<p>*“is it ethical to use someone else for the purpose of pleasure”</p>
<p>Most of my interactions with my friends are for the purpose of pleasure. I invite them to my house to enjoy their company, not as an act of generosity. If they didn’t make me laugh, I wouldn’t do it.*</p>
<p>That is apples and oranges. You can’t compare a social interaction like having people over for dinner or even taking out someone for a date with sex. Sex is a whole different level of intimacy.</p>
<p>Re-reading the OP’s question, I think they are looking for validation from their own perspective. Folks are liberal, friends and grass.</p>
<p>The fact is to me, there is always a chance of getting a disease or pregnant. I told my kids for yrs before you have sex run through your mind, you are having sex with every partner they had sex with, and every partner that their previous partner had sex with. If you are okay to than okay.</p>
<p>You need to understand that many parents here became sexually active in the AIDS epidemic era. To some of us, we are not concerned about the cost of babies, we are thinking life long illness. </p>
<p>For me, every time you have sex there is the chance 6 weeks later of saying, “we are pregnant” or “I am HIV positive”</p>
<p>At a social gathering kids in their 20’ were saying…</p>
<p>In the end of the day it really does come down to respect and 2 to tango. Would you respect your DD if she slept with everyone and anyone? Is sex just sex with no emotion? If it is, do it 24/7 just make sure you wear a rain coat. Make sure that you are willing to pay for the next 18 yrs from a fiscal standpoint for your few minutes of pleasure of you don’t. DNA is an amazing scientific aspect regarding paternity.</p>
<p>Also remember it is her body, and if she elects to keep the baby, you are on the hook financially. If she elects to terminate you have no voice. Basically as a guy you must live with the results of your desires. If you aren’t willing to accept those options, than you are not ready to have sex.</p>
<p>“Sex is a whole different level of intimacy.”</p>
<p>But the question was whether it’s ethical to use another person for the purposes of pleasure. If you think that’s the wrong question here, ask a different one, but I answered the one that was asked.</p>
<p>Is it wrong? No. Does it carry risks and responsibilities? Yes.</p>
<p>The main thing is . . . be respectful of your partner and do not have sex with someone who refuses to use condoms.</p>
<p>Even if a girl is using birth control, that will only protect against pregnancy–not STDs. (Also true of relationships where pregnancy isn’t a risk, like two guys.) Stop if your partner says “no.” If it’s a girl-guy couple, talk in advance about what the girl would do if she missed a period. (Would she want to keep the baby?) Find out in advance where you can buy the emergency pill, just in case you have a condom breakage.</p>
<p>And RESEARCH HOW TO PUT ON A CONDOM CORRECTLY. The number one reason for condom breakage is putting it on incorrectly.</p>
<p>Baelor’s question makes me sad, and worried for him. “[Consensual] sexual intercourse with the intent of pleasure and nothing else” could mean nothing more than than a transaction with a prostitute, in which case it’s a fairly standard question about the ethics of using prostitutes. But I suspect Baelor thought he was referring to a much broader class of interactions. In that case, either the question is absurd – people don’t have sex consensually for the sake of pleasure and nothing else – unless you define “pleasure” very broadly, and “nothing else” very narrowly, in which case people do that all the time and no one questions whether it’s ethical, including all religious denominations with any staying power. (I’ll exclude the Shakers and such like, who thought sex was wrong, period.) </p>
<p>Of course, various religions and other moral systems place conditions on the ethicalness of sex, and maybe those conditions are Baelor’s “nothing else”, but that’s putting the rabbit in the hat: Sex is bad if you do it for any reason other than the ones I believe are legitimate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Fine. Let me rephrase, or rather define the terms. Then we can dialectically reach some sort of conclusion.</p>
<p>“Pleasure” in the sense of physical/biological pleasure. If you think this is limited to encounters with prostitutes, then I’m not the one for whom you should be worried.</p>
<p>Now, this is indeed restrictive. Perhaps more important is the idea of personal gain as the sole concern, with pleasure being a subset. Again, if you find this limited to encounters with prostitutes, a reality check is in order.</p>
<p>I think people sometimes think they are having sex for fun/pleasure and nothing else, but I think it’s rare that it works out that way. The thing that makes sex so powerful is that it does create and strengthen emotional bonds. That’s why we parents, tend to be leery about kids having sex before they are ready to accept those consequences.</p>
<p>*“Sex is a whole different level of intimacy.”</p>
<p>But the question was whether it’s ethical to use another person for the purposes of pleasure. If you think that’s the wrong question here, ask a different one, but I answered the one that was asked. *</p>
<p>I think the question was posed within the spirit of using another person sexually for one’s own pleasure. </p>
<p>But, if you need the question reworded…here ya go…</p>
<p>“is it ethical to use someone else for the sole purpose of one’s own sexual pleasure without any concern for that person in any real or significant way.”</p>
<p>I’d even go a step further and pose the question in a context of what I think frequently happens…</p>
<p>“is it ethical to use someone else for the sole purpose of one’s own sexual pleasure without any concern for that person and by giving the impression to the other person that there is going to be a future relationship (dating, etc).”</p>
<p>I would feel a little uncomfortable with the phrase “use” the partner for sex, if they consent. Baelor’s question did use “consent”. To me, to “use” the other person often implies the partner may not be aware one only desires sex; and that somehow one person has deceived the other. Although Bob Seger said “I used her, she used me but neither one cared”.
