Schools distributing Condoms? yes or no?

[Trading Empires]

People who disagree with abortion can kill 2 birds with 1 stone if they just realize that less teen pregnancy means less abortions and there'll be less STD's. While rather naive, compromise is the best way rather than forcing views on others. I think a school nurse distributing free condoms privately would mean less peer pressure and more people taking responsibility. It's all win win.

[Nobel Hobos]

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.

Well OK. I call that a "fantasy" not a "joke" but I won't say one is better than the other. Get you fun however it comes!

[SaintB]

I don't see the point of condoms. I never used one, and don't need to. Unless that person is a sex maniac that screws anything that walks, why the hell WOULD you even have an STD?

The point of condoms is to prevent pregnancy and disease. To your other point some people are born with them because their parents have them, some diseases can be caught through other means (hepatitis, mono, and herpes are examples).

[Katganistan]

Bad idea here. If they have sex using condoms, it would only work for a month (maybe a week). And how would this come across with parents? Badly, might even pull thier kid out of school and ban them from leaving the house.... But what ever happens this is a bad and I do mean Bad idea.

That would immediately catch the attention of ACS and might end in charges against the parents, unless they are schooling the kids in an alternate way and the kids are not, in fact, imprisoned.

[Katganistan]

But the point is to ensure that they get a good habit running. If they just get them for free, then once they stop getting them, a number would be too lazy to bother elsewhere. I know for sure that a good half of my English class wouldn't bother picking any up unless they were already in a Shopper's.

As my first post in this thread implied, I think condoms should be given out freely "everywhere". I think that's the only way of ensuring people have condoms.

Paid for by whom?

[Olthar]

People who disagree with abortion can kill 2 birds with 1 stone if they just realize that less teen pregnancy means less abortions and there'll be less STD's. While rather naive, compromise is the best way rather than forcing views on others. I think a school nurse distributing free condoms privately would mean less peer pressure and more people taking responsibility. It's all win win.

Yeah, it's really amazing just how dense they can be sometimes. You don't like teen pregnancy, contraception, or abortion? Then what the fuck are you going to do about the problem?

[Katganistan]

Just handing out free condoms would help in safe sex. Only sex education would. handing out free condoms would just encourage kids to have sex, even the ones that would use the condoms as balloons because they like to do it bareback. Pregnancy rates would skyrocket because with just handing out frre condoms and not requiring sex education it gives a green light to students to have sex.

If I just hand out apples, are people gonna eat themselves into an apple coma?

[Katonazag]

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!

I agree, but for different reasons. First of all, it shouldn't be the government's problem that teens decide to fornicate with each other so young (except when caught in the act, or statutory rape, of course). The government shouldn't be involved in the contraception business in any way, shape, or form. The teens should be the ones to shoulder the consequences of their actions and negligences. The consequences for the mother are obvious, but I think that if the teen father can't financially support them, he should get conscripted. That way, he can legitimately earn the money and government benefits for the mother and child until he's at least 18 and can stand a reasonable chance at getting a reasonable job - or he can stay in and make a longer term career out of it. Or maybe some other punitive route... Anyways, I agree that prohibition of it isn't the way to go, because it's wrong to punish everyone for something they haven't done yet. Let the punishment fit the crime, and the violator make the reparations for it.

[Rokartian States]

Just handing out free condoms would help in safe sex. Only sex education would. handing out free condoms would just encourage kids to have sex, even the ones that would use the condoms as balloons because they like to do it bareback. Pregnancy rates would skyrocket because with just handing out frre condoms and not requiring sex education it gives a green light to students to have sex.

If I just hand out apples, are people gonna eat themselves into an apple coma?

I don't think the average teenager enjoys apples that much.

[Katganistan]

It was my impression that schools already had mandatory sex education. Mine did, at least.

Yeah, but in American schools it is really shitty as they can lose a ton of funding if they explain any method of birth control or disease prevention other than total abstinence.

Uh,what?

