I'm interested in your opinion.

[Samual]

Answer the poll and post your opinion in the forum.

[Miserabilia]

there is no poll here? I think you made a mistake here

[Samual]

Yes there is. There is already one vote (which I didn't make).

[Trace]

There is a poll, and I voted 13.

[Miserabilia]

oh now there is a poll. first it wasnt showing up for me lol

[indoxyl]

I was stuck between 15 and 16. So i went with 15. Seems like a reasonable age. Not too young imo

[Croconaw]

15...

[Cablez]

Probably 15 :)

[teen.jpg]

14. That's when you really start to become your own person.

[StoppingTime]

I just wrote a whole rant on this topic here (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?p=2337887#post2337887) if anyone's interested xD

and personally I'm going to have to with 16, simply because almost every relationship I've known involving at least one fifteen year old ends very, very quickly

[Abyssal Echo]

I had my first relationship when I was 13 and it was doing great. the only reason it ended was because he moved.
I voted for 13

[justin 13]

15 4 me.

[Loreley]

I voted 17.

[Rina]

I voted 16. I don't think most people are mature enough to be able to actually have a long relationship until around that age, or they just don't want one because they are in HS and it's a time of exploration. I would say college is when you really start looking, but some people have had great relationships started in HS.

[GigglyAbby]

I'd say 14 or 15 in normal situations but that's dependent on how long you've known each other and how close you are. For me & Caleb -- it was a no brainer for us to date at 11 because we were so close and outside of a brief breakup 2 years ago & his impending move -- it's been awesome.

[Sasha M]

15! Definitely the best age.

[Camazotz]

I've only had one relationship, and it started at 16 and it lasted until I was 18. Obviously, it depends on the maturity level of the individuals. I honestly don't think I was socially ready for that kind of commitment, but it lasted a good three years, so I adapted and learned enough to be a better boyfriend.

I don't think most teenagers under 16 can handle a serious relationship. Yes, they can handle a relationship. But the amount of sacrifice and love it takes to be considered serious, I don't think most teenagers are ready for that until at least 16-17.

[Lost in the Echo]

In my opinion, around 15 or 16. But everyone matures at different times, so really there's no "right answer" to this question.

[Walter Powers]

I define a serious relationship as one that produces offspring, as that is the entire purpose whether you believe in evolution or God or a combination, of being in a sexual relationship.
So I would have to say over 18, as premarital sex is unhealthy, especially when those involved are underage.

[HollisterGirl98]

13 years old!!

[peaceNlove]

I think 16. That just seems like what the youngest age should be to start a serious relationship. Anything under that, to be honest, just seems really unrealistic to me. Like someone above said, under 16 is okay to start a relationship, but not a serious one. It depends on maturity and not a lot of people under 16 are mature, but then again, some adults aren't mature either. But definitely not 13 in my opinion.

[Chelsea716]

For me, 13 was my first real relationship. I matured at a faster rate then my friends and so did he. But of most peopl 15 is best. Maybe 14 or even 16. It depends on the person.

[kenoloor]

I define a serious relationship as one that produces offspring, as that is the entire purpose whether you believe in evolution or God or a combination, of being in a sexual relationship.
So I would have to say over 18, as premarital sex is unhealthy, especially when those involved are underage.

I really really hope that you're trolling. Would you consider a homosexual relationship (in which biological offspring aren't possible) to be invalid? How about those where one or more parties involved are infertile? What if the people involved in the relationship have decided they don't want kids? Are those relationships invalid?

Also, how, exactly, is premarital sex unhealthy? Can you give me a single, legitimate reason?

As for me, I'd say 16ish. I don't really care about sexual relationships before that, but to have a healthy, well-rounded relationship, I think that takes maturity that even most 16-year-olds don't have. So I'm being generous with that one.

[Miserabilia]

I really really hope that you're trolling. Would you consider a homosexual relationship (in which biological offspring aren't possible) to be invalid? How about those where one or more parties involved are infertile? What if the people involved in the relationship have decided they don't want kids? Are those relationships invalid?

Also, how, exactly, is premarital sex unhealthy? Can you give me a single, legitimate reason?

As for me, I'd say 16ish. I don't really care about sexual relationships before that, but to have a healthy, well-rounded relationship, I think that takes maturity that even most 16-year-olds don't have. So I'm being generous with that one.

Yes im pretty sure he is a troll. if not then this is a great example for human stupidity :D

[Walter Powers]

I really really hope that you're trolling. Would you consider a homosexual relationship (in which biological offspring aren't possible) to be invalid? How about those where one or more parties involved are infertile? What if the people involved in the relationship have decided they don't want kids? Are those relationships invalid?

Also, how, exactly, is premarital sex unhealthy? Can you give me a single, legitimate reason?

