The all purpose sex thread.
 

Original post:
"Looking back....
I realize that although every guy was willing when I was 14 damn few if any of us were ready. At 16 it seems a legitimate age. An older person should have the right to have sex with a teenager; however, I'm of the opinion that a gap larger than 15 years should be at least slightly taboo. Especially in the case of a 16 year old and anyone over 25. A lot of my close friends got hurt bad all of them agree they weren't ready when it happened.

The girls tend to get hurt MUCH worse.
Bieng a senior in high school I had several oppertunities with girls who were 14 and 15. I refused them out of moral abjections. I knew they weren't ready, and I'm not that desperate and disgusting of a person to commit such an act. I admit it probably would have been damn good sex though, just I felt that it would be a sinful perverted act.
I'm also very picky about who I'll even go out with. I think I'm more like a woman when it comes to picking out a girl, I make sure she has a lot of things (actually its more like making sure she doesnt do a a lot of things I dont like) I like before I even ask her out.

'I still stand by the fact that teenage boys are horny and willing participants.' O hell yeah they were! Getting someone elses mom in the sack who in the hell would turn that down when there a teenager?

American Pie 1: 'MILF'-Mom I'd Like to Fuck.

Teenage girls want sex extremely bad on certain days, much worse than any guy has ever wanted sex, then other days their practically immune to sexual desire. A lot of girls screw both mentally and physically when they have a horny day.

It seems that an agreement on sex will never be reached. Teenagers will want it even if they arent ready for it, until a reasonable arrangement where teenagers have some form of sex thats socially acceptable this problem will continue. Masterbation isnt enough (for me it wasnt) to be sexually satisfying. It takes a mental sex along with the physical to give a gratifying expierience. The desire for a specific someone else, and the knowledge that your willingly submitting to them, release different chemicals during an orgasm. Without them sex is usually nothing more than a physical need.
Women need the mental more often; guys need the physical almost daily. For guys the mental sex when they dont want it is boring, same thing for women if they dont need physical sex its boring for them. I think this is the basic difference between the sexes. Any comments?

First post since I was banned. I wonder if sexual comments is illegal too?? If it is then I'm screwed."

Krylo suggestest starting a new thread, so here it is!

What determines if a person is ready for actual vaginal sex?

I've found that at least these things are prerequisites.

1) Mental Maturity: The ability to have sex and not brag about it or feel ashamed about the relationship.

2) Finding the correct partner: Men having sex with some random woman maybe fun, but is it right? Women having a 'fuck buddy' (my best friends' favorite cliche) or that guy that is 'the one' maybe an excuse, but is it right?

3) Physical capability: Least important of the three, but CLEARLY a requirement.

Speaking of the actual physical sex.
W) From my expierience women need an excuse to have physical sex. They need to be drunk, or 'in love with the one', or something else. A lot of women I know who've loose their virginity were not ready for it. Its hurt me deeply to see good friends broken in such an immature manner. I've also noticed that women do tend to have rarer more demanding cravings for physical sex than men.

M) Speaking as a man, we have a constant physical demand for sex. Everyman on earth who is physically capable masturbates (I heard it was over 98% which considering over 2% of the population has strange physical disorders it PROVES that sex is a physical need). Most men want it at LEAST once a week.

Now I also feel there is an equally important mental part to sex.

This is just my opinion from my expierience I hope a woman will enlighten me if I've missed anything.
W) Women need a mental intercouse if you will on a regular basis. To them feeling sexy or wanted is just as big of a demand as getting sex is to a man.
This is why women want their lovers to talk to them. I remember someone from this forum telling me, ~'women use sex to get love and men use love to get sex'

M) Men need mental intercouse a lot less often, but we (or at least I do anyway) get mental cravings. I feel that its a very deep rarely occuring thing. Mostly this occurs late at night where I roll over and nobody is lying on the pillow next to me. Moments like this and a few others, which are meant to be shared with my wife, truly and deeply cause a craving for the mental part of sex.

Now I feel that the word Love constitues both Physical and Mental sex.

In addition to the deepest intercourse I also feel theirs a lesser portion to both sides. The things like the smile of the person your in love with, their touch, holding hands, and looking them in the eye consitiute a lesser physical relationship. The different words you say to someone constitute the lesser mental part. I also feel that some things cross over into both such as a kiss or a dance. Things that cross over into both of them tend to be the most gratifying for both sexes in my opinion.

End post.

P.S.
I realize I may have repeated myself; I'm sorry if it occured too frequently for your tastes.
I'm not sure if this belongs in the discussion forum, but this place tends to have a more mature audience. I really had nowhere else to put it.
Also I'm a big believer in brain chemicals, but those tend to be more orgasm based. This post was long enough without that HUGE topic I think. If anyone has any legitimate (like college studies or other .edu) links please PM me if you dont post them here. Most of my very limited knowledge is from shows like Body Hits (G4/Tech TV) which has been off the air for quite a while.

