How young is too young to have a relationship? - Page 2

**Indubitably** · 11-22-2008, 08:44 AM

	Originally Posted by NephilimAzrael To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I will have to quote Chef from South Park on this: 17. (when questioned if it was too young, he responded...) 17 (When asked if there was an exemption for particularly mature individuals, he responded...) Just 17

lol Thats because 17 is the legal age for consensual sex in many states. I think they are implying that chef may have had dubious encounters at some point and always responds with 17 so as to avoid incriminating himself.

**NephilimAzrael** · 11-22-2008, 04:32 PM

Nonetheless, I agree that 17 is a wise age. Certainly as an estimate.

What would be troublesome with seventeen without sex?

**Indubitably** · 11-22-2008, 05:15 PM

	Originally Posted by NephilimAzrael To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Nonetheless, I agree that 17 is a wise age. Certainly as an estimate. What would be troublesome with seventeen without sex?

Well we aren't necessarily talking about sex, we're talking about any romantic relationship. Granted, in the case of two legal adults I would agree that you can't honestly call it much of a romantic relationship if there is no sexual element, but for a 12 year old I think you can still call it a serious relationship even if you are just making out.

When exactly an individual is ready for sex depends entirely on the person in question. Obviously you need to be smart enough to have sex without getting pregnant before you will have the necessary romantic and life experience to be having kids, but that certainly doesn't have to happen before you are 17 or 14 or even 34 if you don't feel ready for it.

Edit:

If you haven't inferred as much, I can't agree with the logic of suggesting that someone isn't going to be ready to have sex until they are ready to have kids (at least in modern society). If for no other reason than because you sure as hell aren't going to be ready to have kids until you have been having sex long enough to understand where it fits into your life.

**NephilimAzrael** · 11-22-2008, 05:29 PM

And was that really worth mentioning indubitably? No, I wouldn't think so. It is nothing matter of fact. If the relationship were non-sexual, you could also take into consideration what the significance of that relationship is also. Say a 15 year old was infatuated or whatever the case may be, at least there is some form of target age that the individual can aim for. The promiscuity factor of sexual intercourse is easier to consider based on the individual's personality more than anything (inclusive of formative history and accommodation for preferences in their environment) accompanied by their success, gratification and inclination [toward] such relationships. Whereas "romantic" relationships are a subjectively defined phenomenon. I believe the phrase goes "You cannot choose whom you fall in love with".

**Indubitably** · 11-22-2008, 05:50 PM

Originally Posted by NephilimAzrael
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

And was that really worth mentioning indubitably? No, I wouldn't think so. It is nothing matter of fact. If the relationship were non-sexual, you could also take into consideration what the significance of that relationship is also. Say a 15 year old was infatuated or whatever the case may be, at least there is some form of target age that the individual can aim for. The promiscuity factor of sexual intercourse is easier to consider based on the individual's personality more than anything (inclusive of formative history and accommodation for preferences in their environment) accompanied by their success, gratification and inclination [toward] such relationships. Whereas "romantic" relationships are a subjectively defined phenomenon. I believe the phrase goes "You cannot choose whom you fall in love with".

I'm not sure I follow, are you assuming that my edit was meant as some sort of veiled insult? I assure you it was included for the sole purpose of clarifying the fact that I disagree with those who believe being ready for parenthood is a necessary requisite for sexual intercourse. Without that clarification I am afraid people might have found my last paragraph quite nonsensical.

I am really not even certain what reference to promiscuity your are citing. I had no intention of bringing promiscuity into the equation with my statement. If you are likewise suggesting that I had intended some sort of veiled implication of promiscuity, I can assure you that such is not the case.

As for the assertion that it is nothing matter of fact, I must of course agree, because quite frankly no relevant comment in this thread, or even the sociology section of the board can really be taken as fact. Actually, your response almost leads me to believe that we are having a conversation about two entirely different topics.

