Rejecting someone you actually do like

[Lucre]

One of the problems is that the biological clock and the social clock are out of sync and have been for centuries, and the disparity seems to be growing worse with each passing generation. Going strictly on BIOLOGY, human beings should begin reproducing at age thirteen or fourteen (there's a reason why all the reproductive apparatus comes to life at that time for most people), but SOCIETY keeps telling people to defer that imperative later and later and later.

What society requires people to do goes against what biology requires people to do. The price of living in civilization is increasingly turning our backs on natural biology to meet the needs of society. It's a tug-of-war that will eventually break the rope. The rope is already fraying perilously.

Not really; 13 or 14 is usually a bit young because they have only started puberty; which is a 'gradual process' rather than an on-off signal like '2 hrs ago ur a kid 2 hrs later after spotting the first sign of puberty u become full fledge adult. Usually kids are only starting out at this age and their body transition is not fully complete until years later. So usually 17-18 might be a a more suitable time not to mention psychologically better equipped.

At 13 some parts of the body aren't really fully mature and might pose health risk for a young mother actually. But these days I know kids starting out like 9 so by 14 maybe their bodies are quite ready lol

[ByTmE]

How strange. I was just talking about this exact topic the other day with my own friend and then this topic gets revived!

I have rejected many guys because of poor timing. I think, maybe, I just didn't like them enough. There were two great and wonderful men that I loved very much as friends and I had actually started to be able to see myself with them. Of course, these two men were present in different parts of my life. The first one, during early university years, and I drifted apart from him in hopes that I would find myself, and he would establish his own identity separate from me. He did, and I am happy for him.

Timing again played a factor for the second man and myself. I left to go overseas. Upon my return, we have reconnected and are also still friends, and I still feel the same about him and hope he finds a more suitable girl than me. Why do I think I'm not suitable for him? Frankly, while he could make me very happy, I'm afraid I might complicate his life. That might seem like a silly reason to reject someone who wants to be a part of your life, complications and all, but I'd rather not burden someone I love with my own personal insecurities...and I love my friend as though he's my brother from a different mother lol

Ok, my problem is that I'm unwilling to go out of my way to make time.

[Ken Cheng]

Not really; 13 or 14 is usually a bit young because they have only started puberty; which is a 'gradual process' rather than an on-off signal like '2 hrs ago ur a kid 2 hrs later after spotting the first sign of puberty u become full fledge adult. Usually kids are only starting out at this age and their body transition is not fully complete until years later. So usually 17-18 might be a a more suitable time not to mention psychologically better equipped.

At 13 some parts of the body aren't really fully mature and might pose health risk for a young mother actually. But these days I know kids starting out like 9 so by 14 maybe their bodies are quite ready lol

In agricultural, preindustrial societies, fourteen was the *average* age at which people sired their first children. The average lifespan during the preindustrial era was around forty years, so this 20th/21st Century concept of deferring marriage and parenthood until the twenties, thirties, or even later is an innovation enforced by modernity and progress rather than the natural plan.

[kidd]

That might seem like a silly reason to reject someone who wants to be a part of your life, complications and all, but I'd rather not burden someone I love with my own personal insecurities...and I love my friend as though he's my brother from a different mother lol

This is also my sentiment. If you feel that you will bring burden to that person, and bring all your troubles to him, why attach yourself to him?

[kidd]

In agricultural, preindustrial societies, fourteen was the *average* age at which people sired their first children. The average lifespan during the preindustrial era was around forty years, so this 20th/21st Century concept of deferring marriage and parenthood until the twenties, thirties, or even later is an innovation enforced by modernity and progress rather than the natural plan.

Maybe that's why infant mortality is high and the rate of people dying of childbirth is also higher.

[Ken Cheng]

Maybe that's why infant mortality is high and the rate of people dying of childbirth is also higher.

Fewer medical interventions were available in the past, mostly. Infections and bleeding were the biggest problems. We now have technology to minimize those problems; the people of the preindustrial era didn't.

Nature generally has a better idea about what animals should or shouldn't be doing with their bodies than society does. Socially, human beings have progressed greatly during the past two-hundred years, but physically, we're mostly the same creatures we've been for the last several hundred thousand years. A long, long time will pass before evolution catches up to our social adjustments. Much of the present confusion about the appropriate time for courtship, mating, and reproduction is a direct result of the disconnect between biology, which was established eons ago, and our current social mores, which are only a few centuries old at most.

[Trien Chieu]

In agricultural, preindustrial societies, fourteen was the *average* age at which people sired their first children. The average lifespan during the preindustrial era was around forty years, so this 20th/21st Century concept of deferring marriage and parenthood until the twenties, thirties, or even later is an innovation enforced by modernity and progress rather than the natural plan.

14 years old is still a kid that need their parents to take care of. They are definitely not ready to have kid. Even 20 years old still to young to have kid. These days people can live to see their 80s and 90s and will soon surpass 100s. There is no need to have kid as such young age. For women, 30 years old is a good age to have kid if they want to be a mother. For men, 30-45 years of age is ready to be a father.

