Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on February 02, 2016, 12:44:34 PM
-
Give condoms to kids not old enough to consent to sex. Brilliant.
SFUSD to consider distributing condoms at middle schools
By Laura Dudnick on February 1, 2016
San Francisco’s public schools leaders are considering distributing condoms at middle schools.
The policy change, introduced by San Francisco Unified School District Superintendent Richard Carranza to the Board of Education earlier this month, is part of an overall effort by the district to further prevent sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy among minors. The board’s augmented curriculum and program committee is scheduled to discuss the proposal today.
The board first adopted a policy to distribute condoms at high schools in 1991, and in 1996 the board amended the district’s condom distribution program to allow parents to opt out or exclude their child from the program.
In addition to supplying condoms at middle schools, the superintendent’s recommended changes include eliminating the exemption option for parents, according to the proposal introduced at the Jan. 12 board meeting. Parents would still be notified annually about the program.
Condoms are provided to the schools from the San Francisco Department of Public Health, and are packaged with educational and instructional materials. Middle school students would need to meet with a school social worker or district nurse before receiving condoms.
Commissioner Rachel Norton, who is a member of the committee that will discuss the issue today, said that while she has questions about the proposed changes, she’s inclined to support making condoms more widely available to students if it encourages them to practice safer sex.
“I think that to the extent that our Healthy Kids Survey finds that kids are actually engaging in sexual behavior in middle school, then we want to make sure that they’re as safe as they can be, and as well-educated as they can be about the implications of that,” Norton said.
http://www.sfexaminer.com/sfusd-consider-distributing-condoms-middle-schools/
-
disgusting. But it's states' rights. If they want to raise disease-ridden disasters, it's their choice.
Just as I do not want the federal govt telling me what to eat, who to bang, what should be in my school lunch - I don't want them legislating sexuality. If this local school does it, and the people hate it, they'll vote the local sickos out. Or they won't.
Either way, however the deviants of SF choose to live, it's none of my business. States' rights
-
Nothing in the story indicates the federal government is trying to regulate what the school system is trying to do, so "state's rights" has nothing to do with this. Somebody needs a basic civics lesson.
-
NAACP
-
NAACP
huh?
-
I just can't be terribly bothered by this. If kids are going to be sexually active (and I agree that it's dumb for them to be sexually active at that age, but kids do dumb things all the time!) then I'd rather they have convenient access to protection and accurate information on why it is important.
-
Give condoms to kids not old enough to consent to sex. Brilliant.
SFUSD to consider distributing condoms at middle schools
By Laura Dudnick on February 1, 2016
San Francisco’s public schools leaders are considering distributing condoms at middle schools.
The policy change, introduced by San Francisco Unified School District Superintendent Richard Carranza to the Board of Education earlier this month, is part of an overall effort by the district to further prevent sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy among minors. The board’s augmented curriculum and program committee is scheduled to discuss the proposal today.
The board first adopted a policy to distribute condoms at high schools in 1991, and in 1996 the board amended the district’s condom distribution program to allow parents to opt out or exclude their child from the program.
In addition to supplying condoms at middle schools, the superintendent’s recommended changes include eliminating the exemption option for parents, according to the proposal introduced at the Jan. 12 board meeting. Parents would still be notified annually about the program.
Condoms are provided to the schools from the San Francisco Department of Public Health, and are packaged with educational and instructional materials. Middle school students would need to meet with a school social worker or district nurse before receiving condoms.
Commissioner Rachel Norton, who is a member of the committee that will discuss the issue today, said that while she has questions about the proposed changes, she’s inclined to support making condoms more widely available to students if it encourages them to practice safer sex.
“I think that to the extent that our Healthy Kids Survey finds that kids are actually engaging in sexual behavior in middle school, then we want to make sure that they’re as safe as they can be, and as well-educated as they can be about the implications of that,” Norton said.
http://www.sfexaminer.com/sfusd-consider-distributing-condoms-middle-schools/
the first i would ask is are there significant increases in sexuality transmitted deceases and pregnancies in middle school kids there?
-
the first i would ask is are there significant increases in sexuality transmitted deceases and pregnancies in middle school kids there?
I would hope not, because that would mean 12-14 year old kids are having sex, or more accurately, being sexually assaulted.
-
I would hope not, because that would mean 12-14 year old kids are having sex, or more accurately, being sexually assaulted.
I would hope not too. But is it happening and does it warrant a response?
-
I would hope not, because that would mean 12-14 year old kids are having sex, or more accurately, being sexually assaulted.
if you avoid awareness of it, then you don't have to address it. better not to ask the question, right?
-
I would hope not too. But is it happening and does it warrant a response?
I don't know about the frequency, but if it is happening, then yes it warrants a response. The response should be to prevent it from happening, not enable or encourage it to continue.
-
if you avoid awareness of it, then you don't have to address it. better not to ask the question, right?
Better not to ask if kids are being sexually assaulted? What kind of sick mofo are you? ???
-
I don't know about the frequency, but if it is happening, then yes it warrants a response. The response should be to prevent it from happening, not enable or encourage it to continue.
How do you do that?
