PDA

View Full Version : 1 in 6 Teen Moms Say They Didn't Believe They Could Get Pregnant



pwaldo
01-23-2012, 02:03 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/1-6-teen-moms-didnt-believe-could-pregnant-202403188.html


Half of teen mothers say they were not using birth control when they got pregnant, and a new report outlines the reasons teens give for not doing so.

Of teen moms who reported not using birth control, 31 percent said they did not believe they could get pregnant at the time. To decrease teen birth rates, teens need factual information about the conditions under which pregnancy can occur, along with public health efforts aimed at reducing or delaying teens' sexual activities, according to the report released today by researchers for the Centers for Disease and Control and Prevention.

Others gave various reasons for not using birth control — 24 percent said their partner did not want to use contraception, 13 percent said they had trouble getting birth control, 9 percent said they experienced side effects from using contraception and 8 percent said they thought their sex partner was sterile. Twenty-two percent of the teens said they did not mind getting pregnant.

Health care providers and parents can work to prevent teen pregnancy by increasing teens' motivation to avoid pregnancy; providing access to contraception and encouraging the use of more effective methods, and strengthening the skills of teens to negotiate contraceptive use with their partners.

LOL

mrveggieman
01-23-2012, 02:16 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/1-6-teen-moms-didnt-believe-could-pregnant-202403188.html



LOL



It's so sad. Many unwanted pregnancies could be prevented if there was comprehensive sex ed as well as easier access to birth control. Some of our more conservative posters on here seem to believe that people under the age of 18 do not get pregnant let alone have sex. BTW I am not encouraging teen sex but I would rather have my tax money go to teen pregnancy prevention than to walfare payments for teenage mothers.

gatorboymike
01-23-2012, 03:25 PM
Maybe if the religious right wasn't trying to get abstinence-only sex education taught in public schools, you wouldn't have 18-year-olds still thinking the stork delivers babies.

mrveggieman
01-23-2012, 03:29 PM
Maybe if the religious right wasn't trying to get abstinence-only sex education taught in public schools, you wouldn't have 18-year-olds still thinking the stork delivers babies.

Post of the day. :smokin:

tsjct
01-23-2012, 03:30 PM
It's so sad. Many unwanted pregnancies could be prevented if there was comprehensive sex ed as well as easier access to birth control. Some of our more conservative posters on here seem to believe that people under the age of 18 do not get pregnant let alone have sex. BTW I am not encouraging teen sex but I would rather have my tax money go to teen pregnancy prevention than to walfare payments for teenage mothers.

how about $1 for a condom? why should tax payer money go towards birth control and possibly the spread of AIDS. Unprotected sex can lead to that i think:rolleyes:. Maybe us right wingers do not want girls being exposed to STD's with our tax money paying for it.

mrveggieman
01-23-2012, 03:40 PM
how about $1 for a condom? why should tax payer money go towards birth control and possibly the spread of AIDS. Unprotected sex can lead to that i think:rolleyes:. Maybe us right wingers do not want girls being exposed to STD's with our tax money paying for it.


People including teenagers are going to have sex weather you, I, President Obama, the religious right or anyone else likes it or not. Its a fact of life and not having a condom is not going to stop some people. So that being said would you rather have a little bit of your tax dollars go to condom distribution and education or a lot of them go to walfare payments and aids treatment?

pghin08
01-23-2012, 03:50 PM
You know, someone once told me that pregnancy was a possible side effect of sex. I thought it was just an urban legend.

tsjct
01-23-2012, 03:57 PM
i have a better idea. Tie the tubes of Girls at birth and give all boys a reversible vasectomy. When you can prove your responsible enough to have a child then you can have them reversed. How about that idea. SAVES us Few Tax payers that do pay taxes a ton of money.

ensbergcollector
01-23-2012, 04:47 PM
It's so sad. Many unwanted pregnancies could be prevented if there was comprehensive sex ed as well as easier access to birth control. Some of our more conservative posters on here seem to believe that people under the age of 18 do not get pregnant let alone have sex. BTW I am not encouraging teen sex but I would rather have my tax money go to teen pregnancy prevention than to walfare payments for teenage mothers.

yes, and liberals like to pretend that handing condoms out like candy isn't going to increase the number of teenagers having sex. guess what, according to this article, only 13% said that getting protection was a problem.
liberals also like to pretend that handing out condoms is going to do away with the teenage pregnancy epidemic. guess what, it won't. want to know why teenage pregnancy has gone up exponentially over the years? it is because it is becoming more and more accepted, defended, and encouraged. You think kids 50 years ago didn't want to have sex? of course they did, but they were taught not to.

mrveggieman
01-23-2012, 04:52 PM
yes, and liberals like to pretend that handing condoms out like candy isn't going to increase the number of teenagers having sex. guess what, according to this article, only 13% said that getting protection was a problem.
liberals also like to pretend that handing out condoms is going to do away with the teenage pregnancy epidemic. guess what, it won't. want to know why teenage pregnancy has gone up exponentially over the years? it is because it is becoming more and more accepted, defended, and encouraged. You think kids 50 years ago didn't want to have sex? of course they did, but they were taught not to.


Yeah like they were also taught that it was ok to hate people because of the color of thier skin? Ensbergcollector I like to personally invite you to join the rest of us in the 21st century.

gatorboymike
01-23-2012, 04:54 PM
yes, and liberals like to pretend that handing condoms out like candy isn't going to increase the number of teenagers having sex. guess what, according to this article, only 13% said that getting protection was a problem.
liberals also like to pretend that handing out condoms is going to do away with the teenage pregnancy epidemic. guess what, it won't. want to know why teenage pregnancy has gone up exponentially over the years? it is because it is becoming more and more accepted, defended, and encouraged. You think kids 50 years ago didn't want to have sex? of course they did, but they were taught not to.

You people's nostalgia for the 1950s and 60s always makes me laugh. "Yeah, everything was better back when every single person in the entire country was a Fox News Conservative Christian™ just like me, before someone invented the idea that anyone else was actually a human being." The Leave it to Beaver-esque world you have such crippling nostalgia for never really existed. I recommend you read The Way We Never Were by Stephanie Coontz.

Conservatives like to pretend they can stop people from having sex. Guess what, you can't. And all the statistics indicate that your every attempt to try only makes things worse.

duane1969
01-23-2012, 05:16 PM
Since these (clearly ignorant) girls thought they couldn't get pregnant, what would have handing out condoms accomplished?

You can put an idiot in an airplane full of parachutes, but if he thinks he can fly he will still jump out without one.

And last time I checked, sex ed is being taught in virtually every high school and middle school in the country. Blaming the religious right for this is just an excuse to point the finger at someone else.

ensbergcollector
01-23-2012, 05:19 PM
You people's nostalgia for the 1950s and 60s always makes me laugh. "Yeah, everything was better back when every single person in the entire country was a Fox News Conservative Christian™ just like me, before someone invented the idea that anyone else was actually a human being." The Leave it to Beaver-esque world you have such crippling nostalgia for never really existed. I recommend you read The Way We Never Were by Stephanie Coontz.

Conservatives like to pretend they can stop people from having sex. Guess what, you can't. And all the statistics indicate that your every attempt to try only makes things worse.

was there anything i said that was wrong? if you want to attack me personally feel free to shoot me a pm, but i dare you to find anything i said that was false.

duane1969
01-23-2012, 05:26 PM
If anyone reads the article they will see that this has nothing to to with religion or Christianity, let's keep it on topic please.

gatorboymike
01-23-2012, 06:07 PM
was there anything i said that was wrong? if you want to attack me personally feel free to shoot me a pm, but i dare you to find anything i said that was false.

I would like to know who exactly you think is defending and encouraging teen pregnancy. Or if you think handing out condoms will INCREASE the rate of teen pregnancy, as abstinence-only sex ed. has been shown to.

tsjct
01-23-2012, 06:12 PM
If we get back to the topic that 1 in 6 girls did not know having sex could make them pregnant i do not think condoms, birth control, etc is the problem. I think it has to do with IGNORANCE. That is why we can not all be EQUAL. Here is a perfect example of why EQUAL will never happen. Some are born BRIGHTER than others and have people around them that are SMARTER than others.

pghin08
01-23-2012, 06:58 PM
Since these (clearly ignorant) girls thought they couldn't get pregnant, what would have handing out condoms accomplished?

You can put an idiot in an airplane full of parachutes, but if he thinks he can fly he will still jump out without one.

And last time I checked, sex ed is being taught in virtually every high school and middle school in the country. Blaming the religious right for this is just an excuse to point the finger at someone else.

Lol. Outstanding.

habsheaven
01-23-2012, 07:49 PM
If we get back to the topic that 1 in 6 girls did not know having sex could make them pregnant i do not think condoms, birth control, etc is the problem. I think it has to do with IGNORANCE. That is why we can not all be EQUAL. Here is a perfect example of why EQUAL will never happen. Some are born BRIGHTER than others and have people around them that are SMARTER than others.

What does equality have to do with intelligence? Do you have ANY IDEA what EQUALITY means? It has nothing to do with your attributes. It is all about your WORTH.

ensbergcollector
01-23-2012, 09:54 PM
I would like to know who exactly you think is defending and encouraging teen pregnancy. Or if you think handing out condoms will INCREASE the rate of teen pregnancy, as abstinence-only sex ed. has been shown to.

i didn't say anyone was defending and encouraging teen pregnancy. i said they are defending and encouraging teen sex.

gatorboymike
01-23-2012, 10:15 PM
want to know why teenage pregnancy has gone up exponentially over the years? it is because it is becoming more and more accepted, defended, and encouraged.

Yes, you did say teenage pregnancy is being accepted, defended and encouraged. Unless the "it" is referring to sex and not pregnancy, but the way you wrote that, it looks like you're talking about pregnancy.

ensbergcollector
01-23-2012, 10:34 PM
Yes, you did say teenage pregnancy is being accepted, defended and encouraged. Unless the "it" is referring to sex and not pregnancy, but the way you wrote that, it looks like you're talking about pregnancy.

then my apologies. not what i meant. i was meaning teenage sex. sorry about that

jywilli69
01-23-2012, 11:07 PM
Problem with this issue is, handing out Condoms is promiting Sex. Parents to busy working is another issue, but that is the way it is. Yes it is the 21 century, that is what is wrong, alot of kids think they know what they are doing until they get in a jam. Then parents means something. It also doesn't help when people stick their nose where it doesn't concern them when it comes to parenting. That is why we have to many teen moms and alot of STD's within the 21st century babies today. Not saying everyone is like that, but give it time.

duane1969
01-24-2012, 12:07 AM
Yes, you did say teenage pregnancy is being accepted, defended and encouraged. Unless the "it" is referring to sex and not pregnancy, but the way you wrote that, it looks like you're talking about pregnancy.

