Why do people act like you killed their cat if you suggest that teens are biologically adults?

[G@yWad69]

As someone who has worked with young people from 5yo all the way through adulthood, I honestly think you're pushing your definition of biological adult. Young teens really aren't matured at all, but they're also not children, they're not asexual, and I think they deserve greater rights. The 16/12 framework I wrote with Fragment is a reflection of this transitional stage.

Biological adult definition-“The biological definition of adult is an organism that has reached sexual maturity and thus capable of reproduction.” Pulled straight from the dictionary

Have teens reached sexual maturity and are capable of reproduction, yes or no?

If the answer is yes.(which it is, because you’ll have a hard time finding a teenager who is prepubescent) Then they are biologically adults, and I am not “pushing” the defenition of biological adult for knowing what words mean.

This is exactly what I am complaining about in my post, people getting mad and arguing against basic human biology because it doesnt fit their arbirtrary definition of whats socially or legally “mature”. Im not talking about what you personally think a “mature” individual should think or act like. I am talking about BIOLOGY, not arbitrary and highly personal and culturally influenced legal and social definitions of adulthood and “maturity”. Please reread my post.

Besides, I already addressed this in my post, teens act like children and “immature” because they are treated like children and never given the chance to mature in the first place. If they even dare to try to act their age they are shamed for being “fast” and “grown” and promptly put in their “place” by parents, teachers, and the government.They have parental locks on their phones, life 360 tracking their every move, curfews, are supervised almost 24/7 by legal adults, arent allowed to make their own medical or legal descions, arent legally allowed to drop out of school till 16 or work full time till 18, arent allowed to rent their own space except for rare exceptions of emancipation, arent given real world information on things and are instead tought shakesphere, arent allowed to vote, arent allowed to drink, cant drive till 16, cant consent till 16-18, cant sign contracts, open indepent bank accounts, and the list goes on and on and on and on. Their parents fully dictate what they wear, where they are allowed to hang out, who their freinds are, what school they go to, what medical procedures they can have, if they can have sex or not, etc. How in the hell is someone supposed to be “mature” under such heavy coddling? Of course the teens you work with are “immature”, there is no possibility to be “mature” if every aspect of your life from the food you eat and the roof you live under is controlled by mommy, daddy, or the goverment. Its honestly suprising that teens dont act like 5 year olds with how restricted and stunted they are.

Back when minors where given responsibilities and integrated into the adult world. There where 7 year old apprecentices working in farms/at jobs(I am NOT talking about the cruel and barbaric practice of forcing children to work long shifts for little pay in factories or chimmneys or mines or other dangerous jobs btw, I am talking about delivering newspapers and polishing shoes and selling milk), teenagers were leading men in the army, teens were starting families and owning buissness. Teens were serving their country in wars. One of the FOUNDING FATHERS was a teenager. Let me repeat that, one of the men who FOUNDED THE COUNTRY OF AMERICA, WAS A TEENAGE BOY. So unless there was some huge biological shift in human evolution starting in the 1800s, the “immaturity” you see in young teens is culture bound, not a biological based fact. I never said that teens were “legally” and or “socially” mature, I just said they were “sexually mature”(biological definition of adulthood). And if your argument is that 13-17 year olds are prepubescent, you are objectively wrong.

[G@yWad69]

As someone who has worked with young people from 5yo all the way through adulthood, I honestly think you're pushing your definition of biological adult. Young teens really aren't matured at all, but they're also not children, they're not asexual, and I think they deserve greater rights. The 16/12 framework I wrote with Fragment is a reflection of this transitional stage.

BLueRibbon, your response isn't really giving a clear counter-example to G@yWad's main argument, that teens are developed biologically if not socially. I'm more inclined to side with G@yWad here, but there is the fact that people tend not to reach their full height until about 14-16.

Yes its true that people arent FULLY grown till 14-16 or even older. But fully grown is different from grown. A full grown adult is different from a young adult. A young adult is an organism that just reached sexual maturity and can reproduce(10-12), a FULLY grown adult is an adult who has FULLY grown(14-16). I never said that the average teen was a FULLY GROWN adult, I just said they were adults, at least biologically. I agree that BLue is only arguing that teens arent devloped socially, which has nothing to do with my argument of biology, which frustrates me because the entire point if my post is that teens are socially stunted despite their biological readiness, yet people get defensive and argue against a basic biological fact and equate biological maturity to culturally bound social standards of “maturity”, thinking that despite someone having the biology of an adult, because modern society doesnt let them grow and mature, hindering their natural devlopment for “protection”, their biology must be an aberration. That nature is in the wrong because it doesnt conform to modern day social standards

[RoosterDance]

Well then, I agree and have nothing further to add.

