Title says it all

>>2 Really? What's the youngest we have on here, it's gotta be 12, right? That's like puberty age.

I'm not really an advocate of censorship; it's not like it's an immature topic of discussion. But that's just me - if people have a problem with it that's their call.

My main answer to your question is the main paragraph separated by Dollar signs... However, if you find the time to read the rest, it would be appreciated.
People that want to be righteous and truly strive for it don't tend to be sue-happy morons. However, not everyone does. Many members of so-called minority groups will seek benefits that go above the rights of the majority. They claim others are "too judgmental," and troll away until it reaches the Supreme Court. They continue by stealing and cheating their way to the top of the economic ladder. Much of this money goes into promoting their own views, to smite the rights of the majority.
This leads to a drastic effect on the entire country. Benefits and rights are two very different things. If we cast our rights to earn property, our possessions, speech, and the rest aside, the government will most definitely provide these things for us. Is that a good thing? Think again. Everything we own will rely on the government's budget. This is made up of money from the common tax-payer. If the people no longer work for this money, and rely on the government for their every need, who will run the farms? Who will supply our water? Who will clean the streets, teach students a truly decent education, or even host our networks? The government must assume these responsibilities. How much of that can they really keep up with? Take a guess. It isn't just minority groups. It's everyone, claiming they need more money for what they do. They may get rich for themselves during their own lifetime, but decade by decade, they will cause the economy to crumble.
In example, early railroad tycoons could charge the government, and get paid by the length of the tracks. Did they make the straightest path they possibly could for people's convenience? No. They made the SCENIC ROUTES. They got their money, but the entire nation payed it to them.
$
We really do get what we give in life, in spite of what the government allows us to broadcast over various forms of media, and the lies they tell us through these mediums. They tempt us to submit to foreign ways of life, and threaten us with things like higher charges for "hate crimes," and the like if we do not.
$
I'm sorry to make such a long complicated process of this, but it brings me to one final point. We have hope. I believe that we, the Dollars, a colorless gang where equality is impossible to deny, can start giving to our world again. The government only has to give what we have to offer. So instead, let's cut them out of the equation wherever we "legally" can. They may be taking our guns away, but we still have dignity. We, the Dollars, should give to our community, and show them the power of rights again. We should teach others to give their all, even if we can not physically fight for our rights. We can beat them at their own game, but every day that passes by, it will be more difficult than the day before.

>>4 What the actual fuck are you talking about?

I believe it originated from the idea that I if you love someone, you'll have sex with them. Over time, people began to have sex earlier in their relationships because they couldn't wait to show their love. Nowadays, people use sex for pleasure only. I'm sure you've heard the phrase "No strings attached."
I believe in waiting for marriage (That's what I'm doing now). Nowadays, chivalry has been thrown out of the window. WHen was the last time a man waited for the third date, let alone marriage?

But what do I know? I'm just a 16 year-old guy with a distorted view of the world.

>>6 it's funny that you use the term "distorted", just because your viewpoint doesn't reflect the viewpoint held by others around you, it does not mean that it's distorted, it's merely a different viewpoint. Using the word distorted implies that it's somehow wrong or deviant.

>>5 This.
and
>>7 This.

I don't think the sex must be involved in a relationship - But its become "declassified", if you will. Some time back in history, and to specific cultures now, sex was a very 'forbidden fruit' kind of thing. You can do this only when married, you can do this only with who you love, etc.

These days this is not true. It is a biological function and it is more or less treated as such. Relationships don't require sex, but neither do they restrict its presence. It happens no sooner, and no later, than both parties are ready.

"but I wasn't ready and gave in anyway!"

The above is a common statement, but my answer is really that its entirely their fault. When you give your consent, reluctant or not, you have agreed. If you don't agree, then you don't give your consent. Peer pressure? guilt? What do those matter in the face of your own integrity? Further more the backlash from realizing afterwards you regret your actions is worse than the temporary hazing you might get for saying 'no' in the first place.

Of course, things like rape - where consent is not given - are still illegal.

So now sex only happens when we want it. You could ask a similar question of "why is sex happening so young now?" - The age of consent has changed, both over time and over place. It used to be as young as 13-14 in some places, and in others remains a very strict 18-20.

Depending on how far back into history you go, pedophilia didn't exist. If both sides gave consent, it was a go - No age involved. Different times, different cultures. There's no ground to properly stand on to say one was better or worse, considering they both prospered in their own way.