To some degree, it is. Look at teen television. Teen pregnancy is being portrayed as an acceptable part of teenage life. Shows like "16 and Pregnant" are causing girls to intentionally get pregnant. The negative stigmatism associated with teen pregnancy from 15 or 20 years ago is nearly gone.

I teach in public school and I see how girls who are pregnant act. They are not embarrassed. They love the attention. After they have their baby they bring it to school and the students and teachers gather around to coo and make over it. Schools even have daycare programs to take care of their babies while they go to class.

Teen pregnancy is definitely being accepted. Encouraged? Maybe not, but it isn't exactly being discouraged either. Defended? Find a pregnant teen and lecture her on her mistake and see how quickly people come out of the woodwork to defend her.

MattDMC
01-24-2012, 12:24 AM
Wait, so that rumor if you have sex standing up you can't get pregnant isn't true???

mrveggieman
01-24-2012, 07:45 AM
If anyone reads the article they will see that this has nothing to to with religion or Christianity, let's keep it on topic please.


I would have to disagree with you on that Duane. The reason why these teen girls believe that they cannot get pregnant is the lack of sex education at home and at school as well as limited availability of contraception because a lot of conservate people (some of them christian) refuse to educate their kids on sex as well as wanting to take away the rights of others to be educated on sex and to be protected. No I'm not going to bash christians or anyone else on this particular thread but I do have to keep it real.

duane1969
01-24-2012, 08:26 AM
I would have to disagree with you on that Duane. The reason why these teen girls believe that they cannot get pregnant is the lack of sex education at home and at school as well as limited availability of contraception because a lot of conservate people (some of them christian) refuse to educate their kids on sex as well as wanting to take away the rights of others to be educated on sex and to be protected. No I'm not going to bash christians or anyone else on this particular thread but I do have to keep it real.

But that is a misconception. Sex ed is openly taught in pretty much all schools. In many areas it starts as early as the 4th or 5th grade. Here in WV it statrts in the 6th. A 16 year old is in the 10th or 11th grade. By then they will have had sex ed several times in school.

Contraceptives are available for free from state health department offices. Just because it isn't being handed out by counselors and school nurses does not mean it isn't available. It can also be purchased rather inexpensively in any gas station or convenience store on any street corner in America.

Saying "I didn't think I could get pregnant" is either A) a cop out to avoid taking responsibility, or B) a comment by a really, really stupid person.

I also think it is unfounded to assume that all of these girls are the children of hardline religious conservatives who sheltered their kids from reality.

mrveggieman
01-24-2012, 08:41 AM
But that is a misconception. Sex ed is openly taught in pretty much all schools. In many areas it starts as early as the 4th or 5th grade. Here in WV it statrts in the 6th. A 16 year old is in the 10th or 11th grade. By then they will have had sex ed several times in school.

Contraceptives are available for free from state health department offices. Just because it isn't being handed out by counselors and school nurses does not mean it isn't available. It can also be purchased rather inexpensively in any gas station or convenience store on any street corner in America.

Saying "I didn't think I could get pregnant" is either A) a cop out to avoid taking responsibility, or B) a comment by a really, really stupid person.

I also think it is unfounded to assume that all of these girls are the children of hardline religious conservatives who sheltered their kids from reality.


Yes you can buy condoms from any corner store and some local health departments give out free condoms however it still does not help that some conservative parents are still in the dark ages when it comes to their views on sex.

pghin08
01-24-2012, 08:57 AM
To some degree, it is. Look at teen television. Teen pregnancy is being portrayed as an acceptable part of teenage life. Shows like "16 and Pregnant" are causing girls to intentionally get pregnant. The negative stigmatism associated with teen pregnancy from 15 or 20 years ago is nearly gone.

I teach in public school and I see how girls who are pregnant act. They are not embarrassed. They love the attention. After they have their baby they bring it to school and the students and teachers gather around to coo and make over it. Schools even have daycare programs to take care of their babies while they go to class.

Teen pregnancy is definitely being accepted. Encouraged? Maybe not, but it isn't exactly being discouraged either. Defended? Find a pregnant teen and lecture her on her mistake and see how quickly people come out of the woodwork to defend her.

I totally agree with you here. 15-16 year old girls aren't quite mature enough to recognize the schism between the responsibilities of parenthood, and the attention that they see teenage moms getting on TV.

ensbergcollector
01-24-2012, 09:08 AM
I would have to disagree with you on that Duane. The reason why these teen girls believe that they cannot get pregnant is the lack of sex education at home and at school as well as limited availability of contraception because a lot of conservate people (some of them christian) refuse to educate their kids on sex as well as wanting to take away the rights of others to be educated on sex and to be protected. No I'm not going to bash christians or anyone else on this particular thread but I do have to keep it real.

there is zero proof to your argument. it is a anti-christian argument that arose about 10-12 years ago and people just keep spouting it as though it were fact.

while you think the problem is christians who won't talk about sex ed in the homes, i think the problem is the number of people who don't care if their kids have sex and tell them so. When teenagers know from an early ago that their parents are ok with them having sex, they have sex. My job is to work with teenagers and talk about major life stuff, including this.

again, even using this article, only 19% claimed difficulty in obtaining protection was why they got pregnant. you try and act as though handing out condoms at school is going to do away with teen pregnancy. what about the 81% of these teen moms who got pregnant for a reason other than protection?

ensbergcollector
01-24-2012, 09:09 AM
I totally agree with you here. 15-16 year old girls aren't quite mature enough to recognize the schism between the responsibilities of parenthood, and the attention that they see teenage moms getting on TV.

my friend worked in kansas about a year ago and two girls got pregnant at the local high school and when asked why/how both said they wanted to get on the teenage mom tv show.

pghin08
01-24-2012, 09:13 AM
my friend worked in kansas about a year ago and two girls got pregnant at the local high school and when asked why/how both said they wanted to get on the teenage mom tv show.

Exactly. And that's a pretty big societal problem. When ANY person makes a major life decision based off what they see on TV, well then we need to really re-evaluate things.

mrveggieman
01-24-2012, 09:17 AM
my friend worked in kansas about a year ago and two girls got pregnant at the local high school and when asked why/how both said they wanted to get on the teenage mom tv show.


I agree that is a stupid reason to get pregnant but adults also get pregnant for stupid reasons such as trying to trap a man but that is a different story. Yes making it easier to get condoms along with comprehensive sex ed is not going to eliminate teen pregancy or catching stds but it is a good start and will not hurt.

duane1969
01-24-2012, 10:06 AM
Yes you can buy condoms from any corner store and some local health departments give out free condoms however it still does not help that some conservative parents are still in the dark ages when it comes to their views on sex.

There is no evidence that the girls in this poll were the children of christian parents. You are making a conclusion that is based on opinon. These girls could just as easily be the off-spring of hardline liberals.

ensbergcollector
01-24-2012, 10:08 AM
I agree that is a stupid reason to get pregnant but adults also get pregnant for stupid reasons such as trying to trap a man but that is a different story. Yes making it easier to get condoms along with comprehensive sex ed is not going to eliminate teen pregancy or catching stds but it is a good start and will not hurt.

we can agree to disagree. i think the amount of teenagers having premarital sex would increase exponentially if we started handing out condoms in jr. high and high school

mrveggieman
01-24-2012, 10:10 AM
There is no evidence that the girls in this poll were the children of christian parents. You are making a conclusion that is based on opinon. These girls could just as easily be the off-spring of hardline liberals.


Or their parents could have been moderates who knows who cares? The point is some kids will make stupid decisions regardless of who their parents are that is a fact of life. However that still does not excuse hard line conservatives from denying sex education and contraceptives to their and other peoples children.

mrveggieman
01-24-2012, 10:14 AM
we can agree to disagree. i think the amount of teenagers having premarital sex would increase exponentially if we started handing out condoms in jr. high and high school


I guess that we will. Sex has been around since day one and will continue to the last day. It is a basic human and animal instinct. There is nothing that you, I or anyone else here can do to stop it. I would rather my recources go to prevention than welfare or AIDS treatment. Remember an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. :winking0071:

ensbergcollector
01-24-2012, 10:20 AM
I guess that we will. Sex has been around since day one and will continue to the last day. It is a basic human and animal instinct. There is nothing that you, I or anyone else here can do to stop it. I would rather my recources go to prevention than welfare or AIDS treatment. Remember an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. :winking0071:

ok, 2 things. one, teenage sex and teenage pregnancy is been rising like crazy so don't tell me "its always been here and there is nothing you can do to stop it." People like gbm might not want people to look back 50+ years ago but guess what, the country had higher morals and the amount of teenage pregnancy was nothing compared to what it is now. Guess what. the way you raise your kids matters.

secondly, in regards to your other post. ARE YOU KIDDING ME??? Did you really say parents have no excuse to deny contraceptives to their own children??? So, according to you, not only should jr. high's pass out condoms. Parents, even if they are opposed to premarital sex, should provide their children with condoms? You do realize that if we did things your way there would be zero percent of the teenage population not having sex right. That is your solution? wow

habsheaven
01-24-2012, 10:30 AM
ok, 2 things. one, teenage sex and teenage pregnancy is been rising like crazy so don't tell me "its always been here and there is nothing you can do to stop it." People like gbm might not want people to look back 50+ years ago but guess what, the country had higher morals and the amount of teenage pregnancy was nothing compared to what it is now. Guess what. the way you raise your kids matters.

secondly, in regards to your other post. ARE YOU KIDDING ME??? Did you really say parents have no excuse to deny contraceptives to their own children??? So, according to you, not only should jr. high's pass out condoms. Parents, even if they are opposed to premarital sex, should provide their children with condoms? You do realize that if we did things your way there would be zero percent of the teenage population not having sex right. That is your solution? wow

Why do you insist on arguing extremes? Really, 0% not having sex? I never used a condom until I was married. My sexual activity as a teen was limited to finding a willing girl. It had nothing to do with the accessibility of a condom. lol

mrveggieman
01-24-2012, 10:39 AM
ok, 2 things. one, teenage sex and teenage pregnancy is been rising like crazy so don't tell me "its always been here and there is nothing you can do to stop it." People like gbm might not want people to look back 50+ years ago but guess what, the country had higher morals and the amount of teenage pregnancy was nothing compared to what it is now. Guess what. the way you raise your kids matters.

secondly, in regards to your other post. ARE YOU KIDDING ME??? Did you really say parents have no excuse to deny contraceptives to their own children??? So, according to you, not only should jr. high's pass out condoms. Parents, even if they are opposed to premarital sex, should provide their children with condoms? You do realize that if we did things your way there would be zero percent of the teenage population not having sex right. That is your solution? wow

So using your logic if someone has condoms they are guaranteed sex? So the school geek who a girl wouldn't spit on him if he is on fire is guaranteed to have sex with every girl is school just because he has condoms? Wow. I wish it was that easy for me back when I was in school. LOL

Star_Cards
01-24-2012, 10:52 AM
It's so sad. Many unwanted pregnancies could be prevented if there was comprehensive sex ed as well as easier access to birth control. Some of our more conservative posters on here seem to believe that people under the age of 18 do not get pregnant let alone have sex. BTW I am not encouraging teen sex but I would rather have my tax money go to teen pregnancy prevention than to walfare payments for teenage mothers.

