NationStates

Raeyh wrote:

Khadgar wrote:
So the school shouldn't even inform children about condoms? That's a disastrous policy. Irresponsible in every way you can measure.

There is a difference between informing and providing. They could talk about drugs, but giving it to the students would be prohibited. The same with sex paraphernalia such as condoms.

Hi, this claim is demonstrably wrong. You should stop making it.

OBJECTIVES: This study examines the impact of the condom availability program in New York City public high schools by comparing rates of sexual activity and condom use for New York students and similar students in Chicago. METHODS: A total of 7119 students from 12 randomly selected New York schools and 5738 students from 10 Chicago schools participated in a cross-sectional survey. RESULTS: New York students, compared with Chicago students, reported equal rates of sexual activity but higher rates of condom use at last intercourse (odds ratio [OR] = 1.36). For higher-risk students (those with three or more sexual partners in the past 6 months), condom use was greater in New York (OR = 1.85) than in Chicago. CONCLUSIONS: Condom availability has a modest but significant effect on condom use and does not increase rates of sexual activity. These findings suggest that school-based condom availability can lower the risk of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases for urban teenagers in the United States.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1380965/


In short, teenagers fuck regardless, offering condoms increases condom usage, not sexual activity. Feel free to stop making your erroneous claim.

Edit: Wrong quote.

Raeyh wrote:High school students are underage and can not have sex legally. Providing condoms to people who are under the age of consent would be contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

No, they are not (at least where I am from.)

yes

Khadgar wrote:

Smartass alcoholics wrote:There's a difference between informing students about sex and enabling them to safely ENGAGE in sex. What if the school-distributed condom broke, and the child's parents sued the distributors (the school)? They might not want to deal with that nightmare.

Hi, this claim is demonstrably wrong. You should stop making it.

OBJECTIVES: This study examines the impact of the condom availability program in New York City public high schools by comparing rates of sexual activity and condom use for New York students and similar students in Chicago. METHODS: A total of 7119 students from 12 randomly selected New York schools and 5738 students from 10 Chicago schools participated in a cross-sectional survey. RESULTS: New York students, compared with Chicago students, reported equal rates of sexual activity but higher rates of condom use at last intercourse (odds ratio [OR] = 1.36). For higher-risk students (those with three or more sexual partners in the past 6 months), condom use was greater in New York (OR = 1.85) than in Chicago. CONCLUSIONS: Condom availability has a modest but significant effect on condom use and does not increase rates of sexual activity. These findings suggest that school-based condom availability can lower the risk of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases for urban teenagers in the United States.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1380965/


In short, teenagers fuck regardless, offering condoms increases condom usage, not sexual activity. Feel free to stop making your erroneous claim.

New York? My mistake, now show me Texas. How about Mississippi? Or the other 47 unmentioned states.

School condom availability programs have been promoted as a promising approach for increasing condom use among students, for reducing the risk of infections with the human immunodeficiency virus and with other sexually transmitted diseases and for preventing unintended pregnancy. Data from a telephone survey of key individuals at school condom programs across the United States suggest that as of January 1995, at least 431 public schools in 50 U.S. school districts made condoms available—2.2% of all public high schools and 0.3% of high school districts. In about half of the schools that were surveyed, students obtained more than one condom per student per year, on average, and in 14% students obtained more than six. Students in alternative schools, in smaller schools, in schools that made condoms available in baskets and in schools with health clinics obtained more condoms per student per year than did students in other schools.


(Family Planning Perspectives, 28:196-202, 2009)

Khadgar wrote:

Smartass alcoholics wrote:There's a difference between informing students about sex and enabling them to safely ENGAGE in sex. What if the school-distributed condom broke, and the child's parents sued the distributors (the school)? They might not want to deal with that nightmare.

Hi, this claim is demonstrably wrong. You should stop making it.

