SFUSD to consider distributing condoms at middle schools

[avxo]

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?

[Dos Equis]

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? 

[ritch]

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?

[Dos Equis]

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 . . . .  

[Dos Equis]

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? 

[ritch]

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...

[avxo]

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?

[Dos Equis]

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. 

[avxo]

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".

[Dos Equis]

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.   

[avxo]

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...

[Dos Equis]

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.  

[OzmO]

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.

[James]

lol.  You are relentless.  

 

[Straw Man]

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

[Straw Man]

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

[ritch]

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?

[TuHolmes]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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. 

[avxo]

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?!?

[Dos Equis]

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.   

[avxo]

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.

[ritch]

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..

[Dos Equis]

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.  

[Dos Equis]

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.