I agree. education is key. Not everyone has parents that talk to them about sex. I actually never had a sex talk from my parents. We did have some sex ed classes in 5th or 6th grade and discussed things in health. I'm not sure why sex ed is so feared by some. Education is the best way to prevent. Talking about sex isn't going to give kids the desire to have sex, their hormones do that no matter what.

mrveggieman
01-24-2012, 10:54 AM
I agree. education is key. Not everyone has parents that talk to them about sex. I actually never had a sex talk from my parents. We did have some sex ed classes in 5th or 6th grade and discussed things in health. I'm not sure why sex ed is so feared by some. Education is the best way to prevent. Talking about sex isn't going to give kids the desire to have sex, their hormones do that no matter what.


CHURCH!! :love0030:

Star_Cards
01-24-2012, 10:58 AM
Since these (clearly ignorant) girls thought they couldn't get pregnant, what would have handing out condoms accomplished?

You can put an idiot in an airplane full of parachutes, but if he thinks he can fly he will still jump out without one.

And last time I checked, sex ed is being taught in virtually every high school and middle school in the country. Blaming the religious right for this is just an excuse to point the finger at someone else.

If they had some sort of sex education (with or without a condom handed out) maybe they would have been less ignorant on this subject and some of them may have decided not to put themselves in that position to become pregnant.

Star_Cards
01-24-2012, 11:00 AM
Problem with this issue is, handing out Condoms is promiting Sex. Parents to busy working is another issue, but that is the way it is. Yes it is the 21 century, that is what is wrong, alot of kids think they know what they are doing until they get in a jam. Then parents means something. It also doesn't help when people stick their nose where it doesn't concern them when it comes to parenting. That is why we have to many teen moms and alot of STD's within the 21st century babies today. Not saying everyone is like that, but give it time.

do you really have to promote sex to make teenagers want to do it? I wasn't handed condoms when I was a teenager and I wanted to have sex and did. Luckily I knew about the risks and typically used a condom.

Star_Cards
01-24-2012, 11:05 AM
my friend worked in kansas about a year ago and two girls got pregnant at the local high school and when asked why/how both said they wanted to get on the teenage mom tv show.

I'm sure there have been some girls that have gotten pregnant to get on Teen Mom, but I think that show has helped promote the fact that being a teenage parent is nothing to want. I know we've had this discussion here specifically about Teen Mom and some think it's glamorizing it simply because it's on TV. I watch the show and there is nothing glamorous about the lives that these girls live. Every episode is a struggle between money, going to school, drama with their kids dad, etc. Sure people know who they are and they are on TV, but their lives aren't glamorous.

Star_Cards
01-24-2012, 11:17 AM
ok, 2 things. one, teenage sex and teenage pregnancy is been rising like crazy so don't tell me "its always been here and there is nothing you can do to stop it." People like gbm might not want people to look back 50+ years ago but guess what, the country had higher morals and the amount of teenage pregnancy was nothing compared to what it is now. Guess what. the way you raise your kids matters.

secondly, in regards to your other post. ARE YOU KIDDING ME??? Did you really say parents have no excuse to deny contraceptives to their own children??? So, according to you, not only should jr. high's pass out condoms. Parents, even if they are opposed to premarital sex, should provide their children with condoms? You do realize that if we did things your way there would be zero percent of the teenage population not having sex right. That is your solution? wow

I definitely get parents having issue with schools handing out condoms. I'm not sure where I stand on that matter. Condoms are not that expensive and readily available. I'm not sure schools need to provide them. Although I do see the side if kids could get them free at a place where they are regularly that it would give them less of an excuse not to use one when they do have sex.

I do feel that sex ed should be a huge part of the junior high and high school curriculum. I think making sure kids know how they work biologically is a great idea and would help a lot. I think it would go along way in helping with teenage pregnancy. If kid's are leaning how other animals like worms and frogs work in biology class it makes perfect sense that they would actually learn about themselves. Sexual reproduction is something they will deal with every day of their life and even more so for females than males. Might as well be provided the facts. Seems like this knowledge would be more helpful throughout their lives more than say wood shop.

ensbergcollector
01-24-2012, 11:33 AM
I definitely get parents having issue with schools handing out condoms. I'm not sure where I stand on that matter. Condoms are not that expensive and readily available. I'm not sure schools need to provide them. Although I do see the side if kids could get them free at a place where they are regularly that it would give them less of an excuse not to use one when they do have sex.

I do feel that sex ed should be a huge part of the junior high and high school curriculum. I think making sure kids know how they work biologically is a great idea and would help a lot. I think it would go along way in helping with teenage pregnancy. If kid's are leaning how other animals like worms and frogs work in biology class it makes perfect sense that they would actually learn about themselves. Sexual reproduction is something they will deal with every day of their life and even more so for females than males. Might as well be provided the facts. Seems like this knowledge would be more helpful throughout their lives more than say wood shop.

what is funny is that no where have I ever said I was against sex ed. it seems like everyone here assumes that because I am opposed to handing out condoms that I must be opposed to sex ed class. since when did one equal the other?

no one seems to want to address that handing out condoms will increase the sexual activity of teenagers.

also, as for the teen mom tv show, i am going to stick with my opinion. I work with teenagers for a living and most of my close friends do as well. I talk regularly with people from pretty much every corner of the country. the tv show is doing nothing to discourage teen pregnancy. if 2 girls at one high school were influenced by it, i find it hard to think it isn't more wide spread than that.

mrveggieman
01-24-2012, 11:39 AM
no one seems to want to address that handing out condoms will increase the sexual activity of teenagers.



And you know this how??

ensbergcollector
01-24-2012, 11:45 AM
And you know this how??

really? you are going to deny that? ok...


when is the last time you had a conversation with a few hundred teenagers?

mrveggieman
01-24-2012, 11:50 AM
really? you are going to deny that? ok...


when is the last time you had a conversation with a few hundred teenagers?


I don't know every teenager but I do have teenagers in my family as well as playing basketball with them at the gym. Again having a condom is not going to increase your chances of having sex because you still need to have someone willing to have sex with you. If your game is not on point you could have 1000 condoms but the only use you would have from them would be to make water ballons.

ensbergcollector
01-24-2012, 11:54 AM
I don't know every teenager but I do have teenagers in my family as well as playing basketball with them at the gym. Again having a condom is not going to increase your chances of having sex because you still need to have someone willing to have sex with you. If your game is not on point you could have 1000 condoms but the only use you would have from them would be to make water ballons.

well, i will take my experience, knowledge, and discussions with teenagers over a faulty balloon analogy any day.



let me clarify - no, an individual possessing a condom is not more likely to find a sexual partner. Condoms being available to everyone from junior high up, will lead to more people having sex. It causes sex to be viewed as more accepted, more available, and likely.



let's take smoking. do you think more teenagers would smoke if we started passing out cigarettes in junior high? Of course. Anything that teenagers feel a desire to do, will happen more often if you make it accepted and available.

Star_Cards
01-24-2012, 11:59 AM
what is funny is that no where have I ever said I was against sex ed. it seems like everyone here assumes that because I am opposed to handing out condoms that I must be opposed to sex ed class. since when did one equal the other?

no one seems to want to address that handing out condoms will increase the sexual activity of teenagers.

also, as for the teen mom tv show, i am going to stick with my opinion. I work with teenagers for a living and most of my close friends do as well. I talk regularly with people from pretty much every corner of the country. the tv show is doing nothing to discourage teen pregnancy. if 2 girls at one high school were influenced by it, i find it hard to think it isn't more wide spread than that.

I didn't mean to say you were. just quotes your post because it talked about handing out condoms and I'm unsure about that myself. I think the number of unprotected sexual encounters would decrease way more than increasing the number of kids having sex. If a kid is in a position to have sex and doesn't have a free condom, odds are they are going to have sex anyways whether they go buy a condom themselves or not. Sure some kids may be prompted to have sex, but they are already having those feeling anyways. The protection of the kids that would start using condoms would far outweigh the kids not having sex that would start in my opinion. And... if a condom prompts a kid to start having sex, he was probably going to start doing so whether he was given a condom or not.

mrveggieman
01-24-2012, 12:05 PM
well, i will take my experience, knowledge, and discussions with teenagers over a faulty balloon analogy any day.



let me clarify - no, an individual possessing a condom is not more likely to find a sexual partner. Condoms being available to everyone from junior high up, will lead to more people having sex. It causes sex to be viewed as more accepted, more available, and likely.



let's take smoking. do you think more teenagers would smoke if we started passing out cigarettes in junior high? Of course. Anything that teenagers feel a desire to do, will happen more often if you make it accepted and available.

That is a faulty analogy. Humans do not have a natural desire to smoke. You could have given me all the cigarettes in the world and I still would have had no intrest in them.

ensbergcollector
01-24-2012, 12:08 PM
That is a faulty analogy. Humans do not have a natural desire to smoke. You could have given me all the cigarettes in the world and I still would have had no intrest in them.

humans do not, teenagers do. not all of them, obviously, but peer pressure is real and the majority of people who smoke will tell you they started at some point to fit in, be accepted, or be viewed a certain way.

mrveggieman
01-24-2012, 12:10 PM
humans do not, teenagers do. not all of them, obviously, but peer pressure is real and the majority of people who smoke will tell you they started at some point to fit in, be accepted, or be viewed a certain way.

I agree there is a lot of peer pressure to do certian things. Some teens feel peer pressure to inhale house hold chemicals. Should we outlaw paint and cleaning fluids?

Star_Cards
01-24-2012, 12:11 PM
well, i will take my experience, knowledge, and discussions with teenagers over a faulty balloon analogy any day.



let me clarify - no, an individual possessing a condom is not more likely to find a sexual partner. Condoms being available to everyone from junior high up, will lead to more people having sex. It causes sex to be viewed as more accepted, more available, and likely.



let's take smoking. do you think more teenagers would smoke if we started passing out cigarettes in junior high? Of course. Anything that teenagers feel a desire to do, will happen more often if you make it accepted and available.

hmm... interesting analogy. I guess the difference is you can have sex with or with a condom and you can only smoke cigarettes with cigarettes. I just think if all it took was a free condom to push a kid over the line to start having sex he surely would just go buy one. The desire to have sex is a very big force/temptation. It's a big enough desire that if you are going to only do it with a condom, you're probably going to get one whether it be free or purchased.