-
The response should be to prevent it from happening,
not even trolling here...
how do you do that? Yes, good parenting is the answer, but from a societal viewpoint, when there is shitty parenting/neglect, don't you just have to step back and let people make their own choices?
i've been a middle school teacher, and i saw kids with zero accountability/morals who would be allowed to leave home for days at a time, and be promiscuous as they wanted. Age 14 is 8th or 9th grade, many are active at that point.
if we don't teach them how to do it safely,
and we don't intervene because "i don't want the gubmint telling me how to raise my kid",
then what is the solution? How do you "prevent" it, as you suggested?
-
How do you do that?
By enforcing the law and protecting the victims. If a 12 or 13 year old has had sex, he/she has been sexually assaulted, because they cannot consent.
-
By enforcing the law and protecting the victims. If a 12 or 13 year old has had sex, he/she has been sexually assaulted, because they cannot consent.
They are not enforcing the law?
And if they did that would stop 12-13 year old kids from having sex?
And how would they stop it from happening?
-
They are not enforcing the law?
And if they did that would stop 12-13 year old kids from having sex?
And how would they stop it from happening?
They are not enforcing the law when they give condoms to 12-13 year olds. They are encouraging them to break the law. It's a mixed message.
We cannot completely stop people (including young people) from breaking the law. But what we shouldn't be doing is giving them any kind of signal that breaking the law, creating victims, etc. is ok. California has decided, rightfully so, that 12-13 years cannot consent to sex. The government should not then give those same kids tools that facilitate engaging in conduct that is considered rape in California.
To me, this is similar to Planned Parenthood encouraging young rape victims not to report the fathers of their babies.
-
How do you do that?
They could try sending them to a christian church and have a bishop watch over them. Oh wait...
-
They are not enforcing the law when they give condoms to 12-13 year olds. They are encouraging them to break the law. It's a mixed message.
Giving kids information and, after talking to a nurse or social worker, access to condoms isn't encouraging them to break the law. It's an attempt to ensure that if some kids are dumb and become sexually active at that age, they can, hopefully, be smart enough to protect themselves from diseases and unwanted pregnancies.
We cannot completely stop people (including young people) from breaking the law.
Right.
But what we shouldn't be doing is giving them any kind of signal that breaking the law, creating victims, etc. is ok.
"access to condoms after talking to a health professional" = "signal that it's OK to break the law" ???
California has decided, rightfully so, that 12-13 years cannot consent to sex. The government should not then give those same kids tools that facilitate engaging in conduct that is considered rape in California.
Yeah... and lets nix sex education too. When it's legal for them to have sex, then they can learn all about it. Or is information different?
And while we're on the topic, what about parents who say to their kids: "Don't be stupid and have sex, but if you do, here's a box of condoms. USE THEM!" Is that faciliating rape?
Or what about parents who take their 13 or 14 year old daughter to a gynecologist to discuss birth control options? Is that facilitating rape?
To me, this is similar to Planned Parenthood encouraging young rape victims not to report the fathers of their babies.
Right... providing condoms = "don't report a rape!" ::)
-
Giving kids information and, after talking to a nurse or social worker, access to condoms isn't encouraging them to break the law. It's an attempt to ensure that if some kids are dumb and become sexually active at that age, they can, hopefully, be smart enough to protect themselves from diseases and unwanted pregnancies.
Right.
"access to condoms after talking to a health professional" = "signal that it's OK to break the law" ???
Yeah... and lets nix sex education too. When it's legal for them to have sex, then they can learn all about it. Or is information different?
And while we're on the topic, what about parents who say to their kids: "Don't be stupid and have sex, but if you do, here's a box of condoms. USE THEM!" Is that faciliating rape?
Or what about parents who take their 13 or 14 year old daughter to a gynecologist to discuss birth control options? Is that facilitating rape?
Right... providing condoms = "don't report a rape!" ::)
I disagree. We're not just talking about kids becoming sexually active. We're talking about kids who cannot consent to sex.
Yes, giving 12-13 year old kids condoms is sending a mixed message about whether they can actually consent to sex.
Nobody said anything about nixing sex education. ::)
-
They are not enforcing the law when they give condoms to 12-13 year olds. They are encouraging them to break the law. It's a mixed message.
We cannot completely stop people (including young people) from breaking the law. But what we shouldn't be doing is giving them any kind of signal that breaking the law, creating victims, etc. is ok. California has decided, rightfully so, that 12-13 years cannot consent to sex. The government should not then give those same kids tools that facilitate engaging in conduct that is considered rape in California.
To me, this is similar to Planned Parenthood encouraging young rape victims not to report the fathers of their babies.
So you have no solution to stop it and as result pregnancies and STD will continue because you think its a mixed message to give them something that will stop it.
-
So you have no solution to stop it and as result pregnancies and STD will continue because you think its a mixed message to give them something that will stop it.
Do I have a solution to stop kids who cannot consent to sex from having sex? Of course not. Do you have a solution to crime in this country? Who does?
First you ask whether pregnancies and STDs are a problem or increasing with 12-13 year olds, now you state it as a fact.
And you don't pursue bad policy simply because you don't have a solution to stop an existing (potential) problem. That's how we got Obamacare. A bad law doesn't fix a problem. It's makes things worse.
-
Do I have a solution to stop kids who cannot consent to sex from having sex? Of course not. Do you have a solution to crime in this country? Who does?
defelction
First you ask whether pregnancies and STDs are a problem or increasing with 12-13 year olds, now you state it as a fact.
incorrect. I asked if they increasing and if thats the reason for the action
And you don't pursue bad policy simply because you don't have a solution to stop an existing (potential) problem. That's how we got Obamacare. A bad law doesn't fix a problem. It's makes things worse.
