Thread: Should we give kids condoms at school?

When considering whether we should stem the rate of teenage pregnancy by issuing birth control at school I look back to my childhood and how things were 'controlled' then.

I never received sex education from my parents though I do recall some sort of talk sat on the rug in front of the gas fire when I was around 15yrs old. I thought it amusing given that sex really wasn't something I thought about. I had yet to have my first kiss, crossing that 'border' was stressful enough.

There-in the answer lies. Crossing 'borders'. Children are in such a hurry to grow up, hardly any wonder given that many parents favorite phrase to their children when reprimanding them is 'grow up'. It's not one I use. I stress frequently to my children the benefits of being children!

There is a lot of pressure on children to grow up, and there are a few symbols that for children represent adulthood. Those symbols are generally things they are not permitted to do as children. These are:

Drinking alcohol
Smoking
Driving cars
Working
Sex

Thus it is a challenge and a feat to achieve any of things in adolescence as it gets them that little bit closer to being an adult. So they think. The real responsibilities and challenges elude them.

Who is to blame for this desperation to grow up? We are. We bombard children with images of young popstars, sexualised and scantily clad, singing provocative songs and dancing like strippers. Actors in soaps have boyfriends and girlfriends from very young ages and are constantly engaged in some love triangle.

This may be how it is now but this is not how it was when I was at school. Girls did have boyfriends but those who were sexually active kept it very quiet, as they would get a bad name. So it was not something to brag or boast about as it is now. Underage sex was still very taboo and frowned upon. Now it seems less so and that is the problem.

Providing for the minority who were sexually active by giving sex talks in school has actually increased the acceptability of underage sex and with it the numbers of children engaging in underage sex. Thus providing contraception in schools will increase the problem yet more.

If you are a child not having sex, you may be deemed 'abnormal' by your peers and they'd be right given how normal is defined...ie. by what the majority are doing. Is your child strong enough to accept being 'abnormal' by saying 'no' to underage sex?

As parents we need to make a stand and realise that we have gone a tad too far the other way when it comes to preventing this problem and have instead increased it.

Giving children contraception at school is a bad idea for so many reasons not least the one stated above.

Consider the effects of the pill on women. It can interfere with menstruation, result in acne, headaches, blood clots, and mood swings etc. If the parent is oblivious to their child's 'drug' taking how are they to identify the problem and help them?

Let us not pretend the school nurse will take care of this on our behalf. To date no Doctor has ever properly diagnosed my pill related symptoms or addressed them. I have had to figure it out and resolve it on my own. One form of contraception made me feel suicidal as it disagreed with me so much. Imagine this affect on your child? Your child would not know why they felt that way and how could they ask you for help, given you didn't know they were sexually active or on the pill?

It is a mistake to take away the power parents have to protect their own children and proving children pills at school is an obscene idea. What next Viagra?

Well when I was at school they were avaliable from year 10 from the clinic as it was dubbed. That was 6 years ago. So I've clicked yes. More and more youngsters seem to be having sex these days and as you say growing up far to fast as well. I agree with you that the problem lies with celebrities, Television, all the media really. It is EVERYWHERE.

Still I think the biggest issue is for parents to do something about it, but then again most punishments on children are not allowed these days for one reason and another within the law, so I guess parents are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

I don't think they should be GIVEN the contraceptives, rather be provided if neccesary. But I agree that going to the clinic every night for a pack is hardly teaching the youth of today anything moral in the end. They should be there if they are assessed to be in love, with a partner etc, at most of the line thrown out.

In final then I conclude that condoms should be given to those teenagers who are in love with one another, if it gets to that point. But yes, someone has got to stand in and do something about it so it does not get to that at 14 years of age.

To solve this problem I have an idea:

Seeing as children want to be adults and adults act like kids. Just for the day or two, get the kids to run your life, the house, the cleaning, the finances etc while you sit back and watch the telly and go out getting kaylied. I'm sure it will show them sense. I know its a wacky idea, but still.

I think the criticality of the issue is highly dependent on the cultural frame in which you're viewing it from. To elaborate, American parents tend to be more alarmed by exposing their children to sex than to violence, where British parents are far more concerned about the violence than the sex. I recall reading a poster from Britain (which I sincerely hope was anecdotal) calling for citizens to turn in their sharp kitchen knives in exchange for flat-tipped knives because they can be used as weapons. This isn't to say that American parents aren't concerned with violence or British with sex, of course.