I still can see your argument for sure against handing out condoms at school. They didn't at my school and I still found ways to get them and that was due to education, although I will say that I always didn't always use a condom when I first started having sex. I'm not sure how I will handle things when and if the time comes if I ever have kids. I guess anyone okay with schools handing out condoms should also buy and give their own kids condoms as well. I'm not sure if I'd do that. Would have to think about it a lot before deciding.

habsheaven
01-24-2012, 12:14 PM
well, i will take my experience, knowledge, and discussions with teenagers over a faulty balloon analogy any day.



let me clarify - no, an individual possessing a condom is not more likely to find a sexual partner. Condoms being available to everyone from junior high up, will lead to more people having sex. It causes sex to be viewed as more accepted, more available, and likely.



let's take smoking. do you think more teenagers would smoke if we started passing out cigarettes in junior high? Of course. Anything that teenagers feel a desire to do, will happen more often if you make it accepted and available.

Speaking of bad analogies. Smoking doesn't require a partner, intercourse does.

Making condoms more accessible will lead more teens to use them. It will make "Safe Sex" more acceptable. It will not change a teenage girl's opinion on whether or not she should be sexually active.

ensbergcollector
01-24-2012, 12:19 PM
Speaking of bad analogies. Smoking doesn't require a partner, intercourse does.

Making condoms more accessible will lead more teens to use them. It will make "Safe Sex" more acceptable. It will not change a teenage girl's opinion on whether or not she should be sexually active.

well, we can agree to disagree. the overwhelming majority of teenagers I speak to have said that having condoms readily available will absolutely increase the amount of teenagers who are sexually active.


and since when is "safe sex" not acceptable? how would handing out condoms make "safe sex" acceptable?

habsheaven
01-24-2012, 01:07 PM
well, we can agree to disagree. the overwhelming majority of teenagers I speak to have said that having condoms readily available will absolutely increase the amount of teenagers who are sexually active.


and since when is "safe sex" not acceptable? how would handing out condoms make "safe sex" acceptable?

Many males, I assume even the teenagers you have talked to, will tell you that they prefer to not use them. They incorrectly feel it will alter the sensations. Provide a teenage male with a free condom and he will surely experiment with it. At that point, he may be more inclined to use one when the situation arises and not pressure his partner to allow him to go without.

Surely, you have had this conversation with these teenagers you talk to.

mrveggieman
01-24-2012, 01:17 PM
Many males, I assume even the teenagers you have talked to, will tell you that they prefer to not use them. They incorrectly feel it will alter the sensations. Provide a teenage male with a free condom and he will surely experiment with it. At that point, he may be more inclined to use one when the situation arises and not pressure his partner to allow him to go without.

Surely, you have had this conversation with these teenagers you talk to.


No not mr. abstinence only or you will be dammed. :winking0071:

ensbergcollector
01-24-2012, 01:38 PM
No not mr. abstinence only or you will be dammed. :winking0071:

you can't make an offensive attacking statement and then put a smiley face like that makes it ok.

you play basketball with some teenagers. big whoop. i speak to hundreds about life stuff including sex for a living. i will go with my experience on the topic.

pghin08
01-24-2012, 01:43 PM
Play nice guys, no personal stuff. Let's keep this discussion as clean and chill as possible given the subject matter.

mrveggieman
01-24-2012, 01:46 PM
Play nice guys, no personal stuff. Let's keep this discussion as clean and chill as possible given the subject matter.


Sorry not meant to offend anyone. Just trying to make a point. I actually dont have a problem with him we just disagree a lot on the issues.

ensbergcollector
01-24-2012, 01:47 PM
Sorry not meant to offend anyone. Just trying to make a point. I actually dont have a problem with him we just disagree a lot on the issues.

what point were you trying to make? that was 100% a slam directed at me.

ensbergcollector
01-24-2012, 01:48 PM
Many males, I assume even the teenagers you have talked to, will tell you that they prefer to not use them. They incorrectly feel it will alter the sensations. Provide a teenage male with a free condom and he will surely experiment with it. At that point, he may be more inclined to use one when the situation arises and not pressure his partner to allow him to go without.

Surely, you have had this conversation with these teenagers you talk to.

the study this thread is centered around backs you up to a degree. there are a large percentage of guys who say they don't want to use them. but that has nothing to do with not having access to them. that is them saying, even if I have access, i don't want to use one. not sure that free condoms would change that. maybe they would to a degree.

mrveggieman
01-24-2012, 01:48 PM
you can't make an offensive attacking statement and then put a smiley face like that makes it ok.

you play basketball with some teenagers. big whoop. i speak to hundreds about life stuff including sex for a living. i will go with my experience on the topic.


Let me ask what exactly do you say to them? For example in your speaking speak to kids has the issue of substance abuse came up? If so and the ask do you tell them dont do it because I said so or because the bible says so. Or do you explain to them what happens when you consume them the dangers of alcohol, cigarette and or drug abuse? Please let us know. Thanks.

pghin08
01-24-2012, 01:50 PM
what point were you trying to make? that was 100% a slam directed at me.

I think it was meant to be a bit playful. Unfortunately some emotions and attitudes are difficult to convey over the internet, which is why we have to be a bit more thoughtful about how we phrase things.

Regardless, let's all bury the hatchet and we can continue with the discussion.

mrveggieman
01-24-2012, 01:54 PM
what point were you trying to make? that was 100% a slam directed at me.


Yes it was directed at you but it was all in good fun. I do sincerely apologize if you or anyone else on here was offended by my remark. The point I was trying to make is that abstenice only is a fallacy and and a complete waste of time. If you are teaching kids about drug abuse you are not going to tell them about some of it and not leave out the parts that you are uncomfortable talking about. Abstinence only is pretty much saying dont have sex end of story. That is doing a complete disservice because when you students do decide to have sex if they are ignorant about it because of an ignorant education and will be in a lot of trouble.

ensbergcollector
01-24-2012, 01:56 PM
Let me ask what exactly do you say to them? For example in your speaking speak to kids has the issue of substance abuse came up? If so and the ask do you tell them dont do it because I said so or because the bible says so. Or do you explain to them what happens when you consume them the dangers of alcohol, cigarette and or drug abuse? Please let us know. Thanks.

always some combination of the two. the percentages depends on the kid and the situation. saying "the bible says not to" is hardly ever enough to discourage someone from doing something destructive. But, since I am working as a christian, of course the idea of doing god's will is a part of it.

i feel like you are angling toward the need to have sex ed that teaches everything and not just abstinence. I have never said I was against sex ed so let's just avoid that all together. My issue has always been the handing out of condoms, not sex ed.

as far as sex, substance abuse, or any other sin, part of what i tell them is that all addictions and habits start somewhere. you can't be an alcoholic if you make the decision to avoid alcohol. You can't be addicted to cigarettes, or sex, if you avoid them in the first place.

ensbergcollector
01-24-2012, 01:57 PM
Yes it was directed at you but it was all in good fun. I do sincerely apologize if you or anyone else on here was offended by my remark. The point I was trying to make is that abstenice only is a fallacy and and a complete waste of time. If you are teaching kids about drug abuse you are not going to tell them about some of it and not leave out the parts that you are uncomfortable talking about. Abstinence only is pretty much saying dont have sex end of story. That is doing a complete disservice because when you students do decide to have sex if they are ignorant about it because of an ignorant education and will be in a lot of trouble.

i actually wasn't offended but i felt it was very mocking and not a joke. you make assumptions about me and then comment on your assumptions instead of what i have actually said.

mrveggieman
01-24-2012, 01:57 PM
the study this thread is centered around backs you up to a degree. there are a large percentage of guys who say they don't want to use them. but that has nothing to do with not having access to them. that is them saying, even if I have access, i don't want to use one. not sure that free condoms would change that. maybe they would to a degree.


Ok now you are contradicting yourself. On one hand you claim that condom usage encourages kids to have sex but then you said those same kids will have sex without condoms even if they were available because they dont like how they feel. So tell me again how will easier access to condoms encourage people to have sex who dont use condoms anyway?

ensbergcollector
01-24-2012, 02:00 PM
Ok now you are contradicting your self. On one hand you claim that condom usage encourages kids to have sex but then you said those same kids will have sex without condoms even if they were available because they dont like how they feel. So tell me again how will easier access to condoms encourage people to have sex who dont use condoms anyway?

no, i'm not. we are talking in percentages. there are a percentage that are going to have sex without condoms even if they have condoms available. that doesn't mean that having condoms available won't lead to others having sex. none of the things we are talking about are 100%'s.

I think, and my work with teenagers backs it up, that having condoms available, especially as young as jr high, will increase sexual activity by making it more available and more acceptable.

mrveggieman
01-24-2012, 02:02 PM
always some combination of the two. the percentages depends on the kid and the situation. saying "the bible says not to" is hardly ever enough to discourage someone from doing something destructive. But, since I am working as a christian, of course the idea of doing god's will is a part of it.

i feel like you are angling toward the need to have sex ed that teaches everything and not just abstinence. I have never said I was against sex ed so let's just avoid that all together. My issue has always been the handing out of condoms, not sex ed.

as far as sex, substance abuse, or any other sin, part of what i tell them is that all addictions and habits start somewhere. you can't be an alcoholic if you make the decision to avoid alcohol. You can't be addicted to cigarettes, or sex, if you avoid them in the first place.

Ok I am glad that in favor of sex ed. Let me ask you though would that be all sides of sex ed the good, bad and ugly? Also if you were a sex educator and were teaching kids about condom and a 16 year old asked for samples and even if you were not allowed to give him any would you referr him to places that could give them to him? Why or why not?

ensbergcollector
01-24-2012, 02:06 PM
Ok I am glad that in favor of sex ed. Let me ask you though would that be all sides of sex ed the good, bad and ugly? Also if you were a sex educator and were teaching kids about condom and a 16 year old asked for samples and even if you were not allowed to give him any would you referr him to places that could give them to him? Why or why not?

what do you mean by the good, bad, and ugly?

i am ok with schools providing information about where condoms can be found if they are asked. obviously, if kids are having sex, i would rather they do it with protection. for me, there is a big difference in directing a kid to a clinic or handing out condoms.

mrveggieman
01-24-2012, 02:06 PM
no, i'm not. we are talking in percentages. there are a percentage that are going to have sex without condoms even if they have condoms available. that doesn't mean that having condoms available won't lead to others having sex. none of the things we are talking about are 100%'s.

I think, and my work with teenagers backs it up, that having condoms available, especially as young as jr high, will increase sexual activity by making it more available and more acceptable.

