Schools distributing Condoms? yes or no?

[Nobel Hobos]

Yes, schools should distribute condoms. Youngsters are going to experiment with sex anyway - let's try, at least, to avoid unwanted pregnancies and STDs.

STD's have the right to life.

The good old bacterial ones, maybe.

But viruses, retroviruses, prions ... gtfo. That isn't "life".

[The Parkus Empire]

So, you're saying that you're fine with teen sex if it's in the context of a school curriculum, but it's strictly wrong and should be entirely illegal? lolwut?

No I'm not fine with teen sex at all, but I believe there should be sex education that is strictly textbook or academic in nature, explaining all the risks and precautions. No live demonstrations. But that would be my reaction to that hypothetical situation.

Now I can't get that scene from The Meaning of Life out of my head.

[Bottle]

Distributing condoms? NOT ENOUGH. Schools should have officers who staple the damn things on every male student.

[Buffett and Colbert]

Distributing condoms? NOT ENOUGH. Schools should have officers who staple the damn things on every male student.

Only males? You reverse sexist!

[The Parkus Empire]

STD's have the right to life.

The good old bacterial ones, maybe.

But viruses, retroviruses, prions ... gtfo. That isn't "life".

Right, and a fetus isn't human.

[SaintB]

This.

Yes, schools should freely distribute condoms. Fuck those uptight moralists who say "abstinence only" or just try to ignore the issue. Newsflash: teenagers have sex. This is an indisputable fact of life. The least we can do is try and make it safe for them. That way, we can help prevent teen pregnancies (like my sister, for instance), and we can help stop the spread of STDs.

Well, it wasn't an "indisputable fact of life" 30 or 40 years ago. Teen sex is a product of our overliberalized society. By giving out condoms, you wouldn't be helping anybody, you'd just be maintaining the status quo. You'd also be teaching people that sex is a frivolous thing that's unrelated to pregnancy, STD's, etc. Personally, I think people ought understand the consequences, and if they have sex, they should expect to get pregnant. And if you get an STD from it, well, you reap what you sow.

You don't handle reality very well do you?

Lets make this simple...

People will fuck.

Might as well make it safer for them to do so.

[Olthar]

I think you're too deeply examining the details of my joke... :/
You really seem to have missed the point entirely.

I doubt it.

"I'm only 20" is a joke so broad that an Amphibious Coelacanth Charge would tackle it to the ground pretty effectively.

Don't let me kill your twenties good times though. You have another ten years before you have to face the humiliating stupidity of the choices you made five years ago. And then you can say "but no-one told me!" ... and you'd be mostly right. It's not like I'll be here, bitching at you about how you didn't take my advice.

What? No. This joke:

Great idea. We must implement this plan. I will gladly tear up my high school diploma and go back to school just for that.

[SaintB]

4. It's called "Their life is already fucked, so there's nothing to learn." Learning from your mistakes works when its something trivial, like touching a hot stove. Accidentally getting knocked up does not count as trivial. That kind of mistake will irreparably ruin your life, unless you get an abortion, but I'll bet you're the kind of uptight moralist who says that's wrong, too, am I right? The point is that there is still an extremely high teen pregnancy rate, and your precious government-mandated abstinence-only education is not doing anything to curb that.

If that happened to someone, sure, it might not help them, but they'd still learn from it and tell their children not to do it. Isn't that what everyone wants, for their kids to have a better life than they did? Your mistakes might not always help you, but they could help someone down the road.

Or you know you could teach people about those mistakes beforehand and do what you can to prevent them from happening; that makes everyone's situation better.

[Bottle]

Why should children be having sex anyways? I'd feel I've failed as a parent if I didn't prevent such from happening until they're at least 16. There just isn't enough of a stigma or deterrent to keep them from doing so and I think there should be.

What? If or when I have kids (probably the latter *sighs*), I hope my sons are about as much man whores as I am now. if I have girls, I'm going to send them to a convent in Montana.

That's so nice! Encouraging your daughters to have tons of lesbian sex is so refreshingly progressive.

[Olthar]

So, you're saying that you're fine with teen sex if it's in the context of a school curriculum, but it's strictly wrong and should be entirely illegal? lolwut?

No I'm not fine with teen sex at all, but I believe there should be sex education that is strictly textbook or academic in nature, explaining all the risks and precautions. No live demonstrations. But that would be my reaction to that hypothetical situation.

Um...you are the same person who wrote things like this, right?

Why should children be having sex anyways? I'd feel I've failed as a parent if I didn't prevent such from happening until they're at least 16. There just isn't enough of a stigma or deterrent to keep them from doing so and I think there should be.

[Australien]

Distributing condoms? NOT ENOUGH. Schools should have officers who staple the damn things on every male student.