Also recently I've been using ~"quote here" to represent quoting someone when you know what they've meant, but not exactly what they've said. Is it called an indirect quote? (Help please.) I hope other people pick up on this notation I find it very handy for saving time.

EDIT1: misspelled moements as moements.

Wow, um, you certainly were very... descriptive... in that post.

Ok, that aside, the way I see it is like this: You never really know until you do it. People have different ideas of what sex means to them, and whether or not those ideas are fulfilled during their first time is what makes them comfortable or not comfortable with the act. Thats why I don't really agree with really young people doing it (14-16), because it can mean different things to them and they may not understand what they're getting into. You guys remember when you were that young and all the ideas about certaing things... they weren't especially accurate.

On what men and women get out of sex, I'm not going to comment on that too in depth. I'm not a woman, and so I have no idea how women feel about sex. I wouldn't be so quick to suppose anything about it, either.

On the moral issues of having sex with someone, I've always had the idea that if the other person isn't completely consenting, then it isn't right. I don't think its right to sleep with someone when either party is drunk, I don't think its right to pressure someone into sleeping with you.

Finally, I just want to talk about love and lust. I think they are two seperate things that are slightly intertwined. You can have love without lust, and you can have lust without love. I don't think you should base any decisions about love on lust, nor do I think you should confuse the two. If its real love, it should be able to survive without the sex. The lust part is just a nice little add-on that makes things somewhat more interesting and fun.

At least, thats what I think.

Not meant to offend or anything, but leave your moral convictions in your own mind, Packman. Last time I checked, stuff like that got you in trouble (I'm just sayin', is all). I don't want to delve much into that, though, as it goes off topic, and there's been way too fuckin much of that.

Anyhow...

The age of readyness for sex is dependent upon the person. I do, however, find it greatly amusing that humans, almost as a whole, have to find a mental readyness for procreation. It really strongly goes against instinct. Any other creature starts mating the second they can sprout youngins. There's a reason for this: society.

Just because a person had kids when they were young doesn't mean they're bad. It doesn't mean they're stupid. Fuck, it doesn't even mean they made a mistake. Although, according to society, they did. I see a problem with discussing this topic. Part of it crash lands into the lap of religion. Another chunk lands into society. Some of that starts flame wars. Kind just a precautionary statement for people who want to post. (Think, damn you all!...thiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiink!)

Sorry if I sounded inconclusive and rant-ish, but, in general, my thoughts of sex are the "live and let live" type. Do what you want, so long as you don't force others into it. Manipulation is one thing. Forcing a person outright, however, is another. ^_^

Its the vanity of youth which makes us think we are ready for the responsibilities of children. We think we have all the answers, or some of us do, and no amount of common sense or threatening will change that until we have to learn the hardway. Thats my take on procreation, physicly we can reproduce from about the age of 15 or so, but the complexity of modern life mandates a deeper understanding before we can raise children to be productive members of society. In a world unfettered by civilization we could be able to reproduce as soon as we're able and produce viable offspring, however the viability of a person in modern society is not derived solely from physical or instinctual capabilities, in fact these are almost nothing, it is the mental in general, and education in particular of a person which allows them to operate at a comfortable level in society.

Now, sex and procreation are two different things, one can enjoy sex without the headaches of offspring. And in that endeavor younger persons face a somewhat lessened danger. However, sex is a highly complicated dance in its own right. So many meanings it can have, so many meanings we want it to have, expectations and dissapointments on levels most children (and yes, 16 year olds are children, hell most 20 year olds don't qualify as much more) have yet to experience. To put it as poeticly as I may, through the flesh we find our souls, and lose that innocence which guards us against the evils of a world far grander than a child may imagine.

To put it another way, having sex and all the emotional attachment it entails, is like diving head first into adulthood, no stops along the way, no easy transfer of ideology and expectation, nothing but the stark cold reality of life on the other side of the fence of youth.

So, I say that sex between young persons, or young and old, is not a good idea, it leaves too many scars and robs the blissful state of ignorance from those most deserving it. However, just because its not the action which is most probable for success does not make it inherently wrong, and there are exceptional people with exceptional stories. I'm just playing the odds with my statements.

also, to address another issue, here's a little skit I cooked up:

little girl: Daddy, where do babies come from?

Dad: ... uh, well, its uh... The Stork! yeah, thats it!

-ten years later-

teenage boy: hey, let me see your boobs!

same little girl, now a teenager: ok, I will allow myself to be used by hormone crazed imbeciles because my only references to the reality of sexual experience have been lies by my parents, muttering from my peers and horribly biased government propaganda. Sure, I'll probably regret this decision the rest of my life, but I want to rebel against the system I feel had woefully underprepared me for real life!

teenage boy: uh... whatever, just show me them titties!

and with that, I bid you all adieu...