I don't know what studies you are referring to and where they get their results from but I'll guess that we will have to agree to disagree. I think that we can both agree that it is not a good thing for underaged kids to have sex. However sex unlike drinking and drug use is a natural desire and most people in life are going to have sex at some point. Kids are going to be kids. You and I were both teenagers before so we both know from experience. Bottom line I would rather hear about a teenager being able to pick up some condoms for a friday night than having to go to his funeral 10 years later because he died of AIDS.

ensbergcollector
01-24-2012, 02:09 PM
I don't know what studies you are referring to and where they get their results from but I'll guess that we will have to agree to disagree. I think that we can both agree that it is not a good thing for underaged kids to have sex. However sex unlike drinking and drug use is a natural desire and most people in life are going to have sex at some point. Kids are going to be kids. You and I were both teenagers before so we both know from experience. Bottom line I would rather hear about a teenager being able to pick up some condoms for a friday night than having to go to his funeral 10 years later because he died of AIDS.

let me ask something. do you think our bodies natural sexual desires have increased in the last 100 years? If not, why is teenage sex and pregnancy so much more common now?

mrveggieman
01-24-2012, 02:09 PM
what do you mean by the good, bad, and ugly?

i am ok with schools providing information about where condoms can be found if they are asked. obviously, if kids are having sex, i would rather they do it with protection. for me, there is a big difference in directing a kid to a clinic or handing out condoms.


What will happen with sex, how it is done, what the male and female genital areas are and their relationship to sex, emotional consequence, responsibility of marriage and parenthood, STDs and their prevention, abstience and anything else that you can think of.

Also what is the difference between directing a kid to a free clinic which is usually paid for by tax dollars compared to getting condoms at schools which is also paid for by tax dollars?

habsheaven
01-24-2012, 02:10 PM
no, i'm not. we are talking in percentages. there are a percentage that are going to have sex without condoms even if they have condoms available. that doesn't mean that having condoms available won't lead to others having sex. none of the things we are talking about are 100%'s.

I think, and my work with teenagers backs it up, that having condoms available, especially as young as jr high, will increase sexual activity by making it more available and more acceptable.

Can you explain just how your experience backs this up? Have the teens told you precisely that? Have you done a study?

I still cannot connect the dots. Can you complete this scenario?

Jimmy and Jane like each other.
The school announcement comes over the PA saying that condoms are now available at the guidance office.
_______________________________
_______________________________
Jimmy and Jane decide now is the time to engage in sexual activity.

Feel free to use as many blanks as you need.

mrveggieman
01-24-2012, 02:12 PM
let me ask something. do you think our bodies natural sexual desires have increased in the last 100 years? If not, why is teenage sex and pregnancy so much more common now?

People have always had babies since day one. None of us were around 100 years ago and most of us wern't around 50 years ago but I'm sure that teenagers were having babies there wasn't garbage like 16 and pregnant back them.

ensbergcollector
01-24-2012, 02:18 PM
People have always had babies since day one. None of us were around 100 years ago and most of us wern't around 50 years ago but I'm sure that teenagers were having babies there wasn't garbage like 16 and pregnant back them.

you really think there were as many teenage pregnancies back then as there are now?

ensbergcollector
01-24-2012, 02:23 PM
Can you explain just how your experience backs this up? Have the teens told you precisely that? Have you done a study?

I still cannot connect the dots. Can you complete this scenario?

Jimmy and Jane like each other.
The school announcement comes over the PA saying that condoms are now available at the guidance office.
_______________________________
_______________________________
Jimmy and Jane decide now is the time to engage in sexual activity.

Feel free to use as many blanks as you need.

when teenagers know something is wrong, they often look for someone to tell them it isn't. sometimes, all it takes is friends telling them it is ok. sometimes it takes an adult. you will have kids who would never drink, but if their friends parents say it is ok if you drink at our house, they will go drink. Someone they view as a responsible adult, told them it was ok, and that was what they needed to break that last barrier.
sex is the same way. you will have kids who have decided not to have sex because they know they shouldn't and they want to do the "moral" or proper thing. Kids are taught from an early age that teachers and schools are to be respected and looked up to. If a school makes sex acceptable by handing out condoms, for some kids, that last barrier will be broken down because a responsible adult has told them it is ok.

also, studies on youth development show that in the 10-13 age grouping there are a lot of things that can effect that child's view of morality and sexuality. If schools are making condoms available to 11 and 12 year olds, then the school is setting themselves up in opposition to any parent who is telling their child not to have sex, as well as telling children, in very formative years, that sex is acceptable and available.

mrveggieman
01-24-2012, 02:25 PM
you really think there were as many teenage pregnancies back then as there are now?


None of us were around 100 years ago but I know for a fact that the first teenage female did not get pregnant after the year 2000. I don't know the numbers but I know that I want kids to get the best possible education. Not just in sex but in business, music, english or anything else that they learn in school.

mrveggieman
01-24-2012, 02:38 PM
when teenagers know something is wrong, they often look for someone to tell them it isn't. sometimes, all it takes is friends telling them it is ok. sometimes it takes an adult. you will have kids who would never drink, but if their friends parents say it is ok if you drink at our house, they will go drink. Someone they view as a responsible adult, told them it was ok, and that was what they needed to break that last barrier.
sex is the same way. you will have kids who have decided not to have sex because they know they shouldn't and they want to do the "moral" or proper thing. Kids are taught from an early age that teachers and schools are to be respected and looked up to. If a school makes sex acceptable by handing out condoms, for some kids, that last barrier will be broken down because a responsible adult has told them it is ok.

also, studies on youth development show that in the 10-13 age grouping there are a lot of things that can effect that child's view of morality and sexuality. If schools are making condoms available to 11 and 12 year olds, then the school is setting themselves up in opposition to any parent who is telling their child not to have sex, as well as telling children, in very formative years, that sex is acceptable and available.


I hear your point but disagree with it. Back when I was growing up older guys in the neighboorhood tried to sell us drugs. I was educated on drug abuse from school, home and reading on my own. I knew people on drugs and people who were not. I was smart enough to make my own educated decision not to use drugs. The same goes for sex. I cant claim to be a "playa" but I was smart enough to strap it up when I was a teenager. Oddly enough I didn't use condoms on a few instances after I was grown and out of my mothers house. Knock on wood I didnt catch anything or have any unwanted children.

ensbergcollector
01-24-2012, 02:42 PM
I hear your point but disagree with it. Back when I was growing up older guys in the neighboorhood tried to sell us drugs. I was educated on drug abuse from school, home and reading on my own. I knew people on drugs and people who were not. I was smart enough to make my own educated decision not to use drugs. The same goes for sex. I cant claim to be a "playa" but I was smart enough to strap it up when I was a teenager. Oddly enough I didn't use condoms on a few instances after I was grown and out of my mothers house. Knock on wood I didnt catch anything or have any unwanted children.

not sure what part of my post you are disagreeing with. there is a big difference if your friends say something is ok or if a respected adult says it is. that seems like pretty basic reasoning.

mrveggieman
01-24-2012, 02:53 PM
not sure what part of my post you are disagreeing with. there is a big difference if your friends say something is ok or if a respected adult says it is. that seems like pretty basic reasoning.

That's not true. That would be assume that you agree with everything that your parents or adults in your life say.

ensbergcollector
01-24-2012, 02:56 PM
That's not true. That would be assume that you agree with everything that your parents or adults in your life say.

no, that assumes that you respect their opinion even if you don't agree with it.

mrveggieman
01-24-2012, 02:59 PM
no, that assumes that you respect their opinion even if you don't agree with it.


Again that makes no sense. You can respect your mama telling you certian things in life even if you don't agree with it and chose not to follow it.

DunkingDurant35
01-25-2012, 07:58 AM
None of us were around 100 years ago but I know for a fact that the first teenage female did not get pregnant after the year 2000. I don't know the numbers but I know that I want kids to get the best possible education. Not just in sex but in business, music, english or anything else that they learn in school.

Folks, 100 years ago, we were still mostly agrarian with a life span far shorter than what it is today. Indeed, we become capable of bearing children so early _precisely because_ nature and conditions used to dictate us living far shorter lives prior to modern medicine, and so teenagers frequently married and had sex then to ensure the survival of their families. This happened for thousands of years in most societies. For those wondering, then, yes, it was in fact _not unusual at all_ for "adolescents" (a concept that didn't develop until the 1890s) to marry and have lots of children to help out on the farm (my great grandmother married at 15, for example). After all, they never knew if they or their children would be wiped out early by disease. Age 18, twentysomething "adulthood," and many other modern ideas and things you're used to have actually *not* been the norm for most of human history. Seriously.

I'm a little surprised more people here don't know all this. I'm guessing the history courses you all took offered little depth and that your teachers just regurgitated dates and names with no context added, and that you haven't discussed what life was like way back when with your elders. Regardless, the situation is regrettable. I'd encourage everyone to take more time to slow down, talk with your family more often, read more about history and how people used to cope with life, and basically just learn about what things were like before television, the concept of adolescence, and the Internet. Debating issues on the Internet is all well and good on occasion, but balance that with valuable time reading, thinking, and learning for its own sake, especially when it comes time to put things into perspective, historically or otherwise.

Okay. That aside, because so many parents today are either unfortunately too shy to discuss sex, or are else just frequently absent from many teens' lives, I do believe sex ed should be taught in public schools. It need not be abstinence-only nor safe-sex-only - teach about both and the reasons for both (ideally everyone would abstain prior to engagement/marriage, but you know how people often are). Make them aware of the basic facts, essentially - what sex is, how pregnancy occurs, etc. There is no need to forcibly pass out condoms, but make kids aware that they exist and what they do so they can make informed decisions. Common sense, really.

mrveggieman
01-25-2012, 08:16 AM
Folks, 100 years ago, we were still mostly agrarian with a life span far shorter than what it is today. Indeed, we become capable of bearing children so early _precisely because_ nature and conditions used to dictate us living far shorter lives prior to modern medicine, and so teenagers frequently married and had sex then to ensure the survival of their families. This happened for thousands of years in most societies. For those wondering, then, yes, it was in fact _not unusual at all_ for "adolescents" (a concept that didn't develop until the 1890s) to marry and have lots of children to help out on the farm (my great grandmother married at 15, for example). After all, they never knew if they or their children would be wiped out early by disease. Age 18, twentysomething "adulthood," and many other modern ideas and things you're used to have actually *not* been the norm for most of human history. Seriously.

I'm a little surprised more people here don't know all this. I'm guessing the history courses you all took offered little depth and that your teachers just regurgitated dates and names with no context added, and that you haven't discussed what life was like way back when with your elders. Regardless, the situation is regrettable. I'd encourage everyone to take more time to slow down, talk with your family more often, read more about history and how people used to cope with life, and basically just learn about what things were like before television, the concept of adolescence, and the Internet. Debating issues on the Internet is all well and good on occasion, but balance that with valuable time reading, thinking, and learning for its own sake, especially when it comes time to put things into perspective, historically or otherwise.

