Schools distributing Condoms? yes or no?

by **Takaram** » Mon Feb 14, 2011 8:44 pm

Taerlok wrote:More condoms in schools, and everyone will be happier. is this the general consensus?

Zombie threads are bad, m'kay.

by **Taerlok** » Mon Feb 14, 2011 9:18 pm

Takaram wrote:
Taerlok wrote:More condoms in schools, and everyone will be happier. is this the general consensus?

Zombie threads are bad, m'kay.

what is your meaning? i am just getting stuff active again.

by **New Korongo** » Mon Feb 14, 2011 9:20 pm

They used to do that at my old Intermediate school after sex ed finished

by **Spacelantis** » Wed Feb 16, 2011 6:13 am

Abstinence doesn't work.

by **Mazarat** » Wed Feb 16, 2011 6:15 am

Why not, I mean, they should inform the child of the consequences, but that is usually done in a Health class. But if the teen is intent on having sex they won't have much trouble getting a condom anyway.

by **Mosasauria** » Wed Feb 16, 2011 6:18 am

Students should have the option to get condoms at school. They're going to have sex anyways, so why not lower the chance of a pregnancy?

by **Belfras** » Wed Feb 16, 2011 6:20 am

Of course schools should distribute condoms. if someones going to have sex, they'll have sex. At least if condoms are handed out they have a safer option.

by **Adamasa** » Wed Feb 16, 2011 6:37 am

No, what we need to do in my opinion is teach them the risk of pre-marital sex. Instead of encouraging impurity and unfaithfulness we should work to prevent it. Oh sure we could take the easy way out and just give them condoms because hell they will just do it anyway. Or we could not give up on them help to wait until they are ready. Lets face it, it wont be the students who want to be careful about sex getting these condoms. Its going to be those manipulitive perverts who instead of a condom see a bullet proof vest against disease. And it may surprise you but I am a christian and get this, I'm a teenager in high school! Well thats all I have to say on the matter not that any of you will listen.

by **Mosasauria** » Wed Feb 16, 2011 6:41 am

Adamasa wrote:No, what we need to do in my opinion is teach them the risk of pre-marital sex. Instead of encouraging impurity and unfaithfulness we should work to prevent it. Oh sure we could take the easy way out and just give them condoms because hell they will just do it anyway. Or we could not give up on them help to wait until they are ready. Lets face it, it wont be the students who want to be careful about sex getting these condoms. Its going to be those manipulitive perverts who instead of a condom see a bullet proof vest against disease. And it may surprise you but I am a christian and get this, I'm a teenager in high school! Well thats all I have to say on the matter not that any of you will listen.

Listen:
If teens want sex, they are going to do it no matter what. It doesn't matter whether they learned about abstinence or not, they are going to do it.
Give them condoms, and you can at least prevent diseases and pregnancy. Better them use it as 'a bulletproof vest' then have no protection at all.
And I do not appreciate you calling all people who had premarital sex 'perverts'.

by **Juristonia** » Wed Feb 16, 2011 6:52 am

Adamasa wrote:No, what we need to do in my opinion is teach them the risk of pre-marital sex. Instead of encouraging impurity and unfaithfulness we should work to prevent it. Oh sure we could take the easy way out and just give them condoms because hell they will just do it anyway. Or we could not give up on them help to wait until they are ready. Lets face it, it wont be the students who want to be careful about sex getting these condoms. Its going to be those manipulitive perverts who instead of a condom see a bullet proof vest against disease. And it may surprise you but I am a christian and get this, I'm a teenager in high school! Well thats all I have to say on the matter not that any of you will listen.

Closing your eyes and pretending it isn't going to happen is less easy than acknowledging that it will and at least providing them the means to do so safely? :roll:

It is perfectly possible to educate teens about sex whilst providing a safety net when they decide to have sex anyway.
You're also thinking that properly educated teens won't use the free condoms which is ridiculous. Sure, some of them won't but some of them will so it would be a lost opportunity to not at least support their decision to do it safely.