You had me until this line, and then I winced. Offspring might be headaches, but I personally don't view children to be the "evil consequence" of sex. That might not have been your intention when writing this, but it came off that way to me.

Yes, I think that readyness is dependent upon the person, and his/her's mental readyness. But, I believe there are other reasons besides society as to why we wait to have children. Yes it's taboo today to have children at a young age, but the fact is, humans are not forced to play the "hump everything that moves" card like most animals. The reason animals rush into mating is because of necessity.....they need to keep the cycle going and pass on their genes. Most animals fight for their lives everyday, while we only have to worry whether we should order the Double Cheeseburger or the Double Cheeseburger with bacon (always a tough choice).

First off, I respect what you believe and I have a really good friend who has the same opinion about sex and other topics. But to me, this is the laziest and most selfish type of argument for any subject. "As long as I take care of myself and don't hurt anyone, the world will be a better place." <Such a cop-out. In years past, having children at a young age was not only normal, but encouraged. People lived shorter lives and were forced to be ready at a younger age. But today's time is different. How many people here know 15 year olds who are so immature, so unprepared, that the thought of them having a kid scares you? Now, this immaturity could be partially society's fault. But popping out kids left and right isn't going to solve that problem.

Wow, it sounds like a geek who's giving a report while also getting a woody. Anyway, I say you should wait until like 21 to have sex, because at 21, you are technically a man, and most of them can handle a child if it happens. But if you want to make sure that nothing happens, please, for gods sake use protection. The ironic thing is that you can't be taught about protection in schools. In fact, one teacher talked about using protection in class, and he was fired the next day. Schools only are allowed to teach about abstinence. But there will always be those few who will have sex anyway, so they should be taught about protection, or else they will wind up with an unwanted baby.

uhm, hmmm... yeah, ok, and moving on!

Well, I turn 21 in about a week, does that make me less of a man now, or more of one later? I'm a bit confused, mind enlightening me? or better yet...

First of all, this isn't just about men, or what arbitrary criteria you set for "manhood" its about responsibility and ability. Creating a child involves two people, one a male and the other a female. <completely obvious statement

Second, children should not have to be "handled" thats the big problem actually. To raise a child requires an exorbitant amount of time and patience, resources most can't just cook up on the spot. In order to raise a child to any level of social adequacy you must be there first and foremost. Persons without the time or ability to raise a child, should not try and raise, or handle a child. I never was a fan of the whole "oops, well, looks like we've got one of them baby things now darlin', what d'ya think we should do now?"

Third, there are ways to have sex without having children, as I previously mentioned, and good luck getting most people to wait until they are 21 before they have sex. (remember me, the geek? well, I'll tell you what, I'm not 21, and I'm not a virgin, just think of all the nongeeks out there! theres no hope at all! :) )

so, in closing, I agree with you Mr. Slipstream, on the point of greater education. I think alternative methods to birth control should be discussed with children, other than abstinence. If the schools aren't going to do it, I sure as hell will when I have kids. Its more a point of self imposed ignorance on the part of the parents, those god damn "majority" assholes who cling to their ideology like a security blanket in the night, the sad thing is, not only do they raise the next majority, they can voet too! but I'm off topic enough already, so...

Peace out!

What kinda irritates me about the whole subject is how you have these active young teenagers who think they understand sex. Once kids become active, the parents can't say a word to them that will register. "Yeah yeah. I know. I know."
You don't know crap when you are fifteen. Five years earlier, you were flinging boogers at the teacher before your cursive writing test. You don't 'grow up' in 5-6 years. If there have only been 3 presidents in your lifetime, you are a god damned idiot. You don’t know anything because you just haven't experienced enough of everything else.
I'm 22 years old. I don't understand sex, nor do I claim to. I don't think I'll understand it when I'm 40. It can be confusing. It's more than an act, but sex shouldn't define who you are. When I was 16, I didn't exactly know what kind of person I was. You make a lot of decisions in that age about what type of adult you will grow up to be. If you are active too early (to quote someone else) you dive straight into adulthood. If you haven’t decided who you are, you’ll be confused for a long time.

I completely agree with Arlia Janet. Sex can change someone, especially if that person has expectations about sex that aren't necessarily true. And lets face it, the young people aren't exactly going to be able to realize what it means until they've done the deed. Honestly, old people aren't going to realize what it means until they've done the deed.

I think young people alot of the time aren't mature enough to handle the consequences of sex. I'm not talking about babies or anything like that, I'm talking about the social consequences. It isn't that age necessarily makes it easier to deal with these things, it just gives you more experience with life so that you can think about sex with more context.

Don't understand sex?

Sex is not complex.

Love is.