If both are single adults, and both know, then like naturally, I see nothing wrong, but see that it carries risks.
Of course the topic here is not consenting adults, but rather is high-school age teens.</p>
<p>I would feel a little uncomfortable with the phrase “use” the partner for sex, if they consent.</p>
<p>I’m not uncomfortable with that phrase. It’s for situations when consent was given after misleading the other person into thinking that there would be more to the relationship.</p>
<p>OP–Is teen sex “wrong”? You mean legaly, morally or as a threat to one’s health? Or, just a “bad” idea?</p>
<p>Well, by custom and then by law, the age of consent started at about 12 yo and in the later part of the 19th century started going up in some countries. I think in the UK it is now 16. Seems to fall between 12 and 18. [Age</a> of consent](<a href=“http://www.avert.org/age-of-consent.htm]Age”>What is sexual consent? | Be in the KNOW)</p>
<p>Some of the medical types can step in, but I thought I read that there is a correlation between cervical cancer and age of first intercourse, and frequency of intercourse at a young age.</p>
<p>Morally? I guess it is determined in large degree by the outlook of your parents, as you have indicated.</p>
<p>“Bad” idea? As a general observation, it sure adds complexity to any relationship. If it is not in a relationship, you may get into a lot of the self-esteem issues.</p>
<p>Post #7:
</p>
<p>You are confusing sex with pregnancy – that’s the point of educating teens about contraception. </p>
<p>When my daughter had her first serious boyfriend at age 16, I sat down with her and did a rehash of the birth control talk. We had talked before, of course, but it was a different issue once there was a real target for her affections and raging hormones. Daughter rolled her eyes, told me there was nothing to worry about … but I got the message across. Amidst all that eye rolling I had mentioned that my d. could make an appointment with her doctor on her own, without my knowing about it … and my daughter took that info and used it. (Despite what I had said, I did find out about it later because of an inquiry from the insurance company – somehow our insurance had decided that my daughter was male and didn’t want to pay for her prescription until we managed to set them straight on the gender issue). </p>
<p>Obviously it is not a good idea for teenagers to have unwanted pregnancy, but youngsters 15 and up certainly are old enough to learn about contraception and the need to use it. After all, my daughter was smart and responsible enough at that age to drive a car and understand the need for seat belts. The sex thing isn’t all that much more complicated intellectually than the driving thing… though the emotional repercussions may be very different. </p>
<p>And as to the “is it wrong” question – I had always told my daughter that I thought that it was best to wait for sex until she was in a loving, long-term trusting relationship based on mutual respect – and I know that she took that to heart. I wasn’t going to prevent her from having sex as a teenager and I knew that – but I did succeed in romanticizing the idea of sex enough in her head that she was going to hold out for the right guy. The high school boyfriend was very sweet and they were together a number of years, though they did break it off around the time my d. turned 21.</p>
<p>yes, mom2collegekids, isn’t that exactly the distinction that I explained in my post 29?
My belief is that if both parties are single adults, fully aware of the circumstance, then “just sex” isn’t “using” someone.