[Kylelomaz]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts very interesting
My view is people are stupid and society at large is in major turmoil.
Wouldn’t be so soft on underage drinking my view is at 18 is a good limit and same with voting.
Sex is fine in my books as long as it’s safe sex.
And you are very correct when you say teens are biological adults,because they are you have to spend time with to know that they really know what they want.
Now with teenage pregnancy that’s an issue for me I don’t know what to say about it.

[Outis]

I've not experienced that exactly. In my experience, parents have generally acknowledged that their teens are biologically adult but that brings about fear which causes parents to become over controlling. My wife for example has said that our kids are much better behaved than they were at that age. My wife was chasing boys and having sex quite early because she had a high sex drive and where she lived it was easier to do that. Now she's a parent she is worried that her daughters will be the same so she watches them closely and wouldn't let them have sleep overs with boys or boys here, not without insisting they have the door open and we can check on them. Her fear comes from her memory and recollection of her own raging hormones at that age. She feels her raging hormones distracted her from her studies and she puts down her school results and career challenges and everything down to her early need for sex, and she wants to ensure our daughters instead focus on studies and achieving things in life.

I've had other parents express similar things. It's not so much that they are afraid of strangers out there having sex with their kids, it's more that they are afraid of their kids own sex drive driving them to seek out sex, it's more about protecting their kids from themselves.

[G@yWad69]

I've not experienced that exactly. In my experience, parents have generally acknowledged that their teens are biologically adult but that brings about fear which causes parents to become over controlling. My wife for example has said that our kids are much better behaved than they were at that age. My wife was chasing boys and having sex quite early because she had a high sex drive and where she lived it was easier to do that. Now she's a parent she is worried that her daughters will be the same so she watches them closely and wouldn't let them have sleep overs with boys or boys here, not without insisting they have the door open and we can check on them. Her fear comes from her memory and recollection of her own raging hormones at that age. She feels her raging hormones distracted her from her studies and she puts down her school results and career challenges and everything down to her early need for sex, and she wants to ensure our daughters instead focus on studies and achieving things in life.

I've had other parents express similar things. It's not so much that they are afraid of strangers out there having sex with their kids, it's more that they are afraid of their kids own sex drive driving them to seek out sex, it's more about protecting their kids from themselves.

Thats so stupid, minors dont need to be “protected” from sex, as sex is a normal and common part of being human. It is the driving force of our species(no one on planet earth would exist without it). Protecting minors from sex is protecting them from human nature, a battle no one will EVER win, at least at not without destroying the minor even more than just letting them get their dick sucked would. If minors were so “ruined” by sex and needed to be “protected” from sex so badly then why did even fetuses in the womb evolve to have a sex drive and crave orgasm(fetuses masturbate in the womb), if even literal fetuses in mommys vagina can seek out orgasms without being destroyed, then why cant a person more than 13 times their age? Am i suppised to belive that a human fetuses is less sensitive than a teenager? If teens were guven the option for both sex AND studies, instead of it being just one or the other(either your a straight A student who keeps it in your pants or your a depraved slut who will drop out) then teens wouldnt choose one over the other. Imagine how much better your wifes teenhood would be if she didnt have to sneak around as a teen, if she was guven early sex ed, safe and easy access to abortions, plan b, and condoms without parental intervention, if she was allowed to go to kink events and kink spaces, if she was able to freely ask for advice on sex from legal adults instead of learning garbage from her equally ignorant peers

[Outis]

I've not experienced that exactly. In my experience, parents have generally acknowledged that their teens are biologically adult but that brings about fear which causes parents to become over controlling. My wife for example has said that our kids are much better behaved than they were at that age. My wife was chasing boys and having sex quite early because she had a high sex drive and where she lived it was easier to do that. Now she's a parent she is worried that her daughters will be the same so she watches them closely and wouldn't let them have sleep overs with boys or boys here, not without insisting they have the door open and we can check on them. Her fear comes from her memory and recollection of her own raging hormones at that age. She feels her raging hormones distracted her from her studies and she puts down her school results and career challenges and everything down to her early need for sex, and she wants to ensure our daughters instead focus on studies and achieving things in life.

I've had other parents express similar things. It's not so much that they are afraid of strangers out there having sex with their kids, it's more that they are afraid of their kids own sex drive driving them to seek out sex, it's more about protecting their kids from themselves.

