Homosexuality and Teens Having Sex

[Blouman Empire]

Knowing more about sex was one of the main reasons I waited so long to have it. My parents were always distressingly frank about sex.

Examples include:

My mother helpfully informed me that most girls get at least a minor yeast infection after the first time they have sex, and this used to be called "honeymooner's disease" because of all the girls who'd feel a burning when they peed after their wedding night.

My father made a point to remind me that prompt clean-up of bodily fluids is important not only to prevent stains, but also to prevent uncomfortable sticking and pulling on pubic hairs.

Mom told me that orgasms can help with menstrual cramps. (Which is true, but talking about one's period AND orgasms, at the same time, with one's mother, is a nightmare for a 13 year old.)

Dad reassured me that it's not possible for a guy to pee in you during sex. But then thoughtfully amended that it IS possible for the guy to fart.

And so on.

And now this has put me off sex.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Thanks a lot!!

Next time put it in a spoiler alert please.

Anyway his response was more of an attempt at an insult/angry response that you sometimes hear and can be used in jest. (At least I use it in jest)

E.g Person A: You can't do the wiring yourself, you have no training

Person B: I'll wire you

Oh common, you haven't seen or read book 6?

[Blouman Empire]

Thanks a lot!!

Next time put it in a spoiler alert please.

Anyway his response was more of an attempt at an insult/angry response that you sometimes hear and can be used in jest. (At least I use it in jest)

E.g Person A: You can't do the wiring yourself, you have no training

Person B: I'll wire you

Oh common, you haven't seen or read book 6?

It was a joke, I really should've put a smilie

[Callisdrun]

JB, it is an absurd argument to say that God wants gays to be gay or else he would not have created gays. That is like saying God wants people to be cruel because he created free will and the ability to suffer. That is the religion of the Hannibal Lecters of the world.

I see you're posting. I see you're also not replying to me. What classic forum behavior.

I just started posting a few minutes ago, I will check back later tonight or tomorrow, what do you want me to respond to? Was it when you asked me if I am a dummy or something about sperm banks.

Yes. I refuse to believe that you think that lesbian women are somehow sterile. I wanted to see if I'm wrong and you actually think that.

What ever floats your boat, Callisdrun. I know that sterility is not connected with lesbianism. *sigh*

Sure wouldn't have guessed that from your earlier posts. You equated my having a daughter who was lesbian with never being a grandparent.

You also made a number of other problematic statements, assuming that for some reason a woman MUST take her husband's last name, as if it was somehow universal and had always been practiced.

[Tokos]

If a woman doesn't take her husband's last name then it doesn't mean the husband's family name is "lost", as whatever children result will almost certainly take their father's surname. Can't go on hyphenating forever unless you're royalty.

You equated my having a daughter who was lesbian with never being a grandparent.

Women openly identifying as lesbians tend not, it need not be said, to have children.

[Cennazluga]

If a woman doesn't take her husband's last name then it doesn't mean the husband's family name is "lost", as whatever children result will almost certainly take their father's surname. Can't go on hyphenating forever unless you're royalty.

You equated my having a daughter who was lesbian with never being a grandparent.

Women openly identifying as lesbians tend not, it need not be said, to have children.

You certainly are making a lot of assumptions about how and what social cultural practices any given individuals choose to... um, well... practice. And you also neglect the many matrilineal traditions of several culture/ethnic groups: Native Americans, some peoples in Indonesia, China, Central and South America to name a few...

I personally know of several families where the children have neither parent's last name for various reasons like adoption or just giving them something different on the birth certificate. And it certainly seems to me a pretty selfish thing to be concerned about whether your "line" gets "lost" or not. You should be more concerned about the legacy and memories you leave behind than letters on a page.

Also, lesbian have kids all the time. Even open ones. GASP. Some adopt and others may actually decide to use their uterus for what you no doubt would refer to as the "natural purpose" of a het woman. Vaginae and penes no longer must make direct contact to make babies, you know.

[Nova Magna Germania]

If a woman doesn't take her husband's last name then it doesn't mean the husband's family name is "lost", as whatever children result will almost certainly take their father's surname. Can't go on hyphenating forever unless you're royalty.

