Sex at 15 makes me cringe too! But looking at the way things are changing, it seems that it's almost NORMAL for 15 year olds to be having sex these days!

I remember thinking when I was about 14, oh I am SO ready to have sex! But I so was NOT!

Then again I have a male friend who lost his virginity at 14 (and you wouldn't believe it if you knew him) and from what I have gathered, he was ready. He has always been very emotionally mature, however, whereas I am not ;D

i lost my virginity when i was 14... i have friends who've lost it earlier then that.. some start young unfortunately

I lost my virginity at 14 also. I'm not proud of that, but I don't regret it either. it's just how things happened. but I do think I was too young.

I've had one night stands...I like them...*shrugs* Not saying everyone should...but it works for me...or friends with benefits. I completely lost my train of thought here.

Does it really matter? As long as they stayed safe and considerate of their partners' health, who cares if it's 100 or 1,000? Some people just like sex. There's nothing wrong with that...I think there are way too may hangups regarding sex in all societies, but some are worse than others.

alot of young girls are taken advantage of though.. it isn't "just sex", there's an emotional bond to it. (at least in the beginning, which is why young girls probably have more partners because they keep going and looking for that emotional bond) it can make somebody damaged.

People actually count? Who cares... do what makes you happy. Just watch those STD's!

I don't think it's about the number, but rather the behavior that goes with it. I think having lots of one night stands is slutty. But if a person happens to have had several long term partners, and has had sex as part of loving relationships with each of them, then that's different (although someone who only has one night stands is also likely to have a higher number than someone who has been in long term relationships).

And it makes no difference if the person is a man or a woman.

12.5, YO! THAT IS THE MAGIC NUMBER, UPON WHICH YOU BECOME KNOWN AS A SLUT FOR EVER MORE! YOU MUST TOTALLY STOP AT 12.4.

;D

You're a slut when you can no longer remember names/faces of people you've had sex with.

Or if you have more partners than fingers!

i would have to use fingers and toes and prolly eyes too.

haha than i am so a slut. i cant remember faces and i have to think real hard to remember names.

Yeah, but how hard do you have to think about it to remember? LOL!!

In the course of this dicussion thus far, there has been a lot of talk about subjective standards from person to person but no discussion whatsoever of a transcedent ethical/moral standard when it comes to sexuality. I guess part of that is post-modernism run amok.

Come again?

Subjective standards are morals, under which conditions you deem an act should/should not be committed for example, in this case sex/sexual acts.

Yeah I know what they are, I got lost after that bit.

I studied the concept of 'post-modernism' in drama and ever since then, whenever I see the word, my brain shuts down.

Subjective standards are morals, under which conditions you deem an act should/should not be committed for example, in this case sex/sexual acts.

I'm not really talking about morals per se, but of ethics. Morals are what one should do whereas ethics are what one *ought* to do. There's a significant difference between the two terms.

So instead of getting laughed at for saying that sex outside of marriage is wrong, I wanted to expound upon the elephant sitting in the room. I have yet to see someone cite any type of transcendent ethical law or standard to justify their respective position.

HOW DO YOU DEFINE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 'SHOULD' AND 'OUGHT TO', GOODBAR, YO? BOTH IMPLY OBLIGATION TO SOME SYSTEM OF VALUES - AT LEAST IN UK USAGE - AND ARE USED INTERCHANGEABLY. DOES THE US DEFINE THE TERMS DIFFERENTLY?

I was going to ask that same question, but it hadn't occurred to me that it might be an American thing.

No. In America, 'should' and 'ought to' are pretty much the same thing just as in the UK.

This is not an issue of an American usage versus a British usage. I'm talking about it in the philosophical sense of the terms. The term "ought" carries with it a particular ethical weight which "should" does not.