**NephilimAzrael** · 11-22-2008, 06:51 PM

Veils? No, I was implying no such thing. Consider the post as a riddle if you wish, at least it may provide you with a minor quandary. I'm quite off topic as is, and the thread ought to return to the core topic post haste. *puffs pipe*

**tp6626** · 11-22-2008, 07:37 PM

What was that eloquent defence (which is actually part of English Law) that sprung to mind earlier:

Article 7, Clause 3a. "If there's grass on the pitch..."

Guess it's all to do with how mature and mentally able they are (mainly emotionally but also commonsensically too - I made up that word!).

**Wordsmith** · 11-22-2008, 07:49 PM

While I agree that there has to be a sexual element, it does not of a course follow that that element must be sex itself. A couple who have chosen not to have sex until marriage can still have a romantic relationship. On the other side of the continuum a sexual relationship can be devoid of romance or intimacy.

I also agree with you that the couple does not have to be "ready for children" when they have sex but they do have to be prepared, or at least cognizant of the possibility. It's a pet peeve of mine that people refuse to acknowledge that everything has a failure rate. If you have sex you are running a risk (however mitigated it is) of having a child. The female especially needs to be conscious of this as she is the recipient of most of the consequences. I'm a contingency planner by nature and it bugs me that people don't plan for this rather obvious one.

**Indubitably** · 11-22-2008, 08:07 PM

	Originally Posted by NephilimAzrael To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Veils? No, I was implying no such thing. Consider the post as a riddle if you wish, at least it may provide you with a minor quandary. I'm quite off topic as is, and the thread ought to return to the core topic post haste. puffs pipe

Oh? I don't think I would be quite so pleased with myself in your position. An inability to clearly articulate your position as it relates to my assertion serves as a passable excuse, but it makes for a poor virtue. Feel free to extract what ever measure of victory you can from my lack of inclination to puzzle over your post; if your pride can suffer a measure of that scale.

Indubitably added to this post, 8 minutes and 26 seconds later...

Originally Posted by Wordsmith
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

While I agree that there has to be a sexual element, it does not of a course follow that that element must be sex itself. A couple who have chosen not to have sex until marriage can still have a romantic relationship. On the other side of the continuum a sexual relationship can be devoid of romance or intimacy.

I also agree with you that the couple does not have to be "ready for children" when they have sex but they do have to be prepared, or at least cognizant of the possibility. It's a pet peeve of mine that people refuse to acknowledge that everything has a failure rate. If you have sex you are running a risk (however mitigated it is) of having a child. The female especially needs to be conscious of this as she is the recipient of most of the consequences. I'm a contingency planner by nature and it bugs me that people don't plan for this rather obvious one.

I would say that they need to be well prepared and educated for sex itself, which necessarily includes an understanding that they may very well find themselves in a situation like parenthood that they are not prepared for.

**NephilimAzrael** · 11-22-2008, 08:15 PM

Well I am content with it.. It is hardly significant, and you appear to be one concerned. It may not be relevant to YOUR position, but it is hardly arbitrary when the discussion is mostly based on the topic and not attempting to rouse you into arguing the terms of "romantic", sexual or intimate relationships.

Do you really think one has to justify their opinions and excuse themselves for infringing on another's assertions due to their own perspective? I certainly don't, I just left a little nugget there.

To clarify, I distinguish sexual relationships from supposedly romantic ones.. As it would appear that this concept of romance does not necessarily involve sexuality, and in that stance, I agree that it would vary how an individual may determine themselves ready or committed. On the grounds of sexuality, the mean that I associate with a certain level of experience (Re: Hormones in puberty) would come to a person circa. seventeen years once attained can give a better insight into their own sexuality and libido.. Hence I quoted chef.

Regarding promiscuity:
A person may be influenced by their personality, preferences and personal history; when it comes to their inclinations towards sexual behaviours that can be considerably promiscuous. A pathological feeling type may associate sexuality with the romantic notion of love. As such they may consider the only valid relationships to be sexual affairs.

That is as far as I wish to take this. If this elaboration is insufficient, then my condolences I do not intend on going further in this discourse Indubitably.