And there is no risk to pre-marital sex because there's nothing wrong with pre-marital sex.
The no sex before marriage thing got started purely through religion and your religion has no right to impose on other people's lives.

by **Grainne Ni Malley** » Wed Feb 16, 2011 7:01 am

I would rather my son wait, but I'm not naive enough to believe that he will just because I want him to and he's been educated about the dangers. Teenage years are emotionally confusing, raging hormone years and, while it's not always the case, many teenagers find this stage of their life to be the prime years for exploring sexual desires. Heck, much to the embarrassment of all involved and any men in the condom aisle,I bought my son condoms when he turned 12 because that was the age most of my guy friends claimed to have lost their virginity... usually to their babysitter. Disturbing, but an entirely different subject.

Even then the distribution of condoms doesn't guarantee teenagers will us protection, but at least the odds are improved. Moreover, for teenage girls, many of which seem to be aching to get pregnant for whatever delusional reason their minds can conjure, I don't think handing out condoms is enough. During their Freshman/Sophomore years in High School (possibly younger? not decided) girls, and even guys really, should be required to assist parents with with children ranging from infancy on up. Much like Community Service, but school credits can be earned. A certain amount of hours on a regular basis spent with a crying, screaming, pooping, temper-tantrum throwing, projectile vomiting, gooey mess might take some of the preconceived charm of having a baby away. Plus, it would really help a lot of mothers out.

by **Banlieue 47** » Wed Feb 16, 2011 7:26 am

If teens have been educated adequately about the risk of having unprotected sex and go ahead and do so anyway, their call. If they get pregnant and/or and STI, too bad. They'll both have to go get jobs (and if they can't they can bloody starve) and work to support themselves and the kid. No government help, no charity help.

See how many teen pregnancies there are then.

I'm such a keen adherent to natural selection. Look both ways before you cross the road: Common sense. Don't stick your dick in a woman if you can't afford a kid (or don't let a guy stick his dick in you... blah): ALSO common sense.

by **Horsefish** » Wed Feb 16, 2011 7:29 am

Adamasa wrote:No, what we need to do in my opinion is teach them the risk of pre-marital sex. Instead of encouraging impurity and unfaithfulness we should work to prevent it. Oh sure we could take the easy way out and just give them condoms because hell they will just do it anyway. Or we could not give up on them help to wait until they are ready. Lets face it, it wont be the students who want to be careful about sex getting these condoms. Its going to be those manipulitive perverts who instead of a condom see a bullet proof vest against disease. And it may surprise you but I am a christian and get this, I'm a teenager in high school! Well thats all I have to say on the matter not that any of you will listen.

And what about those who don't pescribe to your particular world view? I certainly dont think I should be labeled a pervert just because I've had sex. In fact, it could be argued that it's more perverse to wait for some arbitary date to have it, rather than having it when you want it.

It's natural baby

by **Useless-Stuff** » Wed Feb 16, 2011 7:33 am

Brogavia wrote:Rule number 3. Never turn down free condoms.

i second that.

by **Wikkiwallana** » Wed Feb 16, 2011 7:40 am

Spacelantis wrote:Abstinence doesn't work.

Abstinence works extremely well, it's abstinence-only education that fails miserably.

Adamasa wrote:No, what we need to do in my opinion is teach them the risk of pre-marital sex. Instead of encouraging impurity and unfaithfulness we should work to prevent it.

Public school is not the place to push your religious beliefs.

Oh sure we could take the easy way out and just give them condoms because hell they will just do it anyway. Or we could not give up on them help to wait until they are ready.

Giving them condoms isn't giving up on them, it's acknowledging reality. Places with comprehensive sex ed and contraceptive availability have much, much lower teen pregnancy rates than those with abstinence-only education. Lower STD rates too.

Lets face it, it wont be the students who want to be careful about sex getting these condoms. Its going to be those manipulitive perverts who instead of a condom see a bullet proof vest against disease.

All the actual data on the subject says you are wrong.

And it may surprise you but I am a christian and get this, I'm a teenager in high school! Well thats all I have to say on the matter not that any of you will listen.

