If the Government recommends singles not have sex until age 30, is their concern with your health or morality?
813169
You are kidding right? Contraception is not just a thirteen letter word.\n\nOh and the unintended pun in the first comment, apparantly christian girls are now having anal sex more than non-christians because they think it technically preserves their virginity!
1092215
I'm not sure but I personally would not have sex with someone I didn't love. I know others don't have a problem but for me love is having someone you can't imagine yourself without. Someone you want to grow old with and have babies with and be with in sickness and health , rich or poor. Sex is important but not important enough for me to just do it with anyone. EW!
1037263
I answered another question earlier regarding this same topic and it's really getting old hearing others criticize this whole age difference issue between men and women today. If two people are of legal age and mature enough to make competent decisions about other matters in life then this too is their right and others should either accept it and be happy for them or STFU! \nPersonally I think the ones who criticize and bytch the most are the ones that are always using the media and social hype of sexual perversion as their foundation for opposing this age difference. In reality, I suspect they're actually the perverted ones which is why they see a perversion in it in the first place. \nBe happy together and if others can't be happy for you then put them out of your lives.
164734
I sure hope you're only thinking it, not actually planning or doing it.  \n\nEverything is wrong with statutory rape.\n\nThe law does not prohibit you from having a teenage lover, it's just that it has to be platonic until she/he turns adult.  This is because people (state legislatures) have decided that young girls/boys at the peak of adolescence are legally incapable of making rational decisions when it comes to sex.  There is also a public health concern in that teenagers usually do not think about STD or pregnancy when they have sex.  \n\nSome states have made exceptions that exclude "mutual" statutory rapes - they do not prosecute underage people having consensual sex.  However, the law still (and especially) applies when the age disparity is more significant.  This is because younger minds are more easily impressed and coerced.  They are very vulnerable against those predators, and sometimes the statutory rape law is the only thing keeping them safe.  (I would personally have a loaded shotgun pointed at the my daughter’s boyfriend as an additional deterrent.)  \n\nThe basis of your objection stems from past (or foreign) societal norms where people tend to marry early.  However, that norm simply no longer exists.  People rarely marry in their teens.  And when they have sex, they do not think marriage is necessarily involved.  In this context, it’s usually the young girls who have to bear the consequences of sex – single parenthood, unwanted pregnancy.  The father may or may not have the means to pay child support.  The law also aims to eliminate this social burden.  \n\nRational minds certainly can differ on this issue.  But I think most would agree that delaying sex in teenagers would be a good thing – for themselves and society as a whole.  The important thing is that when the law has spoken, compliance is not optional.  It’s not harsh if you think about it – if you love someone enough, you would wait.  If someone doesn’t love you enough to wait, he ain’t worth it.  If a  “cool off” waiting period seems like a good idea when buying a gun, it’s also a good idea when you’re potentially making a life-changing decision.
608442
Well, life, as we currently know it, couldn't function without sex.  (Caution: Atheist views ahead)\n\nI think that everyone should have sex with moderation.  It would obviously be bad if everybody had sex with everyone, because then everyone would die from STDs.  But to have no sex, I think, is even worse.\n\nWe are organisms stuctured through billions of years of evolution to have sex so that the genes that inhabit our bodies can replicate (thats what genes do: replicate)\n\nSo, I think that life is better with sex.  Just don't go overboard ;-)\n\nBy the way, when our species was in a natural state (in other words, without complex societies), sex was used differently.  But now that we live in complex societies, sex has to operate a little differently.  We have to be careful when we have it, and who we have it with.\n\ngood luck :-)\n\n-Nick
1142732
Well, you put alot of thought into your question.  The 60's ended December 31, 1969.  Unless you've got a time machine, the 60's can't help you.  Most VD could be cured by antbiotics.  AIDS changed all that.  So, yes the 60's (and most of the 70's and some of the 80's and when you think about it the 90's too and then there was last week....) was the only time to do this.  And the last time I checked, massages did not spead disease.\n\nAnd you don't sound like someone who's actually HAD a disease or you wouldn't have glossed over it so easily.  You also sound like someone who hasn't had a bad experience with one night stands.  The rejection that occurs from getting attached to someone who wants nothing further to do with you can be devastating.  Add to that the poossiblity that your pick-up could be a killer psycho, and sex with strangers loses some of its appeal.  \n\nHey, women want good sex just as much as men, but let's face it, most men are pretty easy to please.  All a woman has to do is show up and men are happy.  Men need a few times to "get it right" and so need to offer something more than just sex.  Witty conversation and manners, for example.  If a woman is bolting out of bed after sex, then something's wrong. \n\nAnd society encourages promiscuity, so no blame there either.  Even have a song about it.\n\nWhy limit yourself to strangers exclusively, though?  I find that most intruiging.  It seems you only find strangers appealing.  You could get much more sex in a monogamous situation, so I wonder why that route wasn't even considered in your question.  No diseases, no brutal murders, and mutual satsfaction.....and passion.  \n\nI understand the appeal of the one night stand; the mystery, the unpredictability, the variety.  But in the cold hard light of day, you know they're just not someone you'd like to hang with.  And once again comes the lonliness, the emptiness and the boredom.\n\nLet's face it...sex with strangers is common, the status quo...it's love that's rare these days.