Depends on the school. Certainly not in NY. As part of the health curriculum, they study human reproduction, STDs and their effects, the causes of pregnancy and how to properly use birth control. They have the kids research and make presentations on the types of birth control available, and write persuasive essays about abortion and birth control, and hand out free condoms.

We're not all from East Nowhere.

http://www.p12.nysed.gov/sss/schoolheal ... al1105.pdf

Check out pages 34-38 (as numbered on the pages). While the first choice is always, "Abstinence is the only 100% sure method", you'll see that birth control, knowledge about behaviors and their relative risk, and where to go to access clinics is all taught. Discussing with parents one's health is encouraged but they are also taught they can got to clincs without parent consent.

[Olthar]

As my first post in this thread implied, I think condoms should be given out freely "everywhere". I think that's the only way of ensuring people have condoms.

Paid for by whom?

Just divert funding from the military. I'm sure that would make the hippies happy, using the money to buy condoms instead of guns.

[Bottle]

Just handing out free condoms would help in safe sex. Only sex education would. handing out free condoms would just encourage kids to have sex, even the ones that would use the condoms as balloons because they like to do it bareback. Pregnancy rates would skyrocket because with just handing out frre condoms and not requiring sex education it gives a green light to students to have sex.

If I just hand out apples, are people gonna eat themselves into an apple coma?

More importantly, I thought that the whole problem with Kids Today is that they DON'T listen to adults enough. I thought the theory is that kids want to rebel against authority and will obstinately refuse to do whatever grownups tell them to do. So wouldn't it be a good thing if Mrs. Mooney, the 400 year old Homeroom teacher, was talking about sex all the time? Then the kids will decide to rebel and embrace chastity!

[Bottle]

Paid for by whom?

Just divert funding from the military. I'm sure that would make the hippies happy, using the money to buy condoms instead of guns.

How about we just take all the funding away from "abstinence only education" programs and put it into useful condom-providing programs?

[Olthar]

Yeah, but in American schools it is really shitty as they can lose a ton of funding if they explain any method of birth control or disease prevention other than total abstinence.

Uh,what?

Depends on the school. Certainly not in NY. As part of the health curriculum, they study human reproduction, STDs and their effects, the causes of pregnancy and how to properly use birth control. They have the kids research and make presentations on the types of birth control available, and write persuasive essays about abortion and birth control, and hand out free condoms.

We're not all from East Bumfuck, Nowhere.

You had to write an essay in sex ed? Damn, I'm glad I didn't go to your school. Then again, It might be fun to write a paper where every other word is a type of genitalia, you know, in an immature kind of way.

[The Parkus Empire]

Just divert funding from the military. I'm sure that would make the hippies happy, using the money to buy condoms instead of guns.

How about we just take all the funding away from "abstinence only education" programs and put it into useful condom-providing programs?

I guess because "fundie" isn't just short for "fundamentalist".

[Olthar]

Just divert funding from the military. I'm sure that would make the hippies happy, using the money to buy condoms instead of guns.

How about we just take all the funding away from "abstinence only education" programs and put it into useful condom-providing programs?

Meh, the defense budget is already bloated as it is. Take enough, and we could hand out free sex toys to everyone, too.

[Esternial]

How about we just take all the funding away from "abstinence only education" programs and put it into useful condom-providing programs?

Meh, the defense budget is already bloated as it is. Take enough, and we could hand out free sex toys to everyone, too.

I bet that would make for some nice advertising.

[Katganistan]

Yeah, but in American schools it is really shitty as they can lose a ton of funding if they explain any method of birth control or disease prevention other than total abstinence.

I also found out that the word condom may only be used in PE classes. Everyone else has to say profilactic.

???

Not everywhere.

[SaintB]

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!