Thats so stupid, minors dont need to be “protected” from sex, as sex is a normal and common part of being human. It is the driving force of our species(no one on planet earth would exist without it). Protecting minors from sex is protecting them from human nature, a battle no one will EVER win, at least at not without destroying the minor even more than just letting them get their dick sucked would. If minors were so “ruined” by sex and needed to be “protected” from sex so badly then why did even fetuses in the womb evolve to have a sex drive and crave orgasm(fetuses masturbate in the womb), if even literal fetuses in mommys vagina can seek out orgasms without being destroyed, then why cant a person more than 13 times their age? Am i suppised to belive that a human fetuses is less sensitive than a teenager? If teens were guven the option for both sex AND studies, instead of it being just one or the other(either your a straight A student who keeps it in your pants or your a depraved slut who will drop out) then teens wouldnt choose one over the other. Imagine how much better your wifes teenhood would be if she didnt have to sneak around as a teen, if she was guven early sex ed, safe and easy access to abortions, plan b, and condoms without parental intervention, if she was allowed to go to kink events and kink spaces, if she was able to freely ask for advice on sex from legal adults instead of learning garbage from her equally ignorant peers

I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying that in my experience that where many parents minds are at. It isn't that sex is unnatural or terrible but that's in a way it's too good and distracting and somehow destructive as a result. I do understand that fear, sex feels good and can become addictive or distracting, that's how people get hooked on porn because it generates a lot of pleasure or how people get hooked on sex. When younger, feeling can be event stronger, sex drives often reduce in later life but young people do have sex drives and urges and less control over it. Sort of like chocolate tastes good, most people like chocolate, but we've learned through experience that too much chocolate makes us sick while a young person hasn't learned that so will eat chocolate until they're sick. Actually I think young people should be taught about healthy eating and healthy sex so they don't get hooked on it or don't understand it. Learn about sex at school for sure but nothing beats experience and I don't think sex has to be addictive or cause problems at school or in life if it's taught and treated like anything else.

[BLueRibbon]

As someone who has worked with young people from 5yo all the way through adulthood, I honestly think you're pushing your definition of biological adult. Young teens really aren't matured at all, but they're also not children, they're not asexual, and I think they deserve greater rights. The 16/12 framework I wrote with Fragment is a reflection of this transitional stage.

BLueRibbon, your response isn't really giving a clear counter-example to G@yWad's main argument, that teens are developed biologically if not socially. I'm more inclined to side with G@yWad here, but there is the fact that people tend not to reach their full height until about 14-16.

Yes its true that people arent FULLY grown till 14-16 or even older. But fully grown is different from grown. A full grown adult is different from a young adult. A young adult is an organism that just reached sexual maturity and can reproduce(10-12), a FULLY grown adult is an adult who has FULLY grown(14-16). I never said that the average teen was a FULLY GROWN adult, I just said they were adults, at least biologically. I agree that BLue is only arguing that teens arent devloped socially, which has nothing to do with my argument of biology, which frustrates me because the entire point if my post is that teens are socially stunted despite their biological readiness, yet people get defensive and argue against a basic biological fact and equate biological maturity to culturally bound social standards of “maturity”, thinking that despite someone having the biology of an adult, because modern society doesnt let them grow and mature, hindering their natural devlopment for “protection”, their biology must be an aberration. That nature is in the wrong because it doesnt conform to modern day social standards

OK, I get your point about 'biological young adult', but at that point it's just a debate over semantics.

As for biology versus socialization, that's a more difficult one. I agree that teens are stunted by modern notions of what it means to be a child, adolescent, or adult. But I don't agree that differences are entirely a matter of socialization, at least in earlier adolescence. I do think that more autonomy for young adolescents is necessary, especially in the western world where they are very much infantilized.

[G@yWad69]

BLueRibbon, your response isn't really giving a clear counter-example to G@yWad's main argument, that teens are developed biologically if not socially. I'm more inclined to side with G@yWad here, but there is the fact that people tend not to reach their full height until about 14-16.

Yes its true that people arent FULLY grown till 14-16 or even older. But fully grown is different from grown. A full grown adult is different from a young adult. A young adult is an organism that just reached sexual maturity and can reproduce(10-12), a FULLY grown adult is an adult who has FULLY grown(14-16). I never said that the average teen was a FULLY GROWN adult, I just said they were adults, at least biologically. I agree that BLue is only arguing that teens arent devloped socially, which has nothing to do with my argument of biology, which frustrates me because the entire point if my post is that teens are socially stunted despite their biological readiness, yet people get defensive and argue against a basic biological fact and equate biological maturity to culturally bound social standards of “maturity”, thinking that despite someone having the biology of an adult, because modern society doesnt let them grow and mature, hindering their natural devlopment for “protection”, their biology must be an aberration. That nature is in the wrong because it doesnt conform to modern day social standards

OK, I get your point about 'biological young adult', but at that point it's just a debate over semantics. Someone who is biologically a young adult is a person whose body has evolved over centuries of trial and eeror to be fully capable of raising offspring and taking care of themselves and their offspring. A social young adult is someone who in modern day western culture has reached an arbitrary number and is given full legal rights. Theres a big difference and its not “semantics”

As for biology versus socialization, that's a more difficult one. I agree that teens are stunted by modern notions of what it means to be a child, adolescent, or adult. But I don't agree that differences are entirely a matter of socialization, at least in earlier adolescence. I do think that more autonomy for young adolescents is necessary, especially in the western world where they are very much infantilized.