How does it make it worse if what you are doing helps prevents pregnancies and STDs? Encouraging them would be like giving them porn.
So my statement about your position still stands:
You have no solution to stop it and as result pregnancies and STD will continue because you think its a mixed message to give them something that will stop it.
-
defelction
incorrect. I asked if they increasing and if thats the reason for the action
How does it make it worse if what you are doing helps prevents pregnancies and STDs? Encouraging them would be like giving them porn.
So my statement about your position still stands:
You have no solution to stop it and as result pregnancies and STD will continue because you think its a mixed message to give them something that will stop it.
Ok. I know your drill. I'm not going to start going in circles. lol I didn't deflect anything. I specifically said I don't have a solution to a problem that you are unable to quantify. I was also pointing out that neither you nor anyone else has a solution to crime, so your question is pretty meaningless. In fact, it's a form of projection that allows you not to answer.
So do you know if the problem is actually a problem and whether it's increasing or not?
And I stand by my position that bad policy doesn't improve a bad situation.
-
Ok. I know your drill. I'm not going to start going in circles. lol I didn't deflect anything.
Yeah you did. compared to stopping crime.
I specifically said I don't have a solution to a problem that you are unable to quantify. I was also pointing out that neither you nor anyone else has a solution to crime, so your question is pretty meaningless. In fact, it's a form of projection that allows you not to answer.
Its not meaningless at all. Its the whole point.
So do you know if the problem is actually a problem and whether it's increasing or not?
And I stand by my position that bad policy doesn't improve a bad situation.
So less pregnancies and STD among 12-13 year olds doesn't improve a bad situation? ok lol
-
And I stand by my position that bad policy doesn't improve a bad situation.
Like the Gang of 8 Amnesty Bill that Rubio wrote and pushed?
-
Yeah you did. compared to stopping crime.
Its not meaningless at all. Its the whole point.
So less pregnancies and STD among 12-13 year olds doesn't improve a bad situation? ok lol
It's only the "whole point" if it's a problem that is increasing and this solution will prevent it, while not at the same time encouraging the very conduct it is trying to address.
Giving condoms to 12-13 year olds who cannot consent to sex is bad policy, so no that doesn't improve a bad situation, assuming it is something that is "increasing."
-
Typical unrealistic response. "Stop them" with no govt involvement in families, and plenty of jail time. Zero specifics, just vague complaints
-
Like the Gang of 8 Amnesty Bill that Rubio wrote and pushed?
lol. You are relentless. :)
-
It's only the "whole point" if it's a problem that is increasing and this solution will prevent it, while not at the same time encouraging the very conduct it is trying to address.
Giving condoms to 12-13 year olds who cannot consent to sex is bad policy, so no that doesn't improve a bad situation, assuming it is something that is "increasing."
The point is, there isn't a solution. That's why i asked if you had one. So you would rather do nothing while it continues instead of doing something that will help lessen a negative result.
That's ignorant.
-
The point is, there isn't a solution. That's why i asked if you had one. So you would rather do nothing while it continues instead of doing something that will help lessen a negative result.
That's ignorant.
What's ignorant is talking about a solution--especially a bad solution--before you have identified the problem. Bass-ackwards.
-
LOL@ the IDIOT who thinks kids having sex is "breaking the law" you need a baseball bat broken over your thick ass head.
-
the kids will just see them as baloons to blow up and have fun with...
-
LOL@ the IDIOT who thinks kids having sex is "breaking the law" you need a baseball bat broken over your thick ass head.
You might want to look up "age of consent" and the implications that flow from that issue. :)
-
What's ignorant is talking about a solution--especially a bad solution--before you have identified the problem. Bass-ackwards.
Are 12-13 kids having sex?
As a result are there instances of pregnancies and STDs?
If the answer is no to this, then yes, giving them condoms is a bad idea.
But that's not the case. Its around 12% at age 12 having sex.
-
Are 12-13 kids having sex?
As a result are there instances of pregnancies and STDs?
If the answer is no to this, then yes, giving them condoms is a bad idea.
But that's not the case. Its around 12% at age 12 having sex.
incorrect. I asked if they increasing and if thats the reason for the action
Are we talking about increasing or not?
And if so, does the 12 percent number you mentioned refer to sex, STDs, or both?
-
You might want to look up "age of consent" and the implications that flow from that issue. :)
Dosen't matter, screw the written age on consent (pun intended...)
Way to hide reality behind a law, it's not helping anyone, you think the kids care about that law???? C'mon man...
-
Dosen't matter, screw the written age on consent (pun intended...)
Way to hide reality behind a law, it's not helping anyone, you think the kids care about that law???? C'mon man...
It doesn't matter? That is twisted. Does it matter if a ten-year-old "consents"?
And age of consent isn't helping anyone? Seriously? :-\
-
It doesn't matter? That is twisted. Does it matter if a ten-year-old "consents"?
And age of consent isn't helping anyone? Seriously? :-\
Why would a 10 year old consent? Makes no sense to me, they got other stuff on their minds, stop worrying about stuff that won't happen, you are inventing potential issues.
-
Are we talking about increasing or not?