[Ken Cheng]

14 years old is still a kid that need their parents to take care of. They are definitely not ready to have kid. Even 20 years old still to young to have kid.

In *our* society, which really started only about one-hundred years ago, yes.

For the vast majority of human history, however, it wasn't true.

Recent social developments (and by "recent," I generally mean within the past one-hundred or so years...mostly in industrialized parts of the world) represent a huge departure from normative human behavior up to that point, and the biological apparatus hasn't caught up to that (and won't in the lifetime of anybody living today; evolution unfolds over many, many millenia).

[kidd]

Fewer medical interventions were available in the past, mostly. Infections and bleeding were the biggest problems. We now have technology to minimize those problems; the people of the preindustrial era didn't.

Nature generally has a better idea about what animals should or shouldn't be doing with their bodies than society does. Socially, human beings have progressed greatly during the past two-hundred years, but physically, we're mostly the same creatures we've been for the last several hundred thousand years. A long, long time will pass before evolution catches up to our social adjustments. Much of the present confusion about the appropriate time for courtship, mating, and reproduction is a direct result of the disconnect between biology, which was established eons ago, and our current social mores, which are only a few centuries old at most.

Not everything practiced eons ago are more correct and natural than now. As we progress, we have more knowledge of our body than ancient times. We know when is the best condition to have a baby.

Excepts
http://www.essortment.com/all/teenpregnancyh_ryot.htm

Teen moms are more likely to have a baby that is premature and low birth weight. A premature baby is one that is born too early. Some of these babies do die. The ones that make it tend to have problems later in life, mental and physical problems are included. A low birth weight baby is one that is born with a weight of less than 5 1/2 pounds. These babies have a greater risk of being born with major birth defects.
The risks for the teen mom are great as well. Pregnancy and birth can put a tremendous strain on a teenager's body. If bone structure is not fully developed, she takes the risk of injuring her spine and pelvic bones, altering her life forever.

http://www.webmd.com/baby/teen-pregn...-and-realities

High blood pressure

Pregnant teens have a higher risk of getting high blood pressure -- called pregnancy-induced hypertension -- than pregnant women in their 20s or 30s. They also have a higher risk of preeclampsia. This is a dangerous medical condition that combines high blood pressure with excess protein in the urine, swelling of a mother's hands and face, and organ damage.

These medical risks affect the pregnant teen, who may need to take medications to control symptoms. But they can also disrupt the unborn baby's growth. And, they can lead to further pregnancy complications such as premature birth.

Premature birth

A full-term pregnancy lasts 40 weeks. A baby that delivers before 37 weeks is a premature baby, or "preemie". In some cases, premature labor that begins too early in pregnancy can be stopped by medications and bedrest. Other times, the baby has to be delivered early for the health of the mother or infant. The earlier a baby is born, the more risk there is of respiratory, digestive, vision, cognitive, and other problems.

Low-birth-weight baby

Teens are at higher risk of having low-birth-weight babies. Premature babies are more likely to weigh less than they should. In part, that’s because they've had less time in the womb to grow. A low-birth-weight baby weighs only 3.3 to 5.5 pounds (1,500 to 2,500 grams). A very-low-birth-weight baby weighs less than 3.3 pounds. Babies that small may need to be put on a ventilator in a hospital's neonatal care unit for help with breathing after birth.

http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Danger...ncy&id=1337343

Risk to Fetus

The body metabolism of a teen mother is such that it cannot nourish the fetus adequately, which might result in a low -weight babies. It is also possible that certain body organs of the child is under developed leading to childhood disorder and higher infant mortality rates. Owing to the body shape and size, it is difficult for a teenage mother to deliver a baby normally, whereas the caesarian method might be dangerous. It could lead to physical complications like excessive bleeding.

[Ken Cheng]

Not everything practiced eons ago are more correct and natural than now. As we progress, we have more knowledge of our body than ancient times. We know when is the best condition to have a baby.

You're looking at if from a social, humanistic point of view. I'm looking at it from a strictly biological, natural point of view.

If nature did not intend for the human species to reproduce beginning at around age thirteen, it would not have designed the reproductive apparatus to activate during that time. Nature might not be guided by a universal intelligence, but it nevertheless follows its own internal pattern of logic. What logic dictates that a biological apparatus should activate *years* before it is meant to be used?

Biology is very precise in how it activates various physiological functions. Biologically, things (including the development and spread of diseases and disorders) don't happen until they are meant to happen. Moreover, infant death and mother death in the pregnancy and childbirth process was one of the means by which nature limited human reproduction within levels that were safe for the entire biosphere. With our scientific medical knowledge, we've been able to push back against this limitation to a significant degree, but as with so many things that we human beings do with our science, technology, and civilization, we push nature in directions it was never meant to go, and there *are* repercussions to that whether human beings find them desirable or not.

Biologically, human beings were never meant to expand to the nearly seven billion we've reached today. That's largely a product of our own technological and social progress, but the price that is paid is that many natural mechanisms are offset. Evolution might compensate for that in time, but that is of no use to people living today.