No 15 year old is ready to deal with the physical consequences of sex??!!!

No 15 year old is ready to deal with the emotional consequences of sex??!!!

No 15 year old is ready to deal with the financial consequences of sex?

What sort of nonsense is this to swallow this sort of nonsense as reasonable? Its very clear that NARAL is trying not to offend and pour gasoline on the fire because it full well knows that those who know the above to be nonsense aren't going to give it much weight, but it MIGHT mollify those who are uncomfortable thinking about their "pure daughter" climaxing with abandon in the arms of a young man who's primary goal is to get his own rocks off.

But history tells us that pretty much ALL of the above is bullshit. Unmitigated bullshit. From a physical perspective, most 15 year old young women have been fully capable of dealing with the physicallity of sex for half a decade. Historically menses has had later onsets, but remember that the age of marital consent in the colonies was often as low as 13. We also know that pregnancy is physiologically easier on mid-late teenage women than it is on even mid20yo women, much less 30+yo women.

Financially? That of course presumes that if the young woman gets pregnant she will carry to term. But if she choses not to, and choses to abort without buying into the religious guilt machine, then pretty much all teens can afford the $500 or so that an abortion will cost. And most teens are well-off enough that they can afford birth control.

That leaves 'emotionally'. Of course this is a judgement call based heavily in belief. But can anyone really make a case that if we as adults and society didn't laden young women with derogatory terms about sex, but instead offered a supportive and emotionally safe environment, that the "emotional consequences" would largely be positive? After all, the young woman would be more confident in her understanding of herself, have a better understanding of her desires, and be less ruled by the coquettish "who said what to who" that passes for flirting?

I'm at best a pedestrian writer so I'll instead refer you to Sally Feldman's excellent piece on why the above claims by Keenan are just that much unmitigated, fear driven pandering.

What we have is a society that is completely disfunctional about the role of sexuality in life. And pretty much everything else flows from that.

Don't get me wrong, I full well know the stats on the impact of teen-pregancy on long term socio-economic prospects. But that is a Social Policy issue, not anything inherent in teens having sex.

Some might also notice I didn't really pay attention to young men's role in this. That's because the opening comments are so obviously inapplicable.

• Physically - once a young man can jerk off, he can physically handle having sex. PERIOD.
• Financially - unless you assume that the young man will have to marry the first girl he has sex with, again, there is no financial cost associated with the consequences of having sex.
• Emotionally? - young males will ride a wave of confidence and joy in having sex at 15.

Remember that as recently as a few decades ago, it was not unusual for an uncle to take a boy who hit puberty, to the local whorehouse as a "rite of passage".

so please, lets lay off the false sanctimony here.

"We also know that pregnancy is physiologically easier on mid-late teenage women than it is on even mid20yo women"

Untrue. Teens have higher rates of preterm delivery, which is far and away the leading cause of perinatal mortality and morbidity. They are also at increased risk for fetal growth restriction, pre-eclampsia, birth trauma, and obstetric hemorrhage.

The stats on teen pregnancy health outcomes in the US are confounded by several factors. Chief amongst these is the fact that a disproportionate number of poor teens become pregnant and do not get proper prenatal care due to a lack of education.

Even teens that are more educated may not seek proper prenatal care in a timely manner because of shame about the pregnancy. Prenatal care early in the pregnancy is crucial to a good outcome.

Humans are built to reproduce early in life, and until very recently in human history have typically done so. It is quite bizarre to me that our society urges teens to fight their physiology but provides drugs to old people to enable them to continue sexual activity.

There was a time in human history when adulthood was believed to have started in the early teen years. Life is much more complex these days and it takes longer to educate a child and prepare him/her for adulthood than it did in past centuries.

Very few people have the means to be financially independent without at least graduating from high school, let alone receiving vocational training or a college degree. Children suffer a great deal when their parents are inexperienced, immature, and financially struggling.

Scientific research has shown that the brains of teenagers aren't even fully formed by the time they achieve legal majority. Growth and maturation continue well into the 20s.

My mother waited until her mid-20s before having her first child. By that time, she had a husband, a college degree, and a stable income. The birth of her first child was still a tremendous shock and marked a huge change in her life. You can't tell me an experience that a 25 year old woman with a supportive family finds overwhelming is a good idea for a 15 year old to experience.

Not if you control for access to pre-natal care. Remember that most teen pregnancies happen to lower socio-economic status women who don't have acess to good nutrition, pre-natal care and pre-natal counseling.

Control for those and the numbers ar better for late teens

Those are Public Policy issues, not anything inherent in teenage hood. While it is very true that the OFC doesn't fully form until mid 20s, the physiology of carrying to term is on the downhill slide by them.

And I can tell you that clearly the experience a 15 you woman CAN find with a supportive family is compelling enough that in strong family latino cultures, early pregnancy IS considered to be a good thing (assuming marriage as well).

Note also, that you are presuming carrying to term. That presumes a particular mindset about abortion and birth control that isn't necessarily tied to sex. And the CLAIMS were made about sexual activity.