I agree, but for different reasons. First of all, it shouldn't be the government's problem that teens decide to fornicate with each other so young (except when caught in the act, or statutory rape, of course). The government shouldn't be involved in the contraception business in any way, shape, or form. The teens should be the ones to shoulder the consequences of their actions and negligences. The consequences for the mother are obvious, but I think that if the teen father can't financially support them, he should get conscripted. That way, he can legitimately earn the money and government benefits for the mother and child until he's at least 18 and can stand a reasonable chance at getting a reasonable job - or he can stay in and make a longer term career out of it. Or maybe some other punitive route... Anyways, I agree that prohibition of it isn't the way to go, because it's wrong to punish everyone for something they haven't done yet. Let the punishment fit the crime, and the violator make the reparations for it.

I can't support that either, not only am I against the idea of conscription but with the amount of money spent per soldier by the US already that could only lead to even more bloated defense spending and bigger problems everywhere else.

Give the kids condoms and teach them about responsible sex, its cheap, its effective, and it makes everyone happy.

[Katganistan]

What are you talking about? Mine had an entire section devoted to various contraceptives. It was pretty thorough. Plus, I live in a highly conservative moralistic city. It is very much a cliché rich white suburb. If anyone was going to throw a hissy fit over sex education, it'd be them.

It's Federal funding: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Abstinence ... _education

Individual schools may decide to disagree and place health over money, but the incentive is there to do the opposite.

I've provided a NYS curriculum. The idea that we don't get federal funding because we teach how to use birth control is an outright lie.

Yes it was. Teens have been having sex since the dawn of time. That has always and will always be true. There's no changing it unless you were to make it physically incapable for them to have sex.

Even if that is true, the problem wasn't nearly as bad then as it is now. There used to be a time when people who were sexually promiscuous were rightfully stigmatized as whores.

You mean, women. While their male partners were not stigmatized at all.

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.

How about preventing the fucking up of multiple lives in the first place? You know, the teen parents, their unwanted kid's, and the grandparents and the taxpayers who have to clothe, feed, and educate someone who wasn't wanted in the first place?

You repulse me.

You repulse me just as much in saying that kids should be or aren't having enough sex.

My rule of thumb is that kids shouldn't be having kids which isn't such a bad or controversial stance to take. If you can live on your own and handle any consequences responsibly then sure, by all means do whatever you'd like. I believe if a male sleeps around that he should also be considered a slut as well, it's only fair. Don't put words into my mouth that I only believe women should be stigmatized for casual sex. Yes, I know that for some reason most people don't care if a man sleeps around. It's wrong either way in my view.

Wasn't what you said.

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?

Obviously, you are ignorant of the possible side effects of introducing drugs to people without any consideration of what other meds they may be taking and the side effects they may have on individuals -- or are pretty callous about not giving a damn.

You do realize what he's describing is chemical castration right? Word it all he wants, its chemical castration.

Temporary chemical castration. Absolutely temporary.

A temporary chemical castration takes away a harmful-to-himself-and-others-at-this-stage-in-his-life ability from a person that is unable to decide how to act rationally, especially concerning sex, due to his hormones, his salacious culture, and his wild mind.

And what of the right to self-determination?

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.

Underage drinking, underage smoking, both against the law, and both practiced widely. You think a sex prohibition law is going to work?

[Esternial]

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?

Obviously, you are ignorant of the possible side effects of introducing drugs to people without any consideration of what other meds they may be taking and the side effects they may have on individuals -- or are pretty callous about not giving a damn.

That's true. I believe things like the condom and ECPs are the best choices for teens.

[Olthar]

Holy shit, Kat! Six posts in a row?!

[Esternial]

Holy shit, Kat! Six posts in a row?!

That's not as rare as you'd think, Olth.

Well, for Kat.

[Katganistan]

There are two ways to stop men from having erections:
mess with their hormones
mess with their blood flow

neither is medically a good idea just to prevent sex

Chemically cutting off the blood flow to the penis doesn't seem damaging; it means more blood for everything else, after all.
Why would that be a bad idea?

..........

Cut off the blood flow to your hand, and we'll talk.

[Esternial]

Chemically cutting off the blood flow to the penis doesn't seem damaging; it means more blood for everything else, after all.
Why would that be a bad idea?

..........

Cut off the blood flow to your hand, and we'll talk.

I hope he wasn't being serious