And if so, does the 12 percent number you mentioned refer to sex, STDs, or both?
I asked if they are increasing and if that's the reason for the action. There is also the issue of there being an existing problem of pregnancies and STD's (12% of 12 years are have had sexual intercourse.)
Giving them condoms does not solve the problem of them having sex. But is does help lessen the problem of pregnancies and STD's.
You don't have a solution that prevents them ( a populace) from having sex (nor do i) AND do not want the solution that lessens the problem of pregnancies and STD's. So what happens? More pregnancies and STD's. that's stupid.
I believe you and I will both agree the real solution is at home. Unfortunately too many families aren't equipped with parents who can do that.
If my kids were that age. I would be ok with the school giving condoms out because i can affect what my kids see it as and help prevent potential confusion. AND if i fail, at least, i hope they will be smart enough to get condoms that freely available.
-
Why would a 10 year old consent? Makes no sense to me, they got other stuff on their minds, stop worrying about stuff that won't happen, you are inventing potential issues.
Are you saying we should abolish age of consent laws?
-
I asked if they are increasing and if that's the reason for the action. There is also the issue of there being an existing problem of pregnancies and STD's (12% of 12 years are have had sexual intercourse.)
Giving them condoms does not solve the problem of them having sex. But is does help lessen the problem of pregnancies and STD's.
You don't have a solution that prevents them ( a populace) from having sex (nor do i) AND do not want the solution that lessens the problem of pregnancies and STD's. So what happens? More pregnancies and STD's. that's stupid.
I believe you and I will both agree the real solution is at home. Unfortunately too many families aren't equipped with parents who can do that.
If my kids were that age. I would be ok with the school giving condoms out because i can affect what my kids see it as and help prevent potential confusion. AND if i fail, at least, i hope they will be smart enough to get condoms that freely available.
Your 12 percent figure only applies to sex, not STDs, so you don't know whether STDs are either a problem or an increasing problem with 12-13 year olds.
I don't believe condoms really prevent much of anything. We've probably had this discussion on the board before, but I don't believe that kids (or even young adults) will use them consistently enough for them to be effective. It's a really a farce IMO. Maybe a horny kids uses them once or even ten times. But over the long haul? No way, especially after they experience sex with and without a condom. They're not going back. lol
We agree that the real solution is at home. I also agree that a number of parents probably don't handle their business, for whatever reason. What I don't think should happen is for government to then step in and advocate bad policy.
I would never give a 12-year-old kid a condom.
-
Are you saying we should abolish age of consent laws?
What you guys are saying is kids under a certain age should not have sex even if they both want to as there is a law that states this.
Am I correct here?
If so, you guys are very old fashioned and need to understand this. Fast.
-
Your 12 percent figure only applies to sex, not STDs, so you don't know whether STDs are either a problem or an increasing problem with 12-13 year olds.
I don't believe condoms really prevent much of anything. We've probably had this discussion on the board before, but I don't believe that kids (or even young adults) will use them consistently enough for them to be effective. It's a really a farce IMO. Maybe a horny kids uses them once or even ten times. But over the long haul? No way, especially after they experience sex with and without a condom. They're not going back. lol
We agree that the real solution is at home. I also agree that a number of parents probably don't handle their business, for whatever reason. What I don't think should happen is for government to then step in and advocate bad policy.
I would never give a 12-year-old kid a condom.
I think a pregnant 12 year is a far bigger issue than a STD.
I realize some aren't going to use condoms but some will and pregnancies will be prevented.
-
What you guys are saying is kids under a certain age should not have sex even if they both want to as there is a law that states this.
Am I correct here?
If so, you guys are very old fashioned and need to understand this. Fast.
You are correct.
You need to reevaluate your position, unless you really don't understand the implications of what you're saying. Are you seriously suggesting that kids of any age should be able to legally have sex? So a 40 year old man can have sex with a 12 year old girl, so long as the girl "consents"?
-
I think a pregnant 12 year is a far bigger issue than a STD.
I realize some aren't going to use condoms but some will and pregnancies will be prevented.
I'm sure there could be someone who benefits. I just think this kind of policy does more harm than good.
-
So you have no solution to stop it and as result pregnancies and STD will continue because you think its a mixed message to give them something that will stop it.
Of course.
This is the head in the sand mentality of the religious right.
Ignore it and it doesn't happen.
Except for the fact that the most religious states have the worst sex education and the highest teen pregnancy rates.
Ask Sarah and Bristol how that worked out.
People say say things like this "policy does more harm than good" don't really have any evidence to say so, it's just feelings.
By far the access to birth control has prevented many pregnancies that would have otherwise happened.
I also find it ridiculous for people to talk about a 12 year old having consensual sex with a 40 year old when the conversation is really about 13 year olds having sex with other 13 year olds.
They can't consent to sex with other teens near their age?
When did that happen?
-
You are correct.
You need to reevaluate your position, unless you really don't understand the implications of what you're saying. Are you seriously suggesting that kids of any age should be able to legally have sex? So a 40 year old man can have sex with a 12 year old girl, so long as the girl "consents"?
NO!!!! Please doN't quote me as that! The old man is taking advantage of young women not knowing much about sex. But if both are around the same age, sure, why not?
-
NO!!!! Please doN't quote me as that! The old man is taking advantage of young women not knowing much about sex. But if both are around the same age, sure, why not?