Degsme is absolutely right---"no 15 year old" is absolute bullshit. 200 years ago a girl who started her period was considered a woman, old enough to get married and start having children. That included MANY 15 year olds. We haven't changed biologically or emotionally by THAT much in 200 years. Financially--maybe. Having a baby at 15 would be very difficult, even with support, in todays financial world. Again--that is presuming pregnancy, delivery and a live baby as the result of all sexual instances. I am a 42 year old woman, but I remember being ready for sex at 15--and probably would have had sex if I wasn't absolutely terrified of getting pregnant. Unfortunately, not all 15 year olds are able to see far enough past their urgent biology to do that. Plus, date rape is much more prevalent than anyone wants to admit---boys sometimes have their way whether the girl agrees or not.

Education and birth control is the answer, not some stupid sanctimonious blathering about virginity and waiting for marriage, which plenty of evidence has shown that teens will ignore anyway. PLEASE, go read Sally Feldman's article, it really is very good. Personally, *I* don't want to have to return to the time when chastity and shame was my only option.

"200 years ago a girl who started her period was considered a woman"

and many many more women died in childbirth. hmmm wonder why!

Madai:

"200 years ago a girl who started her period was considered a woman"

and many many more women died in childbirth. hmmm wonder why!

Poor health care compared to that available 200 years later?

Anyone who suggests that we "haven't changed THAT much in 200 years" is just daffy!! Look at the attitudes surrounding race! Class! Especially gender! Even in the United States, the majority of women didn't work outside the home until 100 years ago! Suggesting that a 15 year old today is the same as a 15 year old of even 60 years ago ignores the tremendous leaps in gender dynamics and class interactions to almost a ridiculous amount!!!!! Women could have children at 15 because they were already married by then, or very very close to it (or prostitutes.) How many 15 year olds are married these days? It's illegal in most states until 16, and even then they need partental permission. They were also usually home-bound, supported entirely by their husbands, who were also expected to be adults by that time. How many 15 year old men work full time jobs with benefits? Answer: very very very few! You need AT LEAST a high school degree to get any job besides flinging burgers as a fast food joint, which is not enough to support a family. Women now have to work outside the home even to just support themselves, a phenomenon that was found only among poor, working class immigrants even at the turn of the last century. (1900s.)

Seriously. SERIOUSLY. Your post alone suggests that teenagers shouldn't have sex because apparently people don't even know the paths humanity has taken to get to this point, but feel they are entitled to contribute anyway. Major youch.

when life spans were generally a third or less of what we enjoy today, of course young women were married and birthing by their mid-teens. all things considered, they weren't long for this world.

first you offer this: their "pure daughter" climaxing with abandon in the arms of a young man who's primary goal is to get his own rocks off.

then, there's this: of Latino families, you assert: early pregnancy IS considered to be a good thing (assuming marriage as well).

i won't quibble that 'climaxing with abandon' requires a partner who is more generous than approaching sex with a 'primary goal.. to get his own rocks off.'

instead, i assert that teens 'climaxing with abandon' and teens 'assuming marriage' are sex within very different contexts. you're comparing recreational, uncommitted intentionally unprocreative teen intercourse with unitive, more likely intentionally and potentially procreative marital intimacy. (i'e., you're compaing afternoon romps with intended life-long partnerships for the purpose of companionship and the generation of children.)

in this, i suppose we'll be in disagreement because i strongly assert they are two very different things no matter what the ages of the participants.

but herein we do agree, but, i assume for very opposite reasons: What we have is a society that is completely disfunctional about the role of sexuality in life. And pretty much everything else flows from that. but i don't want to be presumptuous. please advise, degsme, what do you see as the role of sexuality in life?

One such advance being the x-ray, which would have revealed that, sure enough, the skinny little teenager's hip bones aren't big enough. Of course, any man who's not a pedophile could have noticed that.

Marrying a girl off at a young age, before, say, she can squander her youth trying to learn something in college, is a great way to oppress them. A girl having sex at 15 should get used to being barefoot in the kitchen. It won't hurt to have a picture of Susan B. Anthony in the toilet, too, so you can literally piss on her rather than just figuratively.

Most of the Deaths In Childbirth were/are the result of breech births. Roughly 10% - 25% of deliverys are Breech and in the west with modern maternity medicine the mortatality rate is under 5%. However in 3rd world nations it is closer to 20%.

And in prior times, natal/ob-gyn care was more akin to 3rd world. Hence the mortality rates.

I agree that marrying women off at a younger age was a means of control and oppression to some extent. Especially where a 14yo young woman was being married off to 30+yo as his 2nd or 3rd wife (the others having died in childbirth).

But again, that is a POLICY issue that isn't related to the ability of a 15yo to "physically handle" the consequences of sex

Go re-read what I wrote. Your response clearly indicates you either didn't read what I wrote completely, or you didn't understand it.

The role of sexuality in life is clearly as much of a spectrum as the role of music, spinach, and playing soccer is. IE it is as varied as there is variance in humans. That said, we are physical creatures. We are hardwired to enjoy sex. We are hardwired to desire sex and to be energized, elated and lightend by sex.

All mediations on the role of sexuality in life should take these basic bio-physiological facts into consideration - along with STDs, pregnancy, abortion, cancer risk etc.

Note I am also not suggesting that casual recreational sex is the same as emotionally committed, intimate sex.

I will quibble somewhat though that life-expectancy was the driver for marriage and birthing. The statistical 'life-expectancy' was highly distorted by neo-natal mortality from unsanitary disease (High), and death-in-childbirth (about 20%). These "early deaths" pull down life expectancy in a way that doesn't reflect the actual LifeSPAN expectancy.

The former doesn't really require or mandate an early marriaging age,.