OBJECTIVES: This study examines the impact of the condom availability program in New York City public high schools by comparing rates of sexual activity and condom use for New York students and similar students in Chicago. METHODS: A total of 7119 students from 12 randomly selected New York schools and 5738 students from 10 Chicago schools participated in a cross-sectional survey. RESULTS: New York students, compared with Chicago students, reported equal rates of sexual activity but higher rates of condom use at last intercourse (odds ratio [OR] = 1.36). For higher-risk students (those with three or more sexual partners in the past 6 months), condom use was greater in New York (OR = 1.85) than in Chicago. CONCLUSIONS: Condom availability has a modest but significant effect on condom use and does not increase rates of sexual activity. These findings suggest that school-based condom availability can lower the risk of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases for urban teenagers in the United States.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1380965/


In short, teenagers fuck regardless, offering condoms increases condom usage, not sexual activity. Feel free to stop making your erroneous claim.

I think you quoted the wrong person...

you can buy condoms in public bathroom vending machines, they are not that hard or embarassing to buy. If you are to worried about being embarassed to have people know you are having sex by buying condoms then you probably aren't emotionally mature enough to handle everything that goes along with a sex life anyway. Schools should have condoms available and informational pamphlets about other forms of birth control available at the nurses office but I don't think they should have to have them out in a bowl like candy for just anyone to grab if the kids want sex bad enough they will make that little effort.

The Amyclae wrote:

Khadgar wrote:
Hi, this claim is demonstrably wrong. You should stop making it.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1380965/


In short, teenagers fuck regardless, offering condoms increases condom usage, not sexual activity. Feel free to stop making your erroneous claim.

I think you quoted the wrong person...

Yeah meant to quote Raeyh.

Khadgar wrote:

The Amyclae wrote:I think you quoted the wrong person...

Yeah meant to quote Raeyh.

Thank you much. c:

Roan Cara wrote:you can buy condoms in public bathroom vending machines, they are not that hard or embarassing to buy. If you are to worried about being embarassed to have people know you are having sex by buying condoms then you probably aren't emotionally mature enough to handle everything that goes along with a sex life anyway. Schools should have condoms available and informational pamphlets about other forms of birth control available at the nurses office but I don't think they should have to have them out in a bowl like candy for just anyone to grab if the kids want sex bad enough they will make that little effort.

You have to understand, there is a difference between the two situations. For example, there are vending machines that serve canned coffee, but I was at a cafeteria where I had to verify I was above the age of 21 before being served coffee. Coffee isn't even a controlled substance. There is a difference when someone is giving it to you.

Maybe the government should ban sex make getting babby's fixed a law and control the population threw testtube babbys?

Superduperpoopernation wrote:Most teenagers are too embarrassed to walk in and buy condoms at the store...

So what happens after graduation, they magically become unembarrassed about buying condoms? Or do they stop using condoms and we now have a bunch of pregnant 19 year olds?
Why don't we just start giving everyone a free* lifetime condom supply so nobody ever has to buy condoms at a store and get their pwecious widdle feelwings hurt?
*Taxpayer subsidized

(In other words, man up and buy your own damn condoms.)

Raeyh wrote:

Roan Cara wrote:you can buy condoms in public bathroom vending machines, they are not that hard or embarassing to buy. If you are to worried about being embarassed to have people know you are having sex by buying condoms then you probably aren't emotionally mature enough to handle everything that goes along with a sex life anyway. Schools should have condoms available and informational pamphlets about other forms of birth control available at the nurses office but I don't think they should have to have them out in a bowl like candy for just anyone to grab if the kids want sex bad enough they will make that little effort.

You have to understand, there is a difference between the two situations. For example, there are vending machines that serve canned coffee, but I was at a cafeteria where I had to verify I was above the age of 21 before being served coffee. Coffee isn't even a controlled substance. There is a difference when someone is giving it to you.

If coffee had an age restriction of 21+, i would shoot myself now.

The Two Jerseys wrote:

Superduperpoopernation wrote:Most teenagers are too embarrassed to walk in and buy condoms at the store...

So what happens after graduation, they magically become unembarrassed about buying condoms? Or do they stop using condoms and we now have a bunch of pregnant 19 year olds?
Why don't we just start giving everyone a free* lifetime condom supply so nobody ever has to buy condoms at a store and get their pwecious widdle feelwings hurt?
*Taxpayer subsidized

(In other words, man up and buy your own damn condoms.)

and poor people are just screwed right? then we have a buntch of homeless pregnant teens running around...