Okay. That aside, because so many parents today are either unfortunately too shy to discuss sex, or are else just frequently absent from many teens' lives, I do believe sex ed should be taught in public schools. It need not be abstinence-only nor safe-sex-only - teach about both and the reasons for both (ideally everyone would abstain prior to engagement/marriage, but you know how people often are). Make them aware of the basic facts, essentially - what sex is, how pregnancy occurs, etc. There is no need to forcibly pass out condoms, but make kids aware that they exist and what they do so they can make informed decisions. Common sense, really.


CHURCH!! :love0030:

habsheaven
01-25-2012, 09:30 AM
Folks, 100 years ago, we were still mostly agrarian with a life span far shorter than what it is today. Indeed, we become capable of bearing children so early _precisely because_ nature and conditions used to dictate us living far shorter lives prior to modern medicine, and so teenagers frequently married and had sex then to ensure the survival of their families. This happened for thousands of years in most societies. For those wondering, then, yes, it was in fact _not unusual at all_ for "adolescents" (a concept that didn't develop until the 1890s) to marry and have lots of children to help out on the farm (my great grandmother married at 15, for example). After all, they never knew if they or their children would be wiped out early by disease. Age 18, twentysomething "adulthood," and many other modern ideas and things you're used to have actually *not* been the norm for most of human history. Seriously.

I'm a little surprised more people here don't know all this. I'm guessing the history courses you all took offered little depth and that your teachers just regurgitated dates and names with no context added, and that you haven't discussed what life was like way back when with your elders. Regardless, the situation is regrettable. I'd encourage everyone to take more time to slow down, talk with your family more often, read more about history and how people used to cope with life, and basically just learn about what things were like before television, the concept of adolescence, and the Internet. Debating issues on the Internet is all well and good on occasion, but balance that with valuable time reading, thinking, and learning for its own sake, especially when it comes time to put things into perspective, historically or otherwise.

Okay. That aside, because so many parents today are either unfortunately too shy to discuss sex, or are else just frequently absent from many teens' lives, I do believe sex ed should be taught in public schools. It need not be abstinence-only nor safe-sex-only - teach about both and the reasons for both (ideally everyone would abstain prior to engagement/marriage, but you know how people often are). Make them aware of the basic facts, essentially - what sex is, how pregnancy occurs, etc. There is no need to forcibly pass out condoms, but make kids aware that they exist and what they do so they can make informed decisions. Common sense, really.

Well said. Perspective is sadly lacking in most discussions found here. I do take issue with the bolded part. Why do you feel that abstinence would be ideal?

ensbergcollector
01-25-2012, 10:40 AM
Well said. Perspective is sadly lacking in most discussions found here. I do take issue with the bolded part. Why do you feel that abstinence would be ideal?

well for starters, if everyone were abstinent before marriage then there would be a sharp decline in children out of wedlock, disease, etc.

habsheaven
01-25-2012, 07:45 PM
well for starters, if everyone were abstinent before marriage then there would be a sharp decline in children out of wedlock, disease, etc.

No offense, but I wasn't really asking for your opinion on her comment. I am genuinely interested in hearing her answer.

In response to you; yes, there would be a decline in children born out of wedlock. So what? Many children are raised by unwed parents all the time. Less disease? Not sure how you are arriving at that conclusion. I guess if they are having less sex you would have less disease but that could also be accomplished with less promiscuity.

mrveggieman
01-25-2012, 07:58 PM
well for starters, if everyone were abstinent before marriage then there would be a sharp decline in children out of wedlock, disease, etc.

Let me ask you the million dollar question. Did you abstain before marriage?

DunkingDurant35
01-25-2012, 07:58 PM
I have both practical and spiritual reasons. The latter you can probably figure out, and ensberg outlined some of the practical ones. Though children can be raised by unwed parents, this isn't the ideal, and most couples that are happy together usually end up marrying anyway - marriage is still extraordinarily common because it serves key practical, emotional, and social purposes. Sure, many marriages end in divorce these days, too, but half still work out, and I can say I greatly enjoyed and benefited being a child of a two-parent household with a stable marriage.

As for disease, monogamy in place of promiscuity is indeed better for avoiding such, and marriage is supposed to be about that. Sure, there are some people who will still commit adultery, but just because people can be idiots sometimes doesn't mean that we have to throw the baby out with the bathwater - a monogamous, healthy marriage relationship is far more fulfilling and good for people than casual and promiscuous sex.

habsheaven
01-25-2012, 08:28 PM
I have both practical and spiritual reasons. The latter you can probably figure out, and ensberg outlined some of the practical ones. Though children can be raised by unwed parents, this isn't the ideal, and most couples that are happy together usually end up marrying anyway - marriage is still extraordinarily common because it serves key practical, emotional, and social purposes. Sure, many marriages end in divorce these days, too, but half still work out, and I can say I greatly enjoyed and benefited being a child of a two-parent household with a stable marriage.

As for disease, monogamy in place of promiscuity is indeed better for avoiding such, and marriage is supposed to be about that. Sure, there are some people who will still commit adultery, but just because people can be idiots sometimes doesn't mean that we have to throw the baby out with the bathwater - a monogamous, healthy marriage relationship is far more fulfilling and good for people than casual and promiscuous sex.

Would it have affected your upbringing if your parents had premarital sex?

My take on it is simply this. Sex is a very important ingredient in a relationship. I cannot imagine committing to another person having no information on how we "connect" sexually. I think it is only logical to know what you are getting into (no pun intended) before you make a lifelong commitment.

tsjct
01-25-2012, 09:00 PM
Would it have affected your upbringing if your parents had premarital sex?

My take on it is simply this. Sex is a very important ingredient in a relationship. I cannot imagine committing to another person having no information on how we "connect" sexually. I think it is only logical to know what you are getting into (no pun intended) before you make a lifelong commitment.

WOW. We agree on something. Its like buying a car without a Test drive.

ensbergcollector
01-25-2012, 11:22 PM
No offense, but I wasn't really asking for your opinion on her comment. I am genuinely interested in hearing her answer.

In response to you; yes, there would be a decline in children born out of wedlock. So what? Many children are raised by unwed parents all the time. Less disease? Not sure how you are arriving at that conclusion. I guess if they are having less sex you would have less disease but that could also be accomplished with less promiscuity.

wow, you managed to say no offense and yet state one of the most offensive things said on here. feel free to check every single thread in this forum and please tell me once that a comment wasn't open to be responded to by anyone.
everyone here comments on just about everyone's comments. i didn't know i needed your permission to respond. i figured, like every other post, that yours was open to anyone. do you even realize how condescending that response was?

ensbergcollector
01-25-2012, 11:23 PM
Let me ask you the million dollar question. Did you abstain before marriage?

actually yes I did

habsheaven
01-26-2012, 08:04 AM
wow, you managed to say no offense and yet state one of the most offensive things said on here. feel free to check every single thread in this forum and please tell me once that a comment wasn't open to be responded to by anyone.
everyone here comments on just about everyone's comments. i didn't know i needed your permission to respond. i figured, like every other post, that yours was open to anyone. do you even realize how condescending that response was?

Do you have to read everything I post with such a pre-established (probably not a word) bias. I addressed your response. I typed that because I genuinely wanted her to respond and for her not to think your response was adequate for me.

Sometimes you really need to take a chill pill or something. Geez!!

Star_Cards
01-26-2012, 08:59 AM
Would it have affected your upbringing if your parents had premarital sex?

My take on it is simply this. Sex is a very important ingredient in a relationship. I cannot imagine committing to another person having no information on how we "connect" sexually. I think it is only logical to know what you are getting into (no pun intended) before you make a lifelong commitment.

I feel the same way. I would never marry someone without knowing how we connected sexually.

ensbergcollector
01-26-2012, 09:30 AM
Do you have to read everything I post with such a pre-established (probably not a word) bias. I addressed your response. I typed that because I genuinely wanted her to respond and for her not to think your response was adequate for me.

Sometimes you really need to take a chill pill or something. Geez!!

and this is the condescending attitude i'm talking about. let's say i offend someone with something I write. I can:

a. say "sorry about that, didn't mean it to be offensive, just wanted to hear her opinion"

or

b. I can lash out at the person I offended and make it their fault for being offended. yeah, let's go with option b.


as I stated, in 3+ years in this forum, a forum designed for people to comment on each others posts, I have never seen anyone tell someone else "i wasn't really asking for your opinion." So, should I assume from now on that I shouldn't comment on anything on these forums unless the person specifically says "hey ensberg, what do you think?" The simple fact that you don't see anything wrong with your comment, and more so felt the need to lash out at me for calling you on it, is exactly what I am referring to.

mrveggieman
01-26-2012, 09:32 AM
and this is the condescending attitude i'm talking about. let's say i offend someone with something I write. I can:

a. say "sorry about that, didn't mean it to be offensive, just wanted to hear her opinion"

or

b. I can lash out at the person I offended and make it their fault for being offended. yeah, let's go with option b.


as I stated, in 3+ years in this forum, a forum designed for people to comment on each others posts, I have never seen anyone tell someone else "i wasn't really asking for your opinion." So, should I assume from now on that I shouldn't comment on anything on these forums unless the person specifically says "hey ensberg, what do you think?" The simple fact that you don't see anything wrong with your comment, and more so felt the need to lash out at me for calling you on it, is exactly what I am referring to.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sONfxPCTU0

habsheaven
01-26-2012, 09:48 AM
and this is the condescending attitude i'm talking about. let's say i offend someone with something I write. I can:

a. say "sorry about that, didn't mean it to be offensive, just wanted to hear her opinion"

or

b. I can lash out at the person I offended and make it their fault for being offended. yeah, let's go with option b.


as I stated, in 3+ years in this forum, a forum designed for people to comment on each others posts, I have never seen anyone tell someone else "i wasn't really asking for your opinion." So, should I assume from now on that I shouldn't comment on anything on these forums unless the person specifically says "hey ensberg, what do you think?" The simple fact that you don't see anything wrong with your comment, and more so felt the need to lash out at me for calling you on it, is exactly what I am referring to.

Did I not pick option "A" in my initial response to you? And you think my latest response was "lashing out"?? Get a grip.

ensbergcollector
01-26-2012, 12:54 PM
continuing a conversation from a different thread.


