personally thought it was wrong.” In fact this is the first time you said you personally thought premarital sex is wrong. All the other times you were basing your assertion on premarital sex being (for the sake of brevity this is only on page 3, though nothing you say until page 7 contradicts these statements though there are more examples): something people feel guilty about "deep inside" and "universally immoral."

On page 3 you said, "If you're not religious, then you have nothing to reference to tell you whether X is good or bad other than what your "gut feeling" is telling you -- we'll say it is some sensation in your brain that is there because you evolved that way.

So it comes down to either: what percentage of the population has a religion telling them that premarital sex is wrong, or what percentage of the population evolved such that their brain is causing them an undesirable "guilty" feeling?”

The above quote is also where some of the arguments that you are religious came from. You do not qualify, as you later do, that you don't actually think any religions prohibit premarital sex, and you imply that religion is the source of morality for people (unless they evolved it some other way).

"Most people on earth (> 90%) *claim* to be religious, and they are ignoring their religion and doing something that is wrong." Page 3.

The clear implication here is that the religions that most people on earth (>90%) follow all say premarital sex is wrong. You backed away from this later on page 7 after people made the accusations that you are a bible thumper. When they persisted to give more weight to your numerous religion posts rather than the one disavowing it you called them illiterate.

Throughout this thread you have contradicted yourself and revised your opinion all the while insulting people who call you out on it. Some would think this is clear evidence that you are a troll. I will give you the benefit of the doubt (and maybe I'll get a fun response) and just assume you have never attempted any form of moral reasoning before and for the previous 22 years it has been enough for you to say "it is wrong" and leave it at that.

Moral reasoning is an important part of adulthood, and you are just taking your first steps so I understand if you want to give it up for the "impractical" argument. But next time you want to make a moral argument try to anticipate people asking why. At its simplest level you should have a syllogism is support your claim (eg. Weapons that cannot discriminate between innocent people and combatants are wrong. Nuclear weapons cannot discriminate between innocent people and combatants are wrong. Therefore, nuclear weapons are wrong).

Obviously, a simplest syllogisms will rely on religion for their backing because you cannot question the premises without questioning the religion (or interpretation of it) and that was your first thought though you lacked the knowledge and/or conviction to back up your arguments. But with most premises, especially about basic topics like murder and genocide, you will find that even though it is possible to argue about premises ad infinitum you will not need to because of there is an overlapping consensus.

Rather than returning to your cave of science and math and pretending that you did take the first steps toward adulthood accept this for what it is. Try to figure out your own beliefs. I personally think you will feel guilty if you do not.

A very coherent argument you have there. Before I address your points, I would like to again emphasize that I believe everyone has the freedom to make their own decision on the issue of premarital sex. In fact, as long as it does not hurt anyone else, I think everyone is free to make *any* personal decision.

Back to the practicality issue, what sort of job could one take that minimizes transportation? There really aren't that many of them. Therefore, it is IMPRACTICAL not to drive.

On the other hand, the only thing good that can come out of premarital sex is short-term pleasure. I don't think anyone believes that short-term pleasure fits the dictionary definition of "practical". What else can come out of premarital sex? An unwanted pregnancy (someone pointed out that unmarried people may cohabit, but for my argument's purposes, I'm counting that as "married" since they are living very similarly to how married people do). Or an STD.

Benefit: Short-term pleasure

Risk: Unwanted pregnancy, STD

Both risks have high "damage" associated with them and for such a small benefit, how can that possibly be a practical situation? Now let's take a look at it from a married person's perspective:

Benefit: Short-term pleasure, desired pregnancy

Risk: None

You might say -- married people could get an STD too. But if both of them never had premarital sex, then they can't get an STD (excluding the fringe cases of getting one in some bizarre incident).

Now let's look at driving:

Benefit: A myriad of career and socially advancing opportunities

Risk: Getting injured or killed

This is a practical situation. It has real, day-to-day value. The risk is again "high damage", but the benefit is vastly greater than that of the premarital sex case, such that the ratio betwixt the two is high enough to warrant the dictionary definition of "practical".

And for your last statement, that "by your rules, you would find fault with a sexually active, unmarried 25 year old (or of any age, for that matter), but not a sexually active, married 16 year old". That is correct. A married 16 year old will have only one partner through life*. Assuming that 16-year old's partner has similarly abstained from pre-martial sex, neither of them will get an STD and any pregnancies are fine, since assuming they were mature enough to get married, they are mature enough to have the resources at their disposal to handle a child.