If anything, I think we're beginning to move somewhat backwards in time. Sex began as an unrestricted biological process that only required consent - Then became a sacred thing. Put on a pedestal, and restricted vigorously for only special occasions under specific restrictions. Now those conditions are being loosened. We're moving back to it just being a biological thing.

because sex is fun. I don't see why it should be viewed differently from anything else fun.

i think sex should not be involved in relationships.there can be other forms of showing how you love each other and having sex while you were young is so fuckin' immature

>>9

Yes, sex is fun, but sex also carries risks. I mean, pretty much everything carries a risk, but sex has a lot of potential problems. The most obvious examples of these risks would be things like pregnancy and sexual infections, but also risks in terms of psychological risks. For example, someone may feel like they're being pressured into having sex with their partner because of influences such as from their friends, or how the media portray how relationships should be, etc.

I guess you could consider this as an argument as to whether or not young people SHOULD be having sex at young ages, like 12 or 13. Biologically, there's no reason why people of that age shouldn't have sex, asides from obvious implications like disease or pregnancy. But I doubt that most people of that age would be mentally prepared for the consequences of having sex that young either. Especially for teenagers, most relationships are seen as a kind of entryway into having sex, that it almost becomes some kind of standing achievement. Pretty soon you end up with two arbitrary groups: those who have had sex and those who have not, which may lead up to some kind of running race for those who haven't had sex to enter the "had sex" group. This just...really is not what sex is about, it's not supposed to be some kind of fucking xbox achievement that you get to add to your list.

Addressing the point that sex is fun. Sex "should" be fun. However, in some circumstances, it isn't. Consider a scenario where someone may feel like they HAVE to have sex in order to "deepen" their relationship with their partner. Is that a morally right reason for that person to have sex? If they haven't actually felt like they've been given the time and energy to decide whether they actually 100% want to have sex with this person, it doesn't actually sound like it's going to be fun. Sex is only fun if both of the people involved {well, I say both, you can have sex with more than one person at a time, but that's going off somewhere else :v} actually can communicate and are on the same level with how they want things to go, what they expect, what they don't like, etc. Sex should never be something hurried because your first time will be something that you'll use to base your further sexual experiences on, so they should be as pleasant as possible.

Leading from that, I think people should definitely wait until they and their partners believe they're ready for sex and it should not be something that's decided when you're fucking 12 years old and are pretty much fucking useless in terms of being able to make such decisions.

>>10
My points above kind of lead into the point you're making here. I do think that having sex at a young age is a really bad idea. They might be biologically capable of having sex, but I think that people that young are nowhere near capable psychologically for such a thing.

>>8 Going off from Navi's point about sexual attitudes. It's kind of scary how media is portraying beauty and that the idealised female form is getting progressively more infantile. If we look at examples of say, models in advertisements, most of them are completely hairless, have big eyes and small noses and small breasts, almost like a pre-pubescent girl.

It's worrying because the boundary of what differentiates a "girl" from a "woman" is becoming increasingly blurred.

tru man thats right love is an afection that can be showed in other ways than sex

tru man thats right love is an afection that can be showed in other ways than sex

To me, sex is not the only way in a relationship. Of course there are people who do it, but there are some others, like myself, who'd rather wait until marriage. Well, depending where you live, or your culture that influences you, sex does not necessarily help a person in some ways, say a man and a woman who have gone out a few months, and the guy wants to do it but the woman isn't so sure, but is convinced it will help deepen their relationship. what happens when it doesn't, he doesn't love you anymore, he's had his fun and now wants to back off. Well, I'm not sure if this has happened to anyone, but this is just my opinion, having sex is too early, and should only be given after marriage.

BECAUSE people are lustful sons of b*tches by nature. a good lover would resist instinct and value the other person.

Not my boyfriend and I :I

The point of an eros relationship is to have a sexual desire or wanting for the other person, so eventually, when each person trusts the other enough, they have sex. I'm not saying that the whole point of a relationship should be sex, but it is important to a relationship.

Because people think that sex is very thing and if someone isn't having it, then they make it seem like they have nothing

This may sound cheesy, but I think all there is to a relationship is trust, respect, and love towards one another! But yea, s e x is a big thing nowadays, I mean, listen to the songs on the radio closely. You'll find almost every song now has at least a hint of s e x mentioned, if not all about it!

People can have s e x without feelings, I'll just say it now, sexual lust wins over anything. It's pretty common, my friends have seen lots of c ondoms in our middle school -___-.

its not a new thing, this has been around forever in society. Sex itself is not bad, its only bad when you make it seem like an object. People confuse what a relationship really means, and lust. Love is supposed to come first. Communication, compromise, and trust comes before your own sexual needs.
I also think it seems more profound now because of how young teens are focused on "you only live once" Living while you still can.