So what should we do? Tell people that we are going to deny them access to avoid unwanted pregnancies then when they have the baby tell them tough luck?

ok, not trying to get into a debate so I will try and stay very much on point. Sex education is already in place in most schools. There is very little outcry to do away with it. Also, according to statistics on teen pregnancy, less than 25% say they didn't have access to protection.
Trying to compare the murder of an unborn child with not passing out condoms at schools is insane. You even said not handing out condoms was a worse sin then killing an unborn child.


also, PLEASE explain to me how anyone is DENYING access to condoms? There is a large difference in not handing them out at school and denying access to them.

mrveggieman
01-26-2012, 01:19 PM
continuing a conversation from a different thread.



ok, not trying to get into a debate so I will try and stay very much on point. Sex education is already in place in most schools. There is very little outcry to do away with it. Also, according to statistics on teen pregnancy, less than 25% say they didn't have access to protection.
Trying to compare the murder of an unborn child with not passing out condoms at schools is insane. You even said not handing out condoms was a worse sin then killing an unborn child.


also, PLEASE explain to me how anyone is DENYING access to condoms? There is a large difference in not handing them out at school and denying access to them.


You may not be completely denying them but you are not being helpful in directing people to get the help that they need. First of all weather you want to admit it or not we all know that ignorance only, excuse me I mean abstinance only sex ed is a complete joke and a waste of everyone's time. Why even bother having it at all? Secondly you may not be physically stopping kids from getting condoms but why make it harder for them? Is it out of spite. You are already paying taxes that would include money for clinics that hand out free condoms? What's the difference if some of that same tax money that pays for the condoms to go to clinics for condoms would go to schools for condoms? Again we already established that some people from kids to adults will have sex without a condom. Most public colleges where some students are as young 17 or even 16 pass out condoms. Don't think that high school kids are not having sex. Not that I like it but it is what it is. Are you saying that you don't care about if college kids have access to protect themselves but you want to make it harder for a high school kid to protect themselves? Please let us know. Thanks.

ensbergcollector
01-26-2012, 01:27 PM
You may not be completely denying them but you are not being helpful in directing people to get the help that they need. First of all weather you want to admit it or not we all know that ignorance only, excuse me I mean abstinance only sex ed is a complete joke and a waste of everyone's time. Why even bother having it at all? Secondly you may not be physically stopping kids from getting condoms but why make it harder for them? Is it out of spite. You are already paying taxes that would include money for clinics that hand out free condoms? What's the difference if some of that same tax money that pays for the condoms to go to clinics for condoms would go to schools for condoms? Again we already established that some people from kids to adults will have sex without a condom. Most public colleges where some students are as young 17 or even 16 pass out condoms. Don't think that high school kids are not having sex. Not that I like it but it is what it is. Are you saying that you don't care about if college kids have access to protect themselves but you want to make it harder for a high school kid to protect themselves? Please let us know. Thanks.

Do you not see a difference in a medical clinic and a public school? clinics pass out condoms because it fits with their role and purpose. It is not the purpose of a public school to pass out condoms. We have had this conversation before and have even talked about them being passed out in junior highs. there is a large difference in college and jr. high.
You don't have to agree with me, but the passing out of condoms at the jr. high and high school level will increase the amount of teenagers having sex. There are plenty of places that teenagers can get access to condoms, why does it need to be school?

and where in the world did you get the spite idea from? why would i be against condoms at schools out of spite?

mrveggieman
01-26-2012, 01:56 PM
Do you not see a difference in a medical clinic and a public school? clinics pass out condoms because it fits with their role and purpose. It is not the purpose of a public school to pass out condoms. We have had this conversation before and have even talked about them being passed out in junior highs. there is a large difference in college and jr. high.
You don't have to agree with me, but the passing out of condoms at the jr. high and high school level will increase the amount of teenagers having sex. There are plenty of places that teenagers can get access to condoms, why does it need to be school?

and where in the world did you get the spite idea from? why would i be against condoms at schools out of spite?


I was being facetious with you about being spiteful but look at it this way. You are a tax payer in your state. Your taxes go to colleges, schools, health clincs, etc. You have an 18 year old child in college. The college passes out free condoms. You also have a 17 year old in high school. The high school does not give out condoms but he still can go to the clinic and get free condoms, or go to the corner store and buy condoms. My question is what have you accompolished by being so steadfast about high schools passing out condoms. The 17 year old still has access to get condoms. I was wondering were you being spiteful by making the 17 year old go a little bit out of his way to get a condom even though he will still eventually get one if he needs it or wants to use one.

ensbergcollector
01-26-2012, 02:01 PM
I was being facetious with you about being spiteful but look at it this way. You are a tax payer in your state. Your taxes go to colleges, schools, health clincs, etc. You have an 18 year old child in college. The college passes out free condoms. You also have a 17 year old in high school. The high school does not give out condoms but he still can go to the clinic and get free condoms, or go to the corner store and buy condoms. My question is what have you accompolished by being so steadfast about high schools passing out condoms. The 17 year old still has access to get condoms. I was wondering were you being spiteful by making the 17 year old go a little bit out of his way to get a condom even though he will still eventually get one if he needs it or wants to use one.


because, handing out condoms in junior highs and high schools will increase the number of teenagers having sex. cut and dry, that is my reasoning. Also, as I said, it makes sense for a clinic to pass out condoms, it makes no sense for a school to do so. A school's responsibility is to educate, a clinic's job is to care for the health and welfare of someone.

mrveggieman
01-26-2012, 02:08 PM
because, handing out condoms in junior highs and high schools will increase the number of teenagers having sex. cut and dry, that is my reasoning. Also, as I said, it makes sense for a clinic to pass out condoms, it makes no sense for a school to do so. A school's responsibility is to educate, a clinic's job is to care for the health and welfare of someone.


Again not true. Even you admitted that some kids do not like using condoms so how is having a condom available going to make any difference whatsoever for someone who does not want to use one anyway? You counter by saying that by schools giving out condoms they are some way promoting sex again not true. If a high school kid wants to have sex and they have a willing partner and somewhere to go to they are going to do it weather or not you, I, their teacher, their minister, their coach or anyone else likes it. Although I think that they should wait but if they do decide to do it they need to know how to do it safely and have all the recources at their disposal to make safe and responsible life choices.

ensbergcollector
01-26-2012, 02:20 PM
Again not true. Even you admitted that some kids do not like using condoms so how is having a condom available going to make any difference whatsoever for someone who does not want to use one anyway? You counter by saying that by schools giving out condoms they are some way promoting sex again not true. If a high school kid wants to have sex and they have a willing partner and somewhere to go to they are going to do it weather or not you, I, their teacher, their minister, their coach or anyone else likes it. Although I think that they should wait but if they do decide to do it they need to know how to do it safely and have all the recources at their disposal to make safe and responsible life choices.

you keep throwing out this "not true" statement, but what are you basing that on?

tell you what, next time you talk to hundreds of teenagers and ask them what they think the response would be if schools handed out condoms, you come and let me know.

i know a little bit about teenage psychology. A school openly handing out condoms is telling teenagers that sex is acceptable. It removes the stigma of underage sex being wrong, which in many cases is the only thing keeping teenagers from having sex.

condoms are available everywhere. they don't need to be available at school.

mrveggieman
01-26-2012, 02:25 PM
you keep throwing out this "not true" statement, but what are you basing that on?

tell you what, next time you talk to hundreds of teenagers and ask them what they think the response would be if schools handed out condoms, you come and let me know.

i know a little bit about teenage psychology. A school openly handing out condoms is telling teenagers that sex is acceptable. It removes the stigma of underage sex being wrong, which in many cases is the only thing keeping teenagers from having sex.

condoms are available everywhere. they don't need to be available at school.

Let me ask you this. Both of us are in our 30s meaning that we would have been in high school during the 1990s. Do you really think even back in the 90s let alone in 2011 that kids really cared if their school thought they should have sex? What about your friends and classmates. Were they having sex? Did the wait for the schools approval first? Knowing about teenage pyscology you would know who teenagers like to rebell against authority. If the school says dont have sex and we are not going to give you condoms that is not going to stop anyone for having sex. You seem to have some type of misnomer that kids seek their schools premission before they do things.

BGT Masters
01-26-2012, 02:29 PM
how about $1 for a condom? why should tax payer money go towards birth control and possibly the spread of AIDS. Unprotected sex can lead to that i think:rolleyes:. Maybe us right wingers do not want girls being exposed to STD's with our tax money paying for it.


You know, someone once told me that pregnancy was a possible side effect of sex. I thought it was just an urban legend.


because, handing out condoms in junior highs and high schools will increase the number of teenagers having sex. cut and dry, that is my reasoning. Also, as I said, it makes sense for a clinic to pass out condoms, it makes no sense for a school to do so. A school's responsibility is to educate, a clinic's job is to care for the health and welfare of someone.

I disagree. I believe, it might increase the amount of times the kids who already have sex, but its not going to make the kids who are not having sex all of a sudden start doing it. Its not like condoms are hard to get as it is anyways.
When I was in high school 10 or so years ago you could go online and you could order boxes of them for free. I remember this because we played a joke on a buddy and had several hundred sent to his house. Oh, and even though he had literally hundreds of them, he didn't all of a sudden start getting busy.
You have every right to not want them passing them out. I understand the logic that a schools job is to educate. However the logic that just because kids are given condoms, they are going to have sex if they haven't been, isn't true. Their going to have sex when they want, whether the school passes them out, or they snag them from a friend, or get them from the store, or not have protection at all.

mrveggieman
01-26-2012, 02:31 PM
I disagree. I believe, it might increase the amount of times the kids who already have sex, but its not going to make the kids who are not having sex all of a sudden start doing it. Its not like condoms are hard to get as it is anyways.
When I was in high school 10 or so years ago you could go online and you could order boxes of them for free. I remember this because we played a joke on a buddy and had several hundred sent to his house. Oh, and even though he had literally hundreds of them, he didn't all of a sudden start getting busy.
You have every right to not want them passing them out. I understand the logic that a schools job is to educate. However the logic that just because kids are given condoms, they are going to have sex if they haven't been, isn't true. Their going to have sex when they want, whether the school passes them out, or they snag them from a friend, or get them from the store, or not have protection at all.


+1
That's what I'm talking about.

ensbergcollector
01-26-2012, 02:37 PM
Let me ask you this. Both of us are in our 30s meaning that we would have been in high school during the 1990s. Do you really think even back in the 90s let alone in 2011 that kids really cared if their school thought they should have sex? What about your friends and classmates. Were they having sex? Did the wait for the schools approval first? Knowing about teenage pyscology you would know who teenagers like to rebell against authority. If the school says dont have sex and we are not going to give you condoms that is not going to stop anyone for having sex. You seem to have some type of misnomer that kids seek their schools premission before they do things.

ok, perhaps, I haven't been clear because i think we are ending up at a place of misunderstanding. for the sake of time, please know I am making up these percentages. Just trying to get my point across.

let's say 50% of teenagers are having sex.

let's say 25% are not going to have sex either from lack of prospects or just being very firm in their commitment to be abstinent.

that leaves 25% who may or may not have sex. If from the time these kids are in junior high, condoms are routinely given out at school, this group of kids will be more likely to have sex. It isn't about seeking the permission of the school. It is about what is viewed as socially acceptable by both peers and adults.

nothing is going to stop the 50% from having sex and nothing is going to make the 25% that doesn't start having sex. But the 25% who are on the fence, are much more likely to have sex if it has been made acceptable by schools from the time they were 11 or 12.

mrveggieman
01-26-2012, 02:50 PM
ok, perhaps, I haven't been clear because i think we are ending up at a place of misunderstanding. for the sake of time, please know I am making up these percentages. Just trying to get my point across.

let's say 50% of teenagers are having sex.

let's say 25% are not going to have sex either from lack of prospects or just being very firm in their commitment to be abstinent.

that leaves 25% who may or may not have sex. If from the time these kids are in junior high, condoms are routinely given out at school, this group of kids will be more likely to have sex. It isn't about seeking the permission of the school. It is about what is viewed as socially acceptable by both peers and adults.

nothing is going to stop the 50% from having sex and nothing is going to make the 25% that doesn't start having sex. But the 25% who are on the fence, are much more likely to have sex if it has been made acceptable by schools from the time they were 11 or 12.