*What about divorce you ask? Then it's no longer practical. Having had many marriages and divorces is just as bad from a practical standpoint as premarital sex.

^^^^ Goodnight candela. The real world doesnt abide by "its my own opinion" or "it's just wrong". When someone (such as myself, because I love calling people like you out) challenges you, stick to your own thoughts and beliefs and show me proof. How do you truly know pre-marital sex is impractical? You don't. Join the club, and see what the world has to offer rather then trying to rescue it.

How did this jackass hijack and troll a thread so damn hard?

I give captain dickless a 10/10 for his high quality and persistent trolling, but there better be a post asking for pics of the dude's underage daughter somewhere in this thread or I'm going to lose all sorts of respect for this site.

If safety takes precedence over all else, the availability of employment is inconsequential. What's the point of having a job if you get killed on the way to work?

Where's the date for this? It's such a broad statement: I could be 50 years old, in a non-cohabiting relationship with a partner for 30 years, and we decide to have sex for the first time, and its only benefit is short term pleasure? Or I could be in that relationship for 30 years, and could have had a sexual relationship with that partner from an early stage. In either case, how is the sex in question only there for short term gain?

Or this: I know a couple in their 70s. He's a widower, she's a widow, and they've had a romantic (and sexual relationship) for several years. Do you really believe that the sex between them is there only for those orgasms?

I could go to the movie theater to see a new film, for short-term pleasure. I could get into a car wreck on the way home, which is more likely than me catching a life threatening STD. Should I not go to the movies for that short term pleasure because of the risks associated with driving?

Are you assuming that a sexual relationship has the goal of delivering only short term pleasure, without adding depth or substance to the relationship? And do you assume that all married persons wish to have children?

You concede that abstinence is not guarantee for being STD free. You may be less likely to contract one, but just as you're less likely to be the victim of a car accident if you don't drive, your risk is not zero.

It seems that a lot of this comes down to the assumed value you place on sex. It would seem that you are in the minority on the weight and value placed on the benefits of sex (even with the risks taken into account).

I would argue that, given the low risk of contracting an STD while using proper protection, the benefits of having sex before making a lifelong commitment (assuming that those in question desire such a commitment) outweigh the mitigated risks.

Does that really make sense to you? That the 16 year old is likely to be more prepared for sex and a lifetime commitment than someone ten years older? Is it a coincidence that states that have a younger average age of first marriage also tend to have the highest rates of divorce?

Jeff Wigand wrote:

candela wrote:

Back to the practicality issue, what sort of job could one take that minimizes transportation? There really aren't that many of them. Therefore, it is IMPRACTICAL not to drive.

If safety takes precedence over all else, the availability of employment is inconsequential. What's the point of having a job if you get killed on the way to work?

Don't forget the unstated assumption of candela's that all traffic accidents happen en route to work. A family (or an individual) going to a birthday party or water world for the day (short term benefit) is still no more practical than premarital sex. In fact it is even less so. The risk of serious injury or death is much higher and the benefit is, by candela's standards, equally as fleeting. Really, candela's argument merely shows that weighing the benefits and risks driving to work may be practical, but it is still silent on all the other driving people do.

At least I'm getting some quotes now. Much better than not reading.(And feel free to quit arguing with me if it emotionally bothers you -- I dislike causing others distress. It does not bother me, however, which is why I persist).

I'm not against making a moral argument, although it will be long and drawn out. Do you want me to continue it? Also, in terms of sweeping claims -- sweeping claims about my own beliefs? Why yes, I have. Tell me where I have instructed people to behave a certain way or advocated getting some sort of law or ruling passed to enforce what I think. (Hint: nowhere).

Well, my shocking analogy was a logically valid (isomorphic) analogy. The analogy involving driving was not. You could in fact reduce the two to a series of logical propositions from a base set of axioms, and my proposition would be consistent.

They? Which two people? I thought it was just one person. Sounds and fury... like? (Insert quote here).

Nope, page #1, reply #4: "No it's not. Rationalize whatever you want, but it's still wrong." There is an implicit "I believe" in there.

Yes, my point still stands. People look to some process or method as a source of morality. I was picking the two most common (someone later listed a few more options). I said later that my own source of morality *on the issue of premarital sex* was the 2nd method I listed.

Interestingly though, I've never explicitly said I was religious. Thus any arguments against me on the basis that "I am religious" are unfounded. I was very careful in crafting that argument, as well as later ones, to prevent such an attack.