The Two Jerseys wrote:(In other words, man up and buy your own damn condoms.)

So, to hell with those with genuine feelings of embarassment, just because you say so?

How empathetic of you.

The Two Jerseys wrote:

Superduperpoopernation wrote:Most teenagers are too embarrassed to walk in and buy condoms at the store...

So what happens after graduation, they magically become unembarrassed about buying condoms? Or do they stop using condoms and we now have a bunch of pregnant 19 year olds?
Why don't we just start giving everyone a free* lifetime condom supply so nobody ever has to buy condoms at a store and get their pwecious widdle feelwings hurt?
*Taxpayer subsidized

(In other words, man up and buy your own damn condoms.)

You can pay for the condoms, or you can pay for the kids, or you can pay for the abortion. Me, being someone for whom basic math is fairly trivial, I'd rather buy the rubbers.

The Two Jerseys wrote:

Superduperpoopernation wrote:Most teenagers are too embarrassed to walk in and buy condoms at the store...

So what happens after graduation, they magically become unembarrassed about buying condoms? Or do they stop using condoms and we now have a bunch of pregnant 19 year olds?
Why don't we just start giving everyone a free* lifetime condom supply so nobody ever has to buy condoms at a store and get their pwecious widdle feelwings hurt?
*Taxpayer subsidized

(In other words, man up and buy your own damn condoms.)

You must pull yourself up by your jockstraps and let the free market decide how many babies the peasants shall have.

Teens are going to want to have sex no matter if you teach them about it or not, and whether you hand them the necessary tools (in this case, condoms) to make their sex safer. Telling teens not to have sex is just going to create groups of teens who have sex in an unsafe manner simply to rebel against authority, and not because they feel ready to have sex.

The best course of action is to thoroughly educate teens as to what sex is, what the consequences are, and how to know if they're ready or not. In addition, condoms should be distributed for free. No sane teen goes "Oh boy! A free condom! I previously did not want to have sex, but now I really fucking do!". The desire for sex comes first and is nearly inevitable. Handing them a condom almost insures that their sex will be safe, because otherwise they'd have reasons such as "I was too shy to buy one" or "I don't have the money to buy one".

The only reason for sex to be unsafe at this point is if they willingly decide not to use a condom, even though they have one. Then the only person they can blame for causing a pregnancy/getting pregnant or spreading/getting an STI is themselves.

Lancaster of Wessex wrote:

The Two Jerseys wrote:(In other words, man up and buy your own damn condoms.)

So, to hell with those with genuine feelings of embarassment, just because you say so?

How empathetic of you.

To statistically quote:

I'd rather see schools take a more "hands on" aproch to teach teens about the consequences of std's and pregnancy....hehe

Zack Mattox wrote:I'd rather see schools take a more "hands on" aproch to teach teens about teen consequences of std's and pregnancy....hehe

I can see you becoming a Sandusky.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Sandusky

Smartass alcoholics wrote:

Zack Mattox wrote:I'd rather see schools take a more "hands on" aproch to teach teens about teen consequences of std's and pregnancy....hehe

I can see you becoming a Sandusky.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Sandusky

Careful, that could be considered flaming/flame-baiting.

(not a mod.)

Smartass alcoholics wrote:

Zack Mattox wrote:I'd rather see schools take a more "hands on" aproch to teach teens about teen consequences of std's and pregnancy....hehe

I can see you becoming a Sandusky.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Sandusky

Why me?

Lancaster of Wessex wrote:

Smartass alcoholics wrote:I can see you becoming a Sandusky.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Sandusky

Careful, that could be considered flaming/flame-baiting.

(not a mod.)

Yea...just noticed how bad that sounded. The sentence irked me a lot, didn't watch what i typed.
My bad, Zack.

Smartass alcoholics wrote:

Zack Mattox wrote:I'd rather see schools take a more "hands on" aproch to teach teens about teen consequences of std's and pregnancy....hehe

I can see you becoming a Sandusky.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Sandusky

I'd be a very unsecessful rapist trust me...