Thanks for clarifying that. Was starting to worry about you. lol
Where would you draw the line when it comes to kids "around the same age"?
-
Thanks for clarifying that. Was starting to worry about you. lol
Where would you draw the line when it comes to kids "around the same age"?
haha!
As far as age, we all know there's girls willing to have sex with older guys as they're messed in the head in that regard. It would be good to have a law to not help guys why prey on such girls.
I was thinking 3 years, maybe 3, that is a tough line to draw as some will feel mature enough at 15 to be with a 20 year old.
What do you think about how I see this?
-
I disagree.
Quelle surprise!
We're not just talking about kids becoming sexually active. We're talking about kids who cannot consent to sex.
Right, but we've already established that we can't completely prevent kids from becoming sexually active, no matter how many laws we pass. So we have two options: we can just say "fuck it... if they choose to be stupid, they shouldn't be protected from sexually transmitted diseases or unwanted pregnancies" or we can say "well... since we can't stop it from happening, we probably should try to make sure they have access to condoms which means they can potentially protect themselves from sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies."
Yes, giving 12-13 year old kids condoms is sending a mixed message about whether they can actually consent to sex.
In the same way that teaching a child to ride is bicycle is sending mixed messages about whether it's ok to join a motorcycle gang.
Nobody said anything about nixing sex education. ::)
So explaining the mechanics of sex is not sending mixed messages, but giving a condom is?
Tell me is a parent giving their kid condoms "signaling its ok to break the law?" Is it "facilitating rape?" Is a parent who takes a daughter to a gynecologist to discuss birth control options "signaling it's ok to break the law?" Is it "facilitating rape"? Should the gynecologist report this?
-
haha!
As far as age, we all know there's girls willing to have sex with older guys as they're messed in the head in that regard. It would be good to have a law to not help guys why prey on such girls.
I was thinking 3 years, maybe 3, that is a tough line to draw as some will feel mature enough at 15 to be with a 20 year old.
What do you think about how I see this?
You're talking about the age difference between the people who have sex. I think that should be taken into consideration.
What I'm asking is at what age should a person be able to consent to sex, regardless of their partner's age?
-
You're talking about the age difference between the people who have sex. I think that should be taken into consideration.
What I'm asking is at what age should a person be able to consent to sex, regardless of their partner's age?
18.
you?
-
Right, but we've already established that we can't completely prevent kids from becoming sexually active, no matter how many laws we pass. So we have two options: we can just say "fuck it... if they choose to be stupid, they shouldn't be protected from sexually transmitted diseases or unwanted pregnancies" or we can say "well... since we can't stop it from happening, we probably should try to make sure they have access to condoms which means they can potentially protect themselves from sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies."
In the same way that teaching a child to ride is bicycle is sending mixed messages about whether it's ok to join a motorcycle gang.
So explaining the mechanics of sex is not sending mixed messages, but giving a condom is?
Tell me is a parent giving their kid condoms "signaling its ok to break the law?" Is it "facilitating rape?" Is a parent who takes a daughter to a gynecologist to discuss birth control options "signaling it's ok to break the law?" Is it "facilitating rape"? Should the gynecologist report this?
Clearly those are not the only options. And I already explained the problem I have with promoting condom use among kids. They're not going to consistently use them.
Explaining the mechanics of sex is not sending a mixed message. Telling a 12 year old they should not have sex, and in fact they are not legally able to consent, then giving that same kid a condom sends a mixed message.
Depends on the age of the kid. If the kid is below the age of consent, then yes. What the heck do you call sex below the age of consent??
No I don't think the gynecologist should report it. lol. Good grief . . . .
-
18.
you?
Tough question for me. I want to say 18. It's 16 in Hawaii and probably many other states. Maybe case-by-case between 16 and 18?
-
Tough question for me. I want to say 18. It's 16 in Hawaii and probably many other states. Maybe case-by-case between 16 and 18?
No younger than 16 though...
-
Clearly those are not the only options.
Can you provide a list of available options?
And I already explained the problem I have with promoting condom use among kids. They're not going to consistently use them.
Apparently you haven't explained it well enough because despite your complaining about how this sends "mixed messages" to children, you now claim that your issue is that the kids that receive such condoms won't consistently use them. Are you saying these things with a straight face?!
Explaining the mechanics of sex is not sending a mixed message. Telling a 12 year old they should not have sex, and in fact they are not legally able to consent, then giving that same kid a condom sends a mixed message.
Except what happens isn't telling a kid "don't have sex because you can't consent and, oh by the way, here's a condom." Care to address an actual point instead of your invented strawman? Never mind... it was just a rhetorical question.
Depends on the age of the kid. If the kid is below the age of consent, then yes. What the heck do you call sex below the age of consent??
Just to be clear, you are saying that a parent who makes condoms available to their child is "facilitating rape". Really?
No I don't think the gynecologist should report it. lol. Good grief . . . .
Why not? Why would a kid that can't consent to sex need to be on birth control and how is it not facilitating rape to put her on birth control?
-
Can you provide a list of available options?
Apparently you haven't explained it well enough because despite your complaining about how this sends "mixed messages" to children, you now claim that your issue is that the kids that receive such condoms won't consistently use them. Are you saying these things with a straight face?!