Did you join in(post 30) to agree with me, or wasn’t my meaning clear?</p>
<p>Instrumentalization is completely independent from consent.</p>
<p>My belief is that if both parties are single adults, fully aware of the circumstance, then “just sex” isn’t “using” someone.</p>
<p>It’s true that if both people are truly looking at “hooking up” as just for fun with no future attachments, then no one is using the other.</p>
<p>BUT…if young adults (usually it’s young women) are misled into thinking that there is going to be a relationship (future dates, etc), and there really wasn’t such an intention, they’re being used…even if they did consent .</p>
<p>If “sex” were simply a physical act there would be a different set of arguments pro and con teenage sex, perhaps along the lines of teenage drinking, smoking and other drugs and the problems of illness and infection et al. However, there is always an emotional aspect for at least one of the partners that puts sexual activity into its own category. The level of intimacy is such that it is likely both partners will not agree on its significance, hurting one or both of them. There is also the social aspect- the act will usually not remain private between the two participants and can lead to adverse changes in peer relationships/opinions. In general most teens lack the maturity to consider enough of the implications of “sex” and its impact on the other person so I do not think it should be considered right for teens in our society of prolonged adolescence. </p>
<p>Sexuality is a part of being an adult, most teens haven’t crossed over the line between childhood and adulthood so it is wrong for them- just as playing with fire is wrong for young children. The potential lifelong adverse consequences/hurt are too great. In our society teenage sex remains wrong. Change the psychological and social consequences, not to mention the physical ones that apply to all ages, and you change my answer.</p>
<p>As with all rules there are exceptions that can be found.</p>
<p>To me is is very simple, if you are asking if you should then the answer is no, because you already have doubts.</p>
<p>wis75 quote:</p>
<p>*If “sex” were simply a physical act there would be a different set of arguments … However, there is always an emotional aspect for at least one of the partners that puts sexual activity into its own category.**The level of intimacy is such that it is likely both partners will not agree on its significance, hurting one or both of them. **</p>
<p>There is also the social aspect- the act will usually not remain private between the two participants and can lead to adverse changes in peer relationships/opinions. </p>
<p>In general most teens lack the maturity to consider enough of the implications of “sex” and its impact on the other person so I do not think it should be considered right for teens in our society of prolonged adolescence. *</p>
<p>The best words on this subject…by far! Excellent Wis75!!! :)</p>
<p>Very true for the social aspect. There has always been the double standard, girls who have sex are sluts, guys are studs. Girls are private regarding this issue, guys aren’t as private.</p>
<p>Sex is a physical act that has the ability to cause emotional pain. If you are unable to accept the risks, than you are not ready to have sex.</p>
<p>I have always been open with my children regarding sex. I have told our DSs that just because she is on the pill, means squat because when you get in bed with her you are getting in bed with everyone she has ever slept with! Pregnancy is the easiest factor that you could be dealing with compared to HIV and Herpes. I tell them to use a raincoat for their own protection.</p>
<p>I have told our DD the same thing. </p>
<p>I do not romanticize sex, because I don’t think teenagers romanticize it either, I think it hormonal to them.</p>
<p>Teenagers think they are in love after 2 weeks of dating, you can’t tell them that isn’t love, but hormones because they will tell you flat out you are wrong and best yet, YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND…yeah, like when I was 16 those feelings didn’t exist, because back in the stone age we did not get emotional until we were in our 20’s at the earliest!</p>
<p>I think the best mix is discussing emotional and physical to your kids when it comes to sex. It is best for them IMHPO to understand a short time period will forever link you together, it may be emotionally, but it also can be physically.</p>
<p>If you are not ready to walk into CVS and buy a box of condoms than you are not ready to have sex.</p>
<p>If you are not ready to accept the fact that condoms are only 97% effective and you could be one of the 3% than you are not ready to have sex. </p>
<p>If you hear “I want to prove to you how much I love you” or you say that statement, than your are not ready for sex.</p>
<p>If you can time warp yourself as a guy and say would you want your DD to sleep with someone like you, and the answer is NO, than you are not ready for sex.</p>
<p>Sex is a physical act, plain and simple, but it is an act that carries great weight.</p>
<p>*I do not romanticize sex, because I don’t think teenagers romanticize it either, I think it hormonal to them.</p>
<p>Teenagers think they are in love after 2 weeks of dating, you can’t tell them that isn’t love, but hormones because they will tell you flat out you are wrong and best yet, YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND.*</p>
<p>I do think teens (especially girls) do romanticize sex. As you say, after 2 weeks they think they’re in love and it will be forever. So, they have romanticized the situation - which helps justify why they’ll go forward with sex.</p>
<p>I do think that for boys it can largely be hormonal. They are in a near constant state of arousal…that is not the case with girls. Girls are not regularly turned-on in the classroom, on the street, etc. They may think a boy is cute, but they’re not sexually aroused like a boy can be when he sees a sexy girl in the classroom, on the street, or sitting across from him at dinner.</p>