As for me, I'd say 16ish. I don't really care about sexual relationships before that, but to have a healthy, well-rounded relationship, I think that takes maturity that even most 16-year-olds don't have. So I'm being generous with that one.

I'm not a troll. You are misinterpreting what I said. Don't make assumptions or accusations against people who disagree with you. I simply consider having children involved makes the relationship much more serious, as other vulnerable people are dependent on it.

I apologize if I offended you. Homosexuals and infertile people can still have children and thus be in serious relationship, by my definition, ever heard of adoption? They're are plenty of kids waiting for a loving family.

Premarital sex is very unhealthy because regardless of what kind of contraception you use, they're still a significant chance it can produce in offspring. I know this isn't a popular opinion on here because teenagers love sex. And it's unhealthy for a child to grow up in a household where the parents aren't together; statistics back that up.

Finally, people who are together but don't have kids are still in a valid relationship; you aren't reading my post right. It's just not serious because they could potentially separate without putting a child in the middle of it. So, the stakes of the relationship aren't that high. I just interpret a relationship with kids involved as more serious, because vulnerable kids are in the middle of it.

[Walter Powers]

Yes im pretty sure he is a troll. if not then this is a great example for human stupidity :D

"I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend."
-Thomas Jefferson

How about you take my friend Tom's advice here and not go insulting people who think differently then you? Read my above comment.

[Miserabilia]

"I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend."
-Thomas Jefferson

How about you take my friend Tom's advice here and not go insulting people who think differently then you? Read my above comment.

There is a difference betwee thinking differently and saying having children before getting married is unhealthy, which is just complete nonsense

[Walter Powers]

There is a difference betwee thinking differently and saying having children before getting married is unhealthy, which is just complete nonsense

Really? If I were to post the question: Is having children before marriage Unhealthy, on Yahoo answers, what kinda responses do you think I'll get?

What the heck. I'll do it now.

[kenoloor]

Here we go again.

I'm not a troll. You are misinterpreting what I said. Don't make assumptions or accusations against people who disagree with you. I simply consider having children involved makes the relationship much more serious, as other vulnerable people are dependent on it.

I wasn't making accusations. I was hoping with all of my being that you weren't serious because what you were saying was incredibly stupid.

I apologize if I offended you. Homosexuals and infertile people can still have children and thus be in serious relationship, by my definition, ever heard of adoption? They're are plenty of kids waiting for a loving family.

Adoption is not "producing offspring," which is what defines a "serious relationship" to you.

Premarital sex is very unhealthy because regardless of what kind of contraception you use, they're still a significant chance it can produce in offspring.

First of all, getting pregnant is not inherently unhealthy unless the one getting pregnant is at an age that their body cannot support it. Most people with a uterus can support a pregnancy by the time they are 15 or 16- this is common knowledge. Second of all, when used properly, condoms have a 98% effectiveness rate. That leaves a 2% failure rate. If you call that "significant," you're a bumbling idiot and should refrain from further discussion on this topic.

I know this isn't a popular opinion on here because teenagers love sex.

No, it's not a popular opinion on here because it's stupid.

And it's unhealthy for a child to grow up in a household where the parents aren't together; statistics back that up.

"Together" and "married" are completely different.

Finally, people who are together but don't have kids are still in a valid relationship; you aren't reading my post right. It's just not serious because they could potentially separate without putting a child in the middle of it. So, the stakes of the relationship aren't that high. I just interpret a relationship with kids involved as more serious, because vulnerable kids are in the middle of it.

So a relationship is only serious when there is potential for ruining someone else's life? That's fucking dumb. I'm not reading your post wrong. You are invalidating every relationship that doesn't result in children and is still considered by the participants to be "serious." The idea that there have to be children in order to validate a relationship is not only stupid, it's archaic. Welcome to 2013 where we have a severe overpopulation problem and here you are, wanting people to just keep popping out babies in order to connect with someone on a deep level.

Seriously dude. What the fuck are you doing?

EDIT:

Really? If I were to post the question: Is having children before marriage Unhealthy, on Yahoo answers, what kinda responses do you think I'll get?

What the heck. I'll do it now.

The fact that you think Yahoo answers is a reliable source of information just removed any semblance of credibility that you may have possessed. You're done.

[Jess]

At least 16 years of age. It could work out for below that age, but most of the time it won't.

[HahaWaitWhat]

I'd say 16.

[Its Pretty]

It depends on the individuals, but on average 14 years of age should be the absolute earliest for both sexes.

[handle with care]

i say 16

[Synyster Shadows]

I'd say 15 is the best age.

[DanteZombie]

15 and only if you are mature about it. Actually even with 16 and above you need to be mature to get serious.