But its not “semantics” though. There is a HUGE difference between biology and sociology, and to pretend that the difference is only “semantics” is false.

A biological young adult is a person whose body has evolved over centuries of trial and error to not only be fully capable of taking care of themselves but also of producing and taking care if their offspring. A social young adult is a person who has reached whatever abritrary number has been determined as “special” by their country and is now given full legal rights and is socially indepedent. Thats not “semantics”

Heres an example, a bit extreme, but it gets the point across. Black people are biologically identical to white people except for mild differences with skin colour and facial features. During the 1800s when black people where treated as idiot property, they werent as “smart” as white people, they couldnt “take care of themselves” they werent “responsible”. Then when we started treating black people as equal to white people, they suddenly became smart, responsible, and could take care of themselves. Why? Because there is a HUGE difference between biology and sociology.

Now this. A young teen is biologically identical to a legal adult except for a few small differences due to the ongoing puberty. During the 2020s, they are treated like idiot property, they arent as “smart” as legal adults, they cant “take care of themselves”, they arent “responsible”. Yet before the 1800s, back when 14 year olds were treated as equals to legal adults, they were perfectly capable of taking care of themselves, being responisble, and we awere smart.

Please dont dismiss the ginormous difference between an persons biological readiness that has evolved from centuries of evolution as being the same as modern day westernized culture and argue that its “just semantics” because we both know that its not

[BLueRibbon]

Yes its true that people arent FULLY grown till 14-16 or even older. But fully grown is different from grown. A full grown adult is different from a young adult. A young adult is an organism that just reached sexual maturity and can reproduce(10-12), a FULLY grown adult is an adult who has FULLY grown(14-16). I never said that the average teen was a FULLY GROWN adult, I just said they were adults, at least biologically. I agree that BLue is only arguing that teens arent devloped socially, which has nothing to do with my argument of biology, which frustrates me because the entire point if my post is that teens are socially stunted despite their biological readiness, yet people get defensive and argue against a basic biological fact and equate biological maturity to culturally bound social standards of “maturity”, thinking that despite someone having the biology of an adult, because modern society doesnt let them grow and mature, hindering their natural devlopment for “protection”, their biology must be an aberration. That nature is in the wrong because it doesnt conform to modern day social standards

OK, I get your point about 'biological young adult', but at that point it's just a debate over semantics. Someone who is biologically a young adult is a person whose body has evolved over centuries of trial and eeror to be fully capable of raising offspring and taking care of themselves and their offspring. A social young adult is someone who in modern day western culture has reached an arbitrary number and is given full legal rights. Theres a big difference and its not “semantics”

As for biology versus socialization, that's a more difficult one. I agree that teens are stunted by modern notions of what it means to be a child, adolescent, or adult. But I don't agree that differences are entirely a matter of socialization, at least in earlier adolescence. I do think that more autonomy for young adolescents is necessary, especially in the western world where they are very much infantilized.

But its not “semantics” though. There is a HUGE difference between biology and sociology, and to pretend that the difference is only “semantics” is false.

A biological young adult is a person whose body has evolved over centuries of trial and error to not only be fully capable of taking care of themselves but also of producing and taking care if their offspring. A social young adult is a person who has reached whatever abritrary number has been determined as “special” by their country and is now given full legal rights and is socially indepedent. Thats not “semantics”

Heres an example, a bit extreme, but it gets the point across. Black people are biologically identical to white people except for mild differences with skin colour and facial features. During the 1800s when black people where treated as idiot property, they werent as “smart” as white people, they couldnt “take care of themselves” they werent “responsible”. Then when we started treating black people as equal to white people, they suddenly became smart, responsible, and could take care of themselves. Why? Because there is a HUGE difference between biology and sociology.

Now this. A young teen is biologically identical to a legal adult except for a few small differences due to the ongoing puberty. During the 2020s, they are treated like idiot property, they arent as “smart” as legal adults, they cant “take care of themselves”, they arent “responsible”. Yet before the 1800s, back when 14 year olds were treated as equals to legal adults, they were perfectly capable of taking care of themselves, being responisble, and we awere smart.

Please dont dismiss the ginormous difference between an persons biological readiness that has evolved from centuries of evolution as being the same as modern day westernized culture and argue that its “just semantics” because we both know that its not

I just don't think a young teen is as similar to an adult as you believe. They are certainly more inherently adult and more inherently capable than society (certainly western society) gives them credit for, but in my opinion you are exaggerating it.

They do need more rights, and less coddling. That's something I agree on entirely.