Ok I will work with you on those precentages. So if you eliminate the 75% who are already accounted for what do you say about this? Say a boy and a girl from the 25% are dating. Let's say the boy is 17 and the girl is 16. Neither one of them have any particular religious affaliation but the boy tells the girl that he loves her. He wants to have sex. The girl really cares for her boyfriend. No one else is around. What do you think that kids will do? Not what do you want them to do but what do you think that they will do?

ensbergcollector
01-26-2012, 02:57 PM
Ok I will work with you on those precentages. So if you eliminate the 75% who are already accounted what about this? Say a boy and a girl from the 25% are dating. Let's say the boy is 17 and the girl is 16. Neither one of them have any particular religious affaliation but the boy tells the girl that he loves her. He wants to have sex. The girl really cares for her boyfriend. No one else is around. What do you think that kids will do? Not what do you want them to do but what do you think that they will do?

no way to know. a large number will have sex. that number will go up if since 11 years old the girls schools has been condoning sex by way of handing out condoms.

believe it or not, i am not trying to change your mind. i know you think what you do, I am both understand why you do and respect it. As I have said, i am coming from conversations with teens as well as a little knowledge about teenage psychology.

even if I didn't think it would change the percentages, I would still be against schools handing out condoms just because I don't think that is the school's role in my childs life. i 100% support clinics giving out condoms. I 100% support complete sex education. Too many parents don't talk about it at all so i am happy for schools to do so. Yes I think abstinence should be a part of it but by no means all of it. If a child asks the school for condoms, I 100% approve of the school providing the child with a list of local stores and clinics where condoms can be acquired. I think that is the furthest a school should be allowed to go. IMO.

mrveggieman
01-26-2012, 03:18 PM
I think that we are not actually as far apart on this issue as it appears. My only thing is if schools and clinics are both agents of the state funded by taxpayers and are both charged with...

BGT Masters
01-26-2012, 03:22 PM
I don't believe having condoms makes kids have sex. However I can agree either way about passing them out or not in schools. I do think parents need to have more of a roll in sex education than schools. However some parents are pretty worthless when it comes to parenting so I could see how schools might have to go the "extra mile" to do such things. I do see and understand how someone can see how passing out protection in schools condones it in a way. They teach, don't have sex until.......yada yada yada........then they pass out condoms. Sort of sends mixed messages.

mrveggieman
01-26-2012, 03:34 PM
I don't believe having condoms makes kids have sex. However I can agree either way about passing them out or not in schools. I do think parents need to have more of a roll in sex education than schools. However some parents are pretty worthless when it comes to parenting so I could see how schools might have to go the "extra mile" to do such things. I do see and understand how someone can see how passing out protection in schools condones it in a way. They teach, don't have sex until.......yada yada yada........then they pass out condoms. Sort of sends mixed messages.


Schools should be in the business of teaching not preaching. Public schools serve the general public not just religious conservatives who are not only against premarital sex but everything that has to do with sex. I can understand religious instutions or schools not handing out condoms however most people are going to experience sex at one point in the life. Religion teaches sex out of wedlock is immoral and I have no problem with it taking that stance. However public schools which are agents of the gov't must remain religiously neutral. They cannot teach do not have sex or we are taking a stance against giving out condoms just because it goes against a particular religion because that would be illegal. Clinics give out condoms to adults. Teenagers should have access to the same protections to adults.

BGT Masters
01-26-2012, 03:48 PM
I am with you on all of that except schools cannot teach kids not to have sex. They can, and they do. Just because your school says you shouldn't have sex in high school, that doesn't necessarily mean anything religious. A school can say you shouldn't have sex during high school years because you're young and immature and in most cases aren't prepared to deal with the consequences which sometimes come with sexual activity. I don;'t see how passing out condoms or not passing them out has any religious meaning whatsoever. Now if they specifically say you shouldn't have sex because of religion that's obviously different. Just assuming that's the intention would be ridiculous.

mrveggieman
01-27-2012, 07:57 AM
http://obesacantavit.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/abstinenceeffective.jpg

AUTaxMan
01-27-2012, 08:18 AM
Schools should be in the business of teaching not preaching. Public schools serve the general public not just religious conservatives who are not only against premarital sex but everything that has to do with sex. I can understand religious instutions or schools not handing out condoms however most people are going to experience sex at one point in the life. Religion teaches sex out of wedlock is immoral and I have no problem with it taking that stance. However public schools which are agents of the gov't must remain religiously neutral. They cannot teach do not have sex or we are taking a stance against giving out condoms just because it goes against a particular religion because that would be illegal. Clinics give out condoms to adults. Teenagers should have access to the same protections to adults.

They do have access to them. They can buy them just like everyone else does.

mrveggieman
01-27-2012, 08:20 AM
They do have access to them. They can buy them just like everyone else does.


Why should they have to pay for goods that are given out for free at other gov't offices?

AUTaxMan
01-27-2012, 08:26 AM
Why should they have to pay for goods that are given out for free at other gov't offices?

They can go there and get them. Schools are for learning. They should not just be another administrative branch of the government like the Board of Public Health or the Welfare Administration. If the kids want free condoms, they ought to have to go to the place where everyone else has to go to get them for free and accept the stigma for going there.

mrveggieman
01-27-2012, 08:35 AM
They can go there and get them. Schools are for learning. They should not just be another administrative branch of the government like the Board of Public Health or the Welfare Administration. If the kids want free condoms, they ought to have to go to the place where everyone else has to go to get them for free and accept the stigma for going there.

This is 2012 not 1962. There is no stigma of getting condoms anymore. The problem for most kids or people who work 9-5 is the county health office are only open during business hours M-F. If you work you can buy your own condoms after you get off work. If you are in high school and have no money it makes it harder to get what you need. Again it is not going to stop the teens from having sex so it serves no purpose not to make them available at a gov't instution (their school) that they will be at during business hours since they will not be able to access the free clinic during business hours.

AUTaxMan
01-27-2012, 09:40 AM
This is 2012 not 1962. There is no stigma of getting condoms anymore. The problem for most kids or people who work 9-5 is the county health office are only open during business hours M-F. If you work you can buy your own condoms after you get off work. If you are in high school and have no money it makes it harder to get what you need. Again it is not going to stop the teens from having sex so it serves no purpose not to make them available at a gov't instution (their school) that they will be at during business hours since they will not be able to access the free clinic during business hours.

Last time I checked, school gets out at 3.

Also, just because I can't afford something doesn't mean I expect the government to give it to me.

ensbergcollector
01-27-2012, 10:32 AM
This is 2012 not 1962. There is no stigma of getting condoms anymore. The problem for most kids or people who work 9-5 is the county health office are only open during business hours M-F. If you work you can buy your own condoms after you get off work. If you are in high school and have no money it makes it harder to get what you need. Again it is not going to stop the teens from having sex so it serves no purpose not to make them available at a gov't instution (their school) that they will be at during business hours since they will not be able to access the free clinic during business hours.

the school being a government entity doesn't have relevance. just because a clinic passes out condoms doesn't mean every other government building should as well. a clinic is for health, thus it makes sense to pass out condoms. a school is for education, it makes no sense for it to pass out condoms. I would figure more people in line at the dmv are having sex, does that mean the dmv needs to pass out condoms?

AUTaxMan
01-27-2012, 11:22 AM
mrv, did you watch the Al Sharpton video in the tax thread?

mrveggieman
01-27-2012, 11:27 AM
mrv, did you watch the Al Sharpton video in the tax thread?


I can't look at videos at my job. What was he talking about?

AUTaxMan
01-27-2012, 11:48 AM
I can't look at videos at my job. What was he talking about?

He was talking about the tax issue. Take a look at it when you get home and respond in the other thread to let me know what you think.

mrveggieman
01-27-2012, 12:20 PM
the school being a government entity doesn't have relevance. just because a clinic passes out condoms doesn't mean every other government building should as well. a clinic is for health, thus it makes sense to pass out condoms. a school is for education, it makes no sense for it to pass out condoms. I would figure more people in line at the dmv are having sex, does that mean the dmv needs to pass out condoms?


I wouldn't have a problem with condom distribution at the dmv. You can register to vote at the dmv and the last time I checked voting dosen't have to do anything with driving a car but since it is in the best intrest of society to have registered voters the state gives it's citizens a opportunity to register to vote at a place that they need to go to (the dmv).

ensbergcollector
01-27-2012, 12:25 PM
I wouldn't have a problem with condom distribution at the dmv. You can register to vote at the dmv and the last time I checked voting dosen't have to do anything with driving a car but since it is in the best intrest of society to have registered voters the state gives it's citizens a opportunity to register to vote at a place that they need to go to (the dmv).

i just don't get the logic that because clinics are government buildings and hand out condoms, that schools should hand out condoms because they are government buildings.

mrveggieman
01-27-2012, 12:45 PM
i just don't get the logic that because clinics are government buildings and hand out condoms, that schools should hand out condoms because they are government buildings.


The gov't is in the business of promoting the health, education and well being of all of its citizens regardless of race, religion, age or occupation. If the gov't can provide a service or product that can beneift it's citizens they should make it available at every possible venue within reason. I see nothing unreasonable about making it available in public schools.

AUTaxMan
01-27-2012, 02:45 PM
The gov't is in the business of promoting the health, education and well being of all of its citizens regardless of race, religion, age or occupation. If the gov't can provide a service or product that can beneift it's citizens they should make it available at every possible venue within reason. I see nothing unreasonable about making it available in public schools.

How old should you be in order to get a free condom from your school? Should we put them in elementary schools or middle schools as well?

mrveggieman
01-27-2012, 02:48 PM
How old should you be in order to get a free condom from your school? Should we put them in elementary schools or middle schools as well?


That is a good question. Honestly I'm not sure. I do believe that they should defitenly be given out in high schools.