11-22-2008, 04:32 PM	#27
NephilimAzrael Member [22%] MBTI: XXXX Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 908	Nonetheless, I agree that 17 is a wise age. Certainly as an estimate. What would be troublesome with seventeen without sex?
NephilimAzrael is offline post a comment

11-22-2008, 05:29 PM	#29
NephilimAzrael Member [22%] MBTI: XXXX Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 908	And was that really worth mentioning indubitably? No, I wouldn't think so. It is nothing matter of fact. If the relationship were non-sexual, you could also take into consideration what the significance of that relationship is also. Say a 15 year old was infatuated or whatever the case may be, at least there is some form of target age that the individual can aim for. The promiscuity factor of sexual intercourse is easier to consider based on the individual's personality more than anything (inclusive of formative history and accommodation for preferences in their environment) accompanied by their success, gratification and inclination [toward] such relationships. Whereas "romantic" relationships are a subjectively defined phenomenon. I believe the phrase goes "You cannot choose whom you fall in love with".
NephilimAzrael is offline post a comment

11-22-2008, 06:51 PM	#31
NephilimAzrael Member [22%] MBTI: XXXX Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 908	Veils? No, I was implying no such thing. Consider the post as a riddle if you wish, at least it may provide you with a minor quandary. I'm quite off topic as is, and the thread ought to return to the core topic post haste. puffs pipe
NephilimAzrael is offline post a comment

11-22-2008, 07:37 PM	#32
tp6626 Core Member [108%] MBTI: iNTj Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 4,338	What was that eloquent defence (which is actually part of English Law) that sprung to mind earlier: Article 7, Clause 3a. "If there's grass on the pitch..." Guess it's all to do with how mature and mentally able they are (mainly emotionally but also commonsensically too - I made up that word!).
tp6626 is offline post a comment

11-22-2008, 07:49 PM	#33
Wordsmith Member [03%] MBTI: INTJ Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 124	While I agree that there has to be a sexual element, it does not of a course follow that that element must be sex itself. A couple who have chosen not to have sex until marriage can still have a romantic relationship. On the other side of the continuum a sexual relationship can be devoid of romance or intimacy. I also agree with you that the couple does not have to be "ready for children" when they have sex but they do have to be prepared, or at least cognizant of the possibility. It's a pet peeve of mine that people refuse to acknowledge that everything has a failure rate. If you have sex you are running a risk (however mitigated it is) of having a child. The female especially needs to be conscious of this as she is the recipient of most of the consequences. I'm a contingency planner by nature and it bugs me that people don't plan for this rather obvious one.
Wordsmith is offline post a comment

11-22-2008, 08:15 PM	#35
NephilimAzrael Member [22%] MBTI: XXXX Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 908	Well I am content with it.. It is hardly significant, and you appear to be one concerned. It may not be relevant to YOUR position, but it is hardly arbitrary when the discussion is mostly based on the topic and not attempting to rouse you into arguing the terms of "romantic", sexual or intimate relationships. Do you really think one has to justify their opinions and excuse themselves for infringing on another's assertions due to their own perspective? I certainly don't, I just left a little nugget there. To clarify, I distinguish sexual relationships from supposedly romantic ones.. As it would appear that this concept of romance does not necessarily involve sexuality, and in that stance, I agree that it would vary how an individual may determine themselves ready or committed. On the grounds of sexuality, the mean that I associate with a certain level of experience (Re: Hormones in puberty) would come to a person circa. seventeen years once attained can give a better insight into their own sexuality and libido.. Hence I quoted chef. Regarding promiscuity: A person may be influenced by their personality, preferences and personal history; when it comes to their inclinations towards sexual behaviours that can be considerably promiscuous. A pathological feeling type may associate sexuality with the romantic notion of love. As such they may consider the only valid relationships to be sexual affairs. That is as far as I wish to take this. If this elaboration is insufficient, then my condolences I do not intend on going further in this discourse Indubitably.
NephilimAzrael is offline post a comment