Only males? You reverse sexist!

Do you mean sexist? Wouldn't a reverse sexist be someone who isn't sexist? Have I confused myself needlessly again?

But as for in-class orgies. Why not? It's sure as hell better than trigonometry!

[SaintB]

So we should make sure to live crappy lives so are children are guaranteed a better life than ours?

Slippery slope fallacy.

I'm just saying you should look at the bigger picture and understand that failure is sometimes a good thing that allows for society to reform itself. Please don't misconstrue my argument like that.

Hey you know what... time and again people have failed. Lets pass on the message that if you must have sex do so safely and cleanly; isn't that teaching people using the mistakes of the past as examples?

[SaintB]

Its a nice thought (Excluding the fact that they encourage pre-marital sex).
However, Condoms fail.

A better solution? Lets just forget about Condoms or pills and make mandatory drugs that suppress teen sex drives for a matter of years
(I'm talking about sex-drive suppression all the way through high school, even College if you wanna go really far with it).
These 'Kids won't be having unprotected sex, nor protected sex because they will no longer get aroused or even curiously interested in sex. They shall be like children again. And it will be about 90% to 100% more reliable than contraception.

If this chemical treatment were to be compulsory for high school students and the like, the issue of teen pregnancy, abortion, and STD's would plummet, and then hopefully die.

So we can go ahead and save our money from buying condoms to give out for free, and we can focus on distributing med's and drugs like this that pull the rug from under our whole teen sex problem. America can afford it (In fact it might be economically helpful, with the drug being produced and traded and distributed worldwide, and with competitive development contracts pitting Medicine corporations around the world against each other to continually improve the drug, with the winner getting the bacon for their nation, so to speak). One way or another, there are benefits to the plan.

Call me what you will, but you cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that what we are currently trying is not quite dealing with this problem. I strongly believe that what I am suggesting will defeat this issue. Its not even awkward like talking about abstinence. It'll be exactly like getting a flu shot against the flu of teen sex and its consequences. In fact, just cram a 'sex-drive suppressant shot' booth right next to your 'flu shot' booth. That outta do it.

When we get good at it, we can just slip a tasteless and edible variant of the drug in the teens' cafeteria food so they won't even notice. Contraception with absolutely no effort. Isn't that better than freaking condoms?

How about NO.

We live in a society that should never consider shit like that.

[Olthar]

How about NO.

We live in a society that should never consider shit like that.

Well, to be fair, he did apologize for that bit of stupidity later in the thread. Though, he did then immediately afterward come out with something slightly more morally acceptable but no less draconian.

[DaWoad]

what saint said, also mass chemical castration in TEENS has got to be one of the least intelligent ideas I've heard of yet. Do you know how badly that would mess with development? clearly not.

[Dusty Angels]

Very bad idea me thinks. It encourages young students to engage in sex even more.

[SaintB]

Its a nice thought (Excluding the fact that they encourage pre-marital sex).
However, Condoms fail.

A better solution? Lets just forget about Condoms or pills and make mandatory drugs that suppress teen sex drives for a matter of years
(I'm talking about sex-drive suppression all the way through high school, even College if you wanna go really far with it).
These 'Kids won't be having unprotected sex, nor protected sex because they will no longer get aroused or even curiously interested in sex. They shall be like children again. And it will be about 90% to 100% more reliable than contraception.

If this chemical treatment were to be compulsory for high school students and the like, the issue of teen pregnancy, abortion, and STD's would plummet, and then hopefully die.

So we can go ahead and save our money from buying condoms to give out for free, and we can focus on distributing med's and drugs like this that pull the rug from under our whole teen sex problem. America can afford it (In fact it might be economically helpful, with the drug being produced and traded and distributed worldwide, and with competitive development contracts pitting Medicine corporations around the world against each other to continually improve the drug, with the winner getting the bacon for their nation, so to speak). One way or another, there are benefits to the plan.

Call me what you will, but you cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that what we are currently trying is not quite dealing with this problem. I strongly believe that what I am suggesting will defeat this issue. Its not even awkward like talking about abstinence. It'll be exactly like getting a flu shot against the flu of teen sex and its consequences. In fact, just cram a 'sex-drive suppressant shot' booth right next to your 'flu shot' booth. That outta do it.

When we get good at it, we can just slip a tasteless and edible variant of the drug in the teens' cafeteria food so they won't even notice. Contraception with absolutely no effort. Isn't that better than freaking condoms?

That idea is downright insane. If you wanted to stop all of this, all you'd have to do is outlaw premarital sex and watch STD- and teen-pregnancy rates fall through the floor.

Actually they'd either increase or stay the same. Prohibition never works no matter what you are prohibiting.