Yeah... this sounds kind of contradictory. It seems as though I am saying most people are religious and their religion prohibits premarital sex, and then I later say that religion does not prohibit premarital sex.

The problem is that I never looked up any data qualifying how many people ACTUALLY BELIEVE their religion prohibits premarital sex, so I indeed could be incorrect there. Yeah, I'm probably wrong about that. But I stand by my personal interpretation of various religious texts that they do not prohibit premarital sex, except maybe the Quran (not sure -- I've never read it).

Please don't use that silly "cave" cliché that is perpetually extant around the internet. It seems like you've put a lot of thought into your points, but that last sentence detracts from the overall seriousness of your claim.

One other thing -- I have noticed that you haven't attacked *any* of my claims that pre-marital sex is impractical. Do you have any thoughts on that matter?

"If safety takes precedence over all else". It doesn't. I never said (or even implied) that it does.

Alright then, give me an example then. Other than short term emotional or sexual pleasure, what is sex good for? (Having a baby? Yes, but then that's for people who are or are planning to be in a long-term relationship).

Hmm... this is a very good point. And it actually took me a while to figure out then, why premarital (more precisely, short-term relationship) sex is impractical.

But here is why. Because if you accidentally have a baby, you have not only affected your own life, but ALSO the baby's. The baby will, with high probability, be raised in an unstable environment that cannot provide the resources that those in a long-term, committed relationship can provide. And I CAN cite data on this if you don't believe it.

If it is a "fling", then I would say sex cannot possibly add depth or substance to a relationship. The relationship must be developed before sex can have that kind of meaning. In fact, your statement reinforces the converse: that only those who are in it for a long-term relationship will benefit from the added depth or substance that sex brings. Not all married people wish to have children, but should those that do not wish children accidentally do have some, then it is MUCH more likely that they will be able to care for the baby than those who are in a short-term relationship.

Some of your other points were very thought-provoking, but this one is not a good argument at all. We are comparing the probabilities of getting an STD by 1) having premarital sex + bizarre incident vs 2) bizarre incident alone. I'm pretty sure the risk of (1) is a zillion times higher than (2).

So you are saying that practicality, like morality, is not something that is widely and almost universally agreed upon? Interesting. I suppose I had always made the assumption that most people had similar views of what constituted "practical". But I am not sure that I am in the minority about the weight and value placed upon sex. I would need to ask a lot of people to see if this is true. Personally, I think if I asked I would find that most who practice premarital sex think it impractical, yet they are going to do it anyway. So one of us is correct, but I doubt there is data at the moment indicating which.

*IF* a 16 year old actually commits to and maintains a lifelong marriage, then yes, I would say they are MUCH more prepared for sex that someone who is 26. If they get divorce though (and most of them do), then I don't really consider that a marriage at all -- it is isomorphic to a short-term relationship.

I completely agree with mr Phil. I'm from the Netherlands and too be honest, most of us look a bit different at those things than Americans. I/we believe many teenagers will, if possible, try to be sexually active. That's just a natural thing. So, more important than anything is information. Tell them about love, about sex, about diseases and how to prevent them, about pregnancy and the consequences of getting a baby, about how to say no, about telling your partner what you want, etc.

Everyone gets 'sex education' in the last year of primary school, although that's kind of shallow. In highschool (at the age of 14/15) we get sex education again, now more in detail. Apart from that most parents educate their children. Some Dutch parents prefer to tell their kids that it's better not to have sex before marriage, but I think most will tell them not too have sex without love. I (and most of my friends) grew up with the morals that it's okay to have sex, as long as you are in a stable relationship, know each other very well, are very comfortable with each other, love each other and as long as you both agree and - most importantly - use a condom!

I don't know whether this is (morally) the right mentality, but I do know that we indeed have one of the lowest rates of teenage pregnancies and STD-infections in the world. And besides that mentality of being open about things, I think we are not more sexually active at a young age than Americans.

So my advice to this man would be: don't get upset with your daughter and try not to be frustrated, since that works counterproductive. Educate your daughter as much as possible! You can even tell her that, according to you, it's better to wait with sex until you found the man that you will marry, but come with reasons - most teenagers will not accept anything (from their parents), as long as it comes with good reasons. Don't picture sex as a bad thing, or the boyfriend as a bad man. You will lose that battle! However, if you are open about things, if you educate her and show her that you love her and only want the best for her, you can win her respect.

By the way, I'm kind of surprised by the aggressiveness and lack of respect in many of the responses here (and in the other topics on this website), but maybe that's normal in discussions where participants stay anonymous.