You equated my having a daughter who was lesbian with never being a grandparent.

Women openly identifying as lesbians tend not, it need not be said, to have children.

The gay and lesbian community is experiencing a baby boom. Advances in gay rights coupled with increased availability of alternative reproduction techniques have led to an unprecedented number of openly gay and lesbian parents. Estimates are that between 6 and 14 million children in the United States are being raised by at least one parent who is gay.

http://www.amazon.ca/Gay-Baby-Boom-Psyc ... 0814742610

[Nova Magna Germania]

Something I've been thinking about recently.

In general, most parents will disapprove of their teenage kids having sex. The most common reasons outside of religion are:
- Risk of pregnancy
- Risk of STDs
- Not emotionally mature enough

Here's my question - what happens when you throw homosexuality into the mix?

If your gay son has sex with his boyfriend, there is no risk of pregnancy (despite what fanfic says).

How would you react if you found out your gay teenage child was having sex, assuming you already knew he/she was gay?

EDIT: Turns out lesbians CAN transmit STDs. They just have a much lower rate of it.

Depends on his age. 13-19 is a wide range. Also depends on whom.

[Callisdrun]

If a woman doesn't take her husband's last name then it doesn't mean the husband's family name is "lost", as whatever children result will almost certainly take their father's surname. Can't go on hyphenating forever unless you're royalty.

You equated my having a daughter who was lesbian with never being a grandparent.

Women openly identifying as lesbians tend not, it need not be said, to have children.

Actually, oftentimes they do. Or have you not heard of sperm banks?

Also, why is it more important for the husband's family name to live on than it is for the wife's?


Edit: Thank you, Cennazluga and Nova Magna Germania, you beat me to it.

[Bottle]

If a woman doesn't take her husband's last name then it doesn't mean the husband's family name is "lost", as whatever children result will almost certainly take their father's surname. Can't go on hyphenating forever unless you're royalty.

Bzzt, wrong.

I carry both my parents' surnames, and any offspring I have will bear my surname.

Some people are content to give up their names when they marry. Some are not. Women are people. Do the math.

[Dempublicents1]

If a woman doesn't take her husband's last name then it doesn't mean the husband's family name is "lost", as whatever children result will almost certainly take their father's surname. Can't go on hyphenating forever unless you're royalty.

Bzzt, wrong.

I carry both my parents' surnames, and any offspring I have will bear my surname.

Some people are content to give up their names when they marry. Some are not. Women are people. Do the math.

Some people are really weird (like my husband and I) and take each other's names when getting married (we both hyphenated). Not entirely sure what we'll do with any kid's names yet.

[Ryadn]

Very thoughtful post. But what about consenting siblings having sex with each other. Is that ok with you or do you shudder at the thought of it? It is natural to do so. In fatct hat is the essence of the human understanding of natural law, that we recoil at the thought of violating instinctive rules such as the prohibition against incest.

Appeal to nature fallacy.

Not to mention, it's not actually natural for primates to have sex with their siblings or parents. All about gene pools and nothing to do with morality.

[MisterBellyButtonMan]

Hopefully by the time that happens the "use a freaking condom for peat's freaking sake" speech will have been delivered and it sunk in so they will at least be safe.

Other than that, seriously who cares? I'll get free interior decorating! Welcome new son-in-law!

[Karsol]

Hopefully by the time that happens the "use a freaking condom for peat's freaking sake" speech will have been delivered and it sunk in so they will at least be safe.

Other than that, seriously who cares? I'll get free interior decorating! Welcome new son-in-law!

Either that or he'll raid your wallet for money for weight lifting equipment.

[Glorious Freedonia]

Very thoughtful post. But what about consenting siblings having sex with each other. Is that ok with you or do you shudder at the thought of it? It is natural to do so. In fatct hat is the essence of the human understanding of natural law, that we recoil at the thought of violating instinctive rules such as the prohibition against incest.

Appeal to nature fallacy.

Not to mention, it's not actually natural for primates to have sex with their siblings or parents. All about gene pools and nothing to do with morality.

How can you say that? Genes are important. There is no compartment for genes that is somehow isolated from morality. In fact that is why we have natural law, morals tend to be in sync with our instincts and allow us to fulifll our potential.