Hell take away the American right to fuck you'll have a new revolution faster than if you tried to take away guns. In fact I'd be more likely to go to war for my right to fuck than my right to own guns!

[Saiwania]

No I'm not fine with teen sex at all, but I believe there should be sex education that is strictly textbook or academic in nature, explaining all the risks and precautions. No live demonstrations. But that would be my reaction to that hypothetical situation.

Um...you are the same person who wrote things like this, right?

Why should children be having sex anyways? I'd feel I've failed as a parent if I didn't prevent such from happening until they're at least 16. There just isn't enough of a stigma or deterrent to keep them from doing so and I think there should be.

Just because I wouldn't care about other people being permissive doesn't mean I'd approve of my own doing so or them associating with people who sleep around. I wish to extricate myself from this thread soon. I've gone too deep into it and I have some busy work to finish that I've put off in real life.

My final stance is, I'm against teens having sex if they're below the age of consent and that it ought to be discouraged when possible for health and societal reasons. But no, I'm not against sex education if it's purely educational.

[Nobel Hobos]

If you ever have sex, I suggest you use artificial lubricant with your condoms. If you're having sex with a girl, in her vagina, there may be some natural lubrication in there and that's all good. But latex tends to rub, it needs more lubrication than your naked penis does. The girl might be totally into it, but that little lubricating gland in her vagina won't necessarily play along. If she's saying "yes, please!" but her vagina isn't wet I say you should go with what her head says. Put some lube on your condom (or warm it in your hand and rub it all around, including on the condom). It's better than hurting her, because if it hurts she might start saying "no" when before she said "yes." Also, the condom might break.

I didn't think it was possible, but I'm actually more gay after reading that.

Dazchan, I was 75% sure you were female.

I can only hope that by "more gay" you mean "more inclined to please women". That was my intention, albeit by advising what I took to be a brother in pleasing our sisters.

In any case, I hope we can agree that sex is good? Uh-huh, OK?

[Nobel Hobos]

Um...you are the same person who wrote things like this, right?

Just because I wouldn't care about other people being permissive doesn't mean I'd approve of my own doing so or them associating with people who sleep around. I wish to extricate myself from this thread soon. I've gone too deep into it and I have some busy work to finish that I've put off in real life.

My final stance is, I'm against teens having sex if they're below the age of consent and that it ought to be discouraged when possible for health and societal reasons. But no, I'm not against sex education if it's purely educational.

Telling them how to get teh free condoms ... that's educational right?

[Nobel Hobos]

Distributing condoms? NOT ENOUGH. Schools should have officers who staple the damn things on every male student.

I OBJECT!

Male studnets need their penises for urinating!

Female students can urinate just fine with their cunts corked up!

So yeah ... you do the math.

[Olthar]

My final stance is, I'm against teens having sex if they're below the age of consent and that it ought to be discouraged when possible for health and societal reasons. But no, I'm not against sex education if it's purely educational.

Alright, then how about in places like Mexico where the age of consent is 12 or 13 in most areas? Or how about in Yemen where it's only 9? What country's age of consent are you going by?

[New York - New Jersey]

As I recall from 6th to 12th grade probably something like 30-40 girls got pregnant that I know of when I was in school.....so yeah they should have like vending machines in the mens and womens bathrooms of schools for condoms. For teens and pre-teens it's really embarrassing to go into target and try to buy condoms (which is why truthfully I usually stole mine at that age.) Teen and pre-teen girls should not be having children but we have to real about it, teaching abstinence (which is equivalent to sticking your fingers in your ears) does not work but providing condoms discretely will. Jeez, I remember when I was 16 riding my bike like 20mins away to the Ramada Inn (Target was too far) just so I could buy condoms from the machine in the bathroom.

[Bottle]

Distributing condoms? NOT ENOUGH. Schools should have officers who staple the damn things on every male student.

I OBJECT!

Male studnets need their penises for urinating!

Female students can urinate just fine with their cunts corked up!

So yeah ... you do the math.

Your knowledge of female anatomy is suspiciously informed. Clearly, the homonazi liberal sex perverts have infected your mind with their "comprehensive sex ed." Either that or you're a slutty slut slut who's slutted around and "done it" as the kids say these days.

Your argument is therefore invalid on account of how dare you bring fact into this discussion of morality.

[Saiwania]

My final stance is, I'm against teens having sex if they're below the age of consent and that it ought to be discouraged when possible for health and societal reasons. But no, I'm not against sex education if it's purely educational.

Alright, then how about in places like Mexico where the age of consent is 12 or 13 in most areas? Or how about in Yemen where it's only 9? What country's age of consent are you going by?

The United States', 16 to 18.