Except what happens isn't telling a kid "don't have sex because you can't consent and, oh by the way, here's a condom." Care to address an actual point instead of your invented strawman? Never mind... it was just a rhetorical question.
Just to be clear, you are saying that a parent who makes condoms available to their child is "facilitating rape". Really?
Why not? Why would a kid that can't consent to sex need to be on birth control and how is it not facilitating rape to put her on birth control?
Let the parents handle it. Educate kids about age of consent and how to report sexual assault.
I'm not complaining about anything. You can tell me with a straight face that kids will consistently use condoms, and I will laugh at you. No doubt. :) (In fact, I'm laughing now.)
What do you call sex below the age of consent?
Because I don't believe in forcing those kinds of personal views on others. Not everyone thinks like me. Like the parents who bring a five year old kid to an R rated movie full of sex and violence, which I've seen numerous times. I think that's reckless, but would I call CPS (or should I be able too)? No.
You really live on these ridiculous hypotheticals.
-
Let the parents handle it. Educate kids about age of consent and how to report sexual assault.
And no doubt some parents do handle it. But remember, you suggested that a parent that makes condoms available to his child is "facilitating rape."
I'm not complaining about anything.
No, of course you aren't.
You can tell me with a straight face that kids will consistently use condoms, and I will laugh at you. No doubt. :) (In fact, I'm laughing now.)
I can tell you with a straight face that whether they choose to consistently use condoms or not isn't my concern. Frankly, I'd rather that 12 and 13 year olds not have sex at all, but if they're going to (and some are going to, no matter what your or I say) then I think that it's objectively better for them to have access to condoms as opposed to not having access to condoms.
See the difference between you and I?
What do you call sex below the age of consent?
What I call it is irrelevant - what matters is what the law calls it: statutory rape. The question to you is: is a parent who makes condoms available to his underage child "facilitating rape"? Answer this one question directly and without subterfuge.
Because I don't believe in forcing those kinds of personal views on others. Not everyone thinks like me. Like the parents who bring a five year old kid to an R rated movie full of sex and violence, which I've seen numerous times. I think that's reckless, but would I call CPS (or should I be able too)? No.
We were talking about statutory rape and whether a parent who makes condoms available to this underage child is "facilitating rape". More than once you've suggested that's the case. Is it? Yes or no?
You really live on these ridiculous hypotheticals.
After some of your statements in this thread, you probably should avoid using the term "ridiculous".
-
And no doubt some parents do handle it. But remember, you suggested that a parent that makes condoms available to his child is "facilitating rape."
No, of course you aren't.
I can tell you with a straight face that whether they choose to consistently use condoms or not isn't my concern. Frankly, I'd rather that 12 and 13 year olds not have sex at all, but if they're going to (and some are going to, no matter what your or I say) then I think that it's objectively better for them to have access to condoms as opposed to not having access to condoms.
See the difference between you and I?
What I call it is irrelevant - what matters is what the law calls it: statutory rape. The question to you is: is a parent who makes condoms available to his underage child "facilitating rape"? Answer this one question directly and without subterfuge.
We were talking about statutory rape and whether a parent who makes condoms available to this underage child is "facilitating rape". More than once you've suggested that's the case. Is it? Yes or no?
After some of your statements in this thread, you probably should avoid using the term "ridiculous".
Yes I definitely see a difference between you and I. You won't even address whether condoms are effective are not. I will.
What you call sex below the age of consent is irrelevant? lol. Stop with the semantics already. It's rape. You can sugarcoat it all you want. Yes, a parent who gives condoms to underage child is facilitating sex by that underage child, which by definition is rape, because an underage child cannot consent to sex. Now, if you need me to repeat it, tough. Go back and read my comments. I've said it twice now.
And I'll use whatever statements I want, especially if the shoe fits. Your hypotheticals are ridiculous. Just deal with the facts at hand instead of always trying to inject some stupid made up scenario. Or just keep doing what you do. Doesn't matter to me.
-
Yes I definitely see a difference between you and I. You won't even address whether condoms are effective are not. I will.
When used properly, condoms are extremely effective.
What you call sex below the age of consent is irrelevant?
It is. I could call it "The Cosby Hour" and it wouldn't matter. What's important is whether it's legal or not.
Stop with the semantics already. It's rape. You can sugarcoat it all you want.
Sugarcoat it? I called it what it is: statutory rape.
Yes, a parent who gives condoms to underage child is facilitating sex by that underage child, which by definition is rape, because an underage child cannot consent to sex.
LOL... handing condoms out to your child is "facilitating sex" and statutory rape... what's next?
Now, if you need me to repeat it, tough. Go back and read my comments. I've said it twice now.
Yes... twice now you've said that a parent who makes condoms available for their child is "facilitating sex" and leads to statutory rape. It's hard to believe that you've made such a ridiculous statement, but you have.
And I'll use whatever statements I want, especially if the shoe fits.
It is, of course, your prerogative. But don't be surprised when the rest of us rightfully call you an idiot on account of your idiotic statements.
Your hypotheticals are ridiculous.
Maybe so. But at least I don't claim that making condoms available to your child is "facilitating sex" and leads to statutory rape.
Just deal with the facts at hand instead of always trying to inject some stupid made up scenario.
Right... Believing that just because it's illegal for children who haven't reached the age of consent to have sex, it follows that children who do have sex should not have access to the protection afforded by condoms, and that attempting to make such protection available to them "facilitates sex" and leads to statutory rape. You're dealing with the facts alright.