Neither is very surprising, you just parroted the religious rights rhetoric with no understanding of actual circumstances. I'm a Christian too, and I think pre-marital sex is immoral too, but I also pay attention to reality and do what has been shown to work best. People can repent of sin, but a kid is for life.

by **7th Wonderland** » Wed Feb 16, 2011 7:40 am

Yay on condoms being available, but not mandatory to distribute. Evidence illustrates that locations with a progressive take on sexual education and precaution tend to have lower teen pregnancy rates than otherwise. While it may clash with the ideals held by members of certain groups, churches and parishes, maintaining the status quo is the very definition of madness; trying the exact same thing again and again, while expecting different results.

by **Exemplis** » Wed Feb 16, 2011 7:41 am

Banlieue 47 wrote:If teens have been educated adequately about the risk of having unprotected sex and go ahead and do so anyway, their call. If they get pregnant and/or and STI, too bad. They'll both have to go get jobs (and if they can't they can bloody starve) and work to support themselves and the kid. No government help, no charity help.

See how many teen pregnancies there are then.

I'm such a keen adherent to natural selection. Look both ways before you cross the road: Common sense. Don't stick your dick in a woman if you can't afford a kid (or don't let a guy stick his dick in you... blah): ALSO common sense.

As much as I want to agree with you...
There is no common sense if one is letting their penis think for them.

by **Wikkiwallana** » Wed Feb 16, 2011 7:42 am

Banlieue 47 wrote:If teens have been educated adequately about the risk of having unprotected sex and go ahead and do so anyway, their call. If they get pregnant and/or and STI, too bad. They'll both have to go get jobs (and if they can't they can bloody starve) and work to support themselves and the kid. No government help, no charity help.

See how many teen pregnancies there are then.

I'm such a keen adherent to natural selection. Look both ways before you cross the road: Common sense. Don't stick your dick in a woman if you can't afford a kid (or don't let a guy stick his dick in you... blah): ALSO common sense.

Teens are notoriously lacking in common sense, in all matters. Puberty hormones just makes it worse. Since it's a biological fact, why should they be punished for it?

by **Eivenia (Ancient)** » Wed Feb 16, 2011 7:48 am

The more easily available contraceptives are, the better. Mandatory is a bit too much, I think, but the option should definitely be there.

Along with comprehensive and proper sex-ed, of course.

^ Also regarding teen brains. It's true that their brain is still developing and still forming connections at that stage regarding risk assessment. So their ability to weigh consequences is not nearly as developed as it is in fully grown adults.

by **Banlieue 47** » Wed Feb 16, 2011 9:21 am

Part of sex education in the school I went to was the cost of raising a child, the risk of STIs and how much your vagina will stretch... And how many girls were sick? :clap:

by **Wikkiwallana** » Wed Feb 16, 2011 9:22 am

Banlieue 47 wrote:Part of sex education in the school I went to was the cost of raising a child, the risk of STIs and how much your vagina will stretch... And how many girls were sick?

And did they account for how many teens think they are invincible and that nothing bad will ever happen to them?

by **Banlieue 47** » Wed Feb 16, 2011 9:37 am

Yeah, our teacher was called "Bludgeon" and spoke frankly to the class:

"How many of you thick cunts think you can get away with shagging and not having a kid? Pull out maybe? MYTH!" he was a former soldier and a damned good teacher... although he got the sack =/ he is what teenagers need, not free contraception, that just legitimises an illegal act: underage sex.

Crime is crime, right?

by **Wikkiwallana** » Wed Feb 16, 2011 9:40 am

Banlieue 47 wrote:Yeah, our teacher was called "Bludgeon" and spoke frankly to the class:

"How many of you thick cunts think you can get away with shagging and not having a kid? Pull out maybe? MYTH!" he was a former soldier and a damned good teacher... although he got the sack =/ he is what teenagers need, not free contraception, that just legitimises an illegal act: underage sex.

Crime is crime, right?

Show me the law against it. Making it illegal for teens to have sex with each other is both draconian and effectively unenforceable.

by **Banlieue 47** » Wed Feb 16, 2011 9:42 am

Legal age of consent. There's the law against it.

by **Zeth Rekia** » Wed Feb 16, 2011 9:47 am

School distributing condoms for free? No.
School distributing condoms for a price? Yeah sure.

Schools distributing Condoms? yes or no?

Should distribution of Condoms be mandatory in schools?

Who is online