246709
That's up to you.  I think people should wait, especially if you're trying to make a serious relationship out of it (and for your health... STDs).  If you're just looking for sex though, I guess it doesn't matter when (be safe).
345796
I don't think there is realy an age that is appropriate, because all people have different maturity levels at different times in their lives. I lost mine at the age of 16 and I'm 22. My boyfriend got my drunk and basically took advantage of me. Don't get me wrong, I could have said no, but I didn't. Today I wish I would have waited. Thinking about when my son gets older and if he ever asked mom, when did yo first have sex. Most parents would never hear that so I probably won't, but what if they were to ask? Although, I would never take it back because it got me where I am today, I've been happily married for two years with a gorgeous ten month old son. People make mistakes, but hopefully they learn from them. Society isn't the problem I don't think. i think the parents and schools need to start at a young age teaching values, because they are lacking somewhere.
776203
hurray for living,  no age limit on the sex drive, maybe the volumn though, lol\nmost is psych. if you believe, go for it.
673607
I will tell you, in my own experience that it is. Not because it's immoral or the guy is a sick person, but the maturity issue. and people do change.\nAnd don't think it's because a guy can't get a girl his own age. i actually had quite a few girlfriends before her and they were all close to my age or older. \nSadly, I am now divorced, kept the children and am good friends with her. Actually, after five years of separation we are considering getting back together. I still care for her and she for me.\n All in all it is wrong if it is for the wrong reasons.
620696
It's totally relative. I don't think that there's anything wrong with having pre-marital sex if the context around it is right. There's no way for us to know what God thinks about it. Some religious people would think that it was alright if it was in the context of a loving and caring relationship and birth control were used. Others would say that it is a terrible sin and that we shouldn't even use birth control. What could possibly make one of these views more valid then the rest? I think that a lot of people would think that at 17 you are ready to make a responsible decision about sex and I am one of these people. If you think that you are going to feel guilty about it then don't do it. If you think that you love her and it will help you express your love, then consider it.
1081038
Religion often makes us feel guilty about the most common human experiences, usually related to sex. This clearly contradicts nature. Sex is sex. If you're of the legal age, with another consenting adult, and aware of the risks/protection, then knock yourself out. This really has nothing to do with morals, mostly just religion.
489362
what do u mean "is that okay?" it IS best to stay out of sex. At your age? isn't the time for you, not even the time to think about it! Best to put that thought double-locked inside a metal safe. ^_^
97750
They actually never made it criminal to begin with. Why should it be? Two consenting adults agree to have sex, then one gives the other a gift. Why should a government care?
128604
It is not an official prohibition but simply wise common sense for caring parents.  Latter-Day Saints promote a strict code of morality--absolutely no sexual activity prior to the bonds of matrimony and strict fidelity to one's spouse after marriage (something sorely lacking in the world today.)  Younger individuals have a higher tendency to be influenced in dating to experiment with sex therefore it is strongly advised that dating be delayed until age sixteen or older.  And for the first few years of dating, group or double dates are encouraged to encourage proper activies are enjoyed.  Apparently this is not conducive to your moral standards and that explains your second questions about hating Mormons.  Boy, can you imagine the state of the world if everyone practiced these high standards?  Teen pregnancies would virtually disappear, divorce rates would drop like a rock, families would not be destroyed through the infidelity of an unfaithful parent, self-respect and dignity would be guaranteed, sexually-transmitted diseases would be extinct, unwed mothers would be unheard of.  Maybe the LDS church is on to something that wise people around world can benefit from.  I guess that is why this church is growing faster than anyone can believe.  It provides common sense answers to many of life's dilemmas.
309021
sweetie if you're not thinking about sex at the age of 15 that is probably wrong :)
531074
Are you kidding? Before puberty? Are you insane? If you're not old enough to hold a job, you're not old enough to have sex and face the risks associated with it. Most 10 year olds think the very idea of sex is gross anyway, but are rather easily coerced. I highly doubt any healthy 10-year-old would consent without coersion which amounts to either rape or prostitution anyhow, so are we going to make these legal as well?