Or just keep doing what you do. Doesn't matter to me.
It doesn't? But I thought you dealt with facts...
-
When used properly, condoms are extremely effective.
It is. I could call it "The Cosby Hour" and it wouldn't matter. What's important is whether it's legal or not.
Sugarcoat it? I called it what it is: statutory rape.
LOL... handing condoms out to your child is "facilitating sex" and statutory rape... what's next?
Yes... twice now you've said that a parent who makes condoms available for their child is "facilitating sex" and leads to statutory rape. It's hard to believe that you've made such a ridiculous statement, but you have.
It is, of course, your prerogative. But don't be surprised when the rest of us rightfully call you an idiot on account of your idiotic statements.
Maybe so. But at least I don't claim that making condoms available to your child is "facilitating sex" and leads to statutory rape.
Right... Believing that just because it's illegal for children who haven't reached the age of consent to have sex, it follows that children who do have sex should not have access to the protection afforded by condoms, and that attempting to make such protection available to them "facilitates sex" and leads to statutory rape. You're dealing with the facts alright.
It doesn't? But I thought you dealt with facts...
The problem is they will not be used at all over the long term, so at end of the day, pushing condoms as a form of birth control or STD prevention is a farce. It's like having kids play Russian Roulette. You are dreaming if believe that a kid will, over the long haul, use condoms every time he or she has sex.
You've been around this board long enough to know that I do not give a rip what you or anyone else calls me or my statements.
You are darn right I'm dealing with the facts. Not the sugarcoated, hypothetical facts you like to use, but pure, unadulterated truth. Sometimes the truth is uncomfortable.
-
Of course.
This is the head in the sand mentality of the religious right.
Ignore it and it doesn't happen.
Except for the fact that the most religious states have the worst sex education and the highest teen pregnancy rates.
Ask Sarah and Bristol how that worked out.
People say say things like this "policy does more harm than good" don't really have any evidence to say so, it's just feelings.
By far the access to birth control has prevented many pregnancies that would have otherwise happened.
I also find it ridiculous for people to talk about a 12 year old having consensual sex with a 40 year old when the conversation is really about 13 year olds having sex with other 13 year olds.
They can't consent to sex with other teens near their age?
When did that happen?
I agree. I won't be stopped, but many unwanted pregnancies and STD's can be.
Its really a pretty stupid argument from the right.
-
lol. You are relentless. :)
;D
-
I agree. I won't be stopped, but many unwanted pregnancies and STD's can be.
Its really a pretty stupid argument from the right.
that pretty much summarizes most of Bum pretzel logic
condoms don't work, they won't be used properly etc.. as arguments as to why it's better to keep the status quo rather than try to reduce STD's and unwanted pregnancy
-
kids that are 12 and 13 shouldn't be having sex thus they shouldn't be getting pregnant or being exposed (or transmitting STDs)
also, condoms don't work anyway and if you give kids access to them they probably wouldn't use them (and of course if they did it would be pointless since they don't work)
see how simple life is when you just think about it for a moment
-
that pretty much summarizes most of Bum pretzel logic
condoms don't work, they won't be used properly etc.. as arguments as to why it's better to keep the status quo rather than try to reduce STD's and unwanted pregnancy
Amazing how you can predict the future!!!
Won't be used properly???? Listen, every retard knows how to put a condom on. They don't even have instructions on the package it's so evident yet you seem to think they're some sort of complicated puzzle to it.
Gonna do a recap for you.
Condom over penus=kids not becoming young parents and std free.
You=dumbass.
Clear?
-
Amazing how you can predict the future!!!
Won't be used properly???? Listen, every retard knows how to put a condom on. They don't even have instructions on the package it's so evident yet you seem to think they're some sort of complicated puzzle to it.
Gonna do a recap for you.
Condom over penus=kids not becoming young parents and std free.
You=dumbass.
Clear?
hey Ritch.
Straw man was emulating the conversation that Dos Equis was making.
His was ironic.
-
Amazing how you can predict the future!!!
Won't be used properly???? Listen, every retard knows how to put a condom on. They don't even have instructions on the package it's so evident yet you seem to think they're some sort of complicated puzzle to it.
Gonna do a recap for you.
Condom over penus=kids not becoming young parents and std free.
You=dumbass.
Clear?
Go easy on the Village Idiot. :)
I'm the one saying they will not work. I understand they are very easy to use. My point is kids will not consistently use them. That's why I say they don't work.
-
I'm the one saying they will not work. I understand they are very easy to use. My point is kids will not consistently use them. That's why I say they don't work.
So, your argument boils down to:
"Well, condom's won't be used 100% of the time, so why bother with them at all? It's not a 100% solution! But abstinence, now that's what we should be teaching. Who cares that it doesn't work 100% of the time. Sing it with me brothers and sisters. "𝄞♫A-B-S-T-I-N-E-N-C-E. That is what we want from kids. A-B-S-T-I-N-E-N-C-E. Till they're eighteen! ♫𝄞"
In all honesty, I'm shocked that anyone would make the argument that it's better to limit access to condoms because they won't be consistently used... Seriously, who cares? Are we running short on latex or something?!?
