I realize that the leftist perverts have chosen 11 as the age they would like to see children introduced to sex, because they are perverts. It is sad to see FReepers wanting to help encourage that.
Parents and others, especially civil authorities, should set higher-not lower-standards. You set low standards you WILL get lower output, let us set the standards higher.
If they are old enough for sex, that means they are old enough to get their own place and support themselves, this is the attitude that parents should be having.
Parents and others, especially civil authorities, should set higher-not lower-standards. You set low standards you WILL get lower output, let us set the standards higher.
If they are old enough for sex, that means they are old enough to get their own place and support themselves, this is the attitude that parents should be having.
No one is talking about pushing children into having sex at the age of 11. This is a vaccine--meant to protect health. When you take your child to the doctor to get the vaccine, he/she is told that it's a vaccine against cancer--the doctor doesn't tell your kid, "There you go--now run out and have sex!" To my knowledge, undergoing small needle pricks does not cause uncontrollable lust.
Realistically speaking, parents can do everything right and their kids will still do things they shouldn't. There is nothing "liberal" about acknowledging that--it's a fact of life. Do you truly think that a young 20-something deserves to die painfully from cancer because they didn't remain a virgin past the age of 16? What about drug use--still prevalent despite a massive and expensive anti-drug campaign--do kids who try drugs anyway also deserve to die gruesome addict deaths because of it?
This gets me to wondering a bit. How many people in your world actually deserve to live?