[Karsol]

Very thoughtful post. But what about consenting siblings having sex with each other. Is that ok with you or do you shudder at the thought of it? It is natural to do so. In fatct hat is the essence of the human understanding of natural law, that we recoil at the thought of violating instinctive rules such as the prohibition against incest.

Appeal to nature fallacy.

Not to mention, it's not actually natural for primates to have sex with their siblings or parents. All about gene pools and nothing to do with morality.

How can you say that? Genes are important. There is no compartment for genes that is somehow isolated from morality. In fact that is why we have natural law, morals tend to be in sync with our instincts and allow us to fulifll our potential.

No such thing as a universal natural law.
Heck, their was a bonobo documentary on the other day, one of the teenage children started doing it;s mother up the arse.

[Glorious Freedonia]

Very thoughtful post. But what about consenting siblings having sex with each other. Is that ok with you or do you shudder at the thought of it? It is natural to do so. In fatct hat is the essence of the human understanding of natural law, that we recoil at the thought of violating instinctive rules such as the prohibition against incest.

Appeal to nature fallacy.

Not to mention, it's not actually natural for primates to have sex with their siblings or parents. All about gene pools and nothing to do with morality.

How can you say that? Genes are important. There is no compartment for genes that is somehow isolated from morality. In fact that is why we have natural law, morals tend to be in sync with our instincts and allow us to fulifll our potential.

No such thing as a universal natural law.
Heck, their was a bonobo documentary on the other day, one of the teenage children started doing it;s mother up the arse.

But we are not bonobos.

[Karsol]

Very thoughtful post. But what about consenting siblings having sex with each other. Is that ok with you or do you shudder at the thought of it? It is natural to do so. In fatct hat is the essence of the human understanding of natural law, that we recoil at the thought of violating instinctive rules such as the prohibition against incest.

Appeal to nature fallacy.

Not to mention, it's not actually natural for primates to have sex with their siblings or parents. All about gene pools and nothing to do with morality.

How can you say that? Genes are important. There is no compartment for genes that is somehow isolated from morality. In fact that is why we have natural law, morals tend to be in sync with our instincts and allow us to fulifll our potential.

No such thing as a universal natural law.
Heck, their was a bonobo documentary on the other day, one of the teenage children started doing it;s mother up the arse.

But we are not bonobos.

No, just 99% related.
Even though they are on a different evolutionary branch.

[Phenia]

Very thoughtful post. But what about consenting siblings having sex with each other. Is that ok with you or do you shudder at the thought of it? It is natural to do so. In fatct hat is the essence of the human understanding of natural law, that we recoil at the thought of violating instinctive rules such as the prohibition against incest.

Appeal to nature fallacy.

Not to mention, it's not actually natural for primates to have sex with their siblings or parents. All about gene pools and nothing to do with morality.

How can you say that? Genes are important. There is no compartment for genes that is somehow isolated from morality. In fact that is why we have natural law, morals tend to be in sync with our instincts and allow us to fulifll our potential.

No such thing as a universal natural law.
Heck, their was a bonobo documentary on the other day, one of the teenage children started doing it;s mother up the arse.

But we are not bonobos.

No, we do things far more twisted. Necrophilia to name one example. That's what happens when you add primate physiology and a big creative brain -- thinking up new ways to get your rocks off.

[Meroivinge]

Ummm i just have one question, i'm a teen and if it's illegal for us to have sex 18 and under, why do schools promote safe sex and not get in trouble with the law for it?

I realize this is a bit late, but I wanted to address two flaws in your question.

1) In the US, Age of Consent laws vary wildly in how they are worded and enforced by State. In Colorado, the official age of consent is 17, but 15 and 16 year olds may legally consent to have sex with someone who is up to ten years older, provided the older party is not in a position of trust. Younger teens may legally have sex with someone who is up to four years older. Even in States where underaged sex is completely outlawed, enforcement is generally pretty lax.

2) As many other people have pointed out, education is not the same thing as promotion. I wish I had it on hand to cite, but I recall reading a study that showed a correlation between a slightly increased teenage pregnancy rate and Abstinence-only education. Teens are going to have sex. It's probably best that they do so in a manner that best protects them.