-
So, your argument boils down to:
"Well, condom's won't be used 100% of the time, so why bother with them at all? It's not a 100% solution! But abstinence, now that's what we should be teaching. Who cares that it doesn't work 100% of the time. Sing it with me brothers and sisters. "𝄞♫A-B-S-T-I-N-E-N-C-E. That is what we want from kids. A-B-S-T-I-N-E-N-C-E. Till they're eighteen! ♫𝄞"
In all honesty, I'm shocked that anyone would make the argument that it's better to limit access to condoms because they won't be consistently used... Seriously, who cares? Are we running short on latex or something?!?
No, but feel free to sing your elementary school song, to accompany your elementary school logic. :)
-
No, but feel free to sing your elementary school song, to accompany your elementary school logic. :)
I paraphrased your exact argument - which makes it your elementary school logic.
-
Go easy on the Village Idiot. :)
I'm the one saying they will not work. I understand they are very easy to use. My point is kids will not consistently use them. That's why I say they don't work.
I was always very consistent with them from the start, was 16. The few times I went in "raw" was if she just had her period and only a few strokes!
Your attitude is very lax towards them and too bad as you should try to influence people to use them.
But hey, what you do in the end has no effect on me really..
-
I paraphrased your exact argument - which makes it your elementary school logic.
You didn't paraphrase squat. That is your elementary school logic and presentation. But good job with all the colors and stuff. Pretty impressive. :)
-
I was always very consistent with them from the start, was 16. The few times I went in "raw" was if she just had her period and only a few strokes!
Your attitude is very lax towards them and too bad as you should try to influence people to use them.
But hey, what you do in the end has no effect on me really..
Well that helps prove my point: even the person who was "very consistent" with them did not always use them.
-
Some people who have used condoms also sometimes dont? Thats earth shattering. Maybe we should outlaw condoms becuase sometimes people dont use them.
So when they do prevent an unwanted pregnancy we should ignore that becuase sometimes people dont use them and then they get pregnant.
Lol
-
Well that helps prove my point: even the person who was "very consistent" with them did not always use them.
Does not prove your point as you don't have one.
Had I never used a condom, for sure she would have gotten prego. They were used over 90% of the time.
She never did, neither of us ever got std's making you 100% wrong here.
Does any one else see this as unclear as you are or do others share you warped views on this one?
-
Does not prove your point as you don't have one.
Had I never used a condom, for sure she would have gotten prego. They were used over 90% of the time.
She never did, neither of us ever got std's making you 100% wrong here.
Does any one else see this as unclear as you are or do others share you warped views on this one?
You or anyone else is free to stick your head in the sand. Or disagree with me. That's sort what of what exchanging ideas on a message board is all about.
So the fact your girlfriend did not get pregnant or give you an STD, during the ten percent of the time you did not use a condom, means I am 100 percent wrong about kids not consistently using condoms over the long haul? How you figure?
Maybe your girlfriend didn't get pregnant because she was not ovulating when you didn't use a condom. Maybe you are shooting blanks. Maybe she did conceive, but the fertilized egg never implanted. How do you know?
And maybe neither one of you got an STD, because you didn't have one in the first place.
Some people agree with me, some disagree. It isn't a black and white issue. And I'm not keeping score.
-
I realize there's a problem with "unwanted pregnancies" and STDs, but something IS incredibly seedy about schools involving themselves with the distribution of condoms. There must be another way.
-
Ya, I was shooting blanks at 16 man....
You've run out of ammunition, lol, I don't even believe you believe what you're saying here! Ya just stiring the pot, me I smoke pot...
Ha!
-
Ya, I was shooting blanks at 16 man....
You've run out of ammunition, lol, I don't even believe you believe what you're saying here! Ya just stiring the pot, me I smoke pot...
Ha!
Well that explains it. ;D
Smoking Marijuana Lowers Fertility
Sperm Burn Out, Less Potent When Men -- or Women -- Smoke Marijuana
By Daniel J. DeNoon
WebMD Health News
Oct. 13, 2003 -- Smoking marijuana makes sperm less fertile -- even if the woman is the one who smokes it, a new study shows.
Marijuana-smoking college men volunteered for the study led by Lani J. Burkman, PhD, director of andrology at the University of Buffalo School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences.
The smokers weren't the only ones who got high. The drug affected their sperm, too. These stoned sperm party hard. And then? They burn out, researchers say.
. . . .
http://www.webmd.com/men/news/20031013/smoking-marijuana-lowers-fertility
-
LOL!
I was not smoking back then, was so affraid the stuff would ruin my trainings! Not joking!
-
You didn't paraphrase squat. That is your elementary school logic and presentation. But good job with all the colors and stuff. Pretty impressive. :)
So you agree that condoms, when used, are effective at preventing unwanted pregnancies and the transmission of sexually transmitted disease. And you agree that it's better to make them available, even if not everyone will use them, since the intersection of the sets "sexually active" and "uses condom" is not the empty set, correct?
-
Go easy on the Village Idiot. :)
I'm the one saying they will not work. I understand they are very easy to use. My point is kids will not consistently use them. That's why I say they don't work.
seatbelts don't work either unless you use them so I assume you're against the use of seatbelts as well
actually pretty much anything doesn't "work" if not used
-
seatbelts don't work either unless you use them so I assume you're against the use of seatbelts as well
actually pretty anything doesn't "work" if not used
that's a hell of a strong point you make!