As with most parenting issues, this falls back onto the heads of, surprise, the parents; specifically their ability to instill their offspring with morals appropriate to their own level of comfort. I say it that way because our level of comfort with the actions and choices of our children are highly variant. My best friend and his wife just had their second kid, and neither one of them has any problem with swearing, drinking, smoking, or (for the most part) viewing explicit media in front of their daughter and new baby boy. Obviously there are other parents out there who would find this behavior abhorrent. The standards my friend sets for his children will be lower than what a more conservative parent might set for their children.

Which leads into my second thought, which is to what extent exposure to mature behavior at a young age has on a persons outcome. I graduated from highschool only five years ago, so I grew up with the kids who were growing beards at 12 and having babies at 14. I played violent video games, I had a secret porn stash at an age where my parents didn't want me to, I watched every movie under the sun without any discretion from my parents (as long as it wasn't blatantly pornography), tried to smoke at 12 but didn't make it past the first puff, had my first alcoholic drink at 14. And to top it all off, my parents divorced when I was too young to remember, so I saw my father very little growing up. And despite all those things that sensationalists attribute to delinquents who never get jobs, commit violent crimes, traffic drugs, wind up in jail, or whatever else you see on the news, I never tried drugs, never started drinking or smoking, never got in any fights, always ranked at the top of the class, never had underage sex (a fact I have mixed feelings about :wink, was the first member of my family to get a college degree for as far back as anyone can remember, and now I'm making more money than my parents.

Admittedly however, this is only my case, the case I know best. In support of your argument, I did see (and still do) a lot of kids who did indulge in drinking, smoking, drugs, sex, etc. In that light I cannot deny that there are those who choose those kinds of things for themselves. In fact, these kids are the reason I hate going to the mall, or going to see a movie on opening night. I hate these kids =)

Back to the point.

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

Providing for the minority who were sexually active by giving sex talks in school has actually increased the acceptability of underage sex and with it the numbers of children engaging in underage sex.

I don't know about this one. I can't think of a single person I went to sex ed with who didn't know all about sex before attending it. Sex ed was more of an immature snickering session than an informative public service lesson. Teaching kids how to be responsible about sex is about all you can ask for. They know about it, and you're not going to dissuade them from trying it, but you can teach them preventative measures and how to experiment safely. Leave it up to their parents to instill in them whether sex is right or wrong, it's not any governing body's responsibility to give your kids morals.[/i]

Except the stats are against you ToR, I agree it would be great if we could find an effective way to stop kids from having sex, but it's been happening for hundreds of years and it's not on the increase since people have started talking about it in school. Countries that begin sex education at a very early age have much lower rates of teen pregnancy. Perhaps, sex education promotes sex, but at the same time it has been shown to decrease the amount of pregnancies. I guess you grew up in a sheltered environment, but kids will talk about sex and learn about it through their friends even if you don't teach it in school. It is much better that kids receive real information about sex, rather than half-truths and plain outright lies.

This study showed that early sex does not necessarily correlate with high pregancy rates, and countries with more liberal sex education and contraceptive providing have lower rates of pregnancy. I ask what is more important, that kids be having slightly less sex and having kids, or be having slightly more sex and not getting diseases and not throwing their lives away.

http://www.unicef-irc.org/publicatio.../repcard3e.pdf

Really a large part of the issue is cultural as well, Japan has very low teen sex rates because of the cultural suppression of sexuality. However, if you've ever seen Japanese pornography, this comes with it's own complications :P. I don't think there is any chance of acquiring that level of sexual suppression in the USA so you might as well teach sex ed and give out protection to keep the kids healthy.

Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition

To solve this problem I have an idea:
Seeing as children want to be adults and adults act like kids. Just for the day or two, get the kids to run your life, the house, the cleaning, the finances etc while you sit back and watch the telly and go out getting kaylied. I'm sure it will show them sense. I know its a wacky idea, but still.

good idea, but i don't think that it woul work. They would ruin you.. cleaning maybe wount be a problem, but everything else.. nah.. and what do you mean with "the finances"? ;P
as i said, i like the idea, but it wount work 1 day..

When I was in high school, in grade 9 MRE we had to carry around a sac of flower, we had to clothe it, "feed" it, "Bathe" it, and listen to a recording of a baby crying an hour a day lol. Although, the project required a lot of parental participation to make sure you actually did those things. We also had to plan a budget and find an apartment in the paper, all on the monthly income of a single parent on welfare, to illustrate how little you can really afford. Which, isn't as ridiculous as it sounds since many people's parents at my school actually were living off welfare.

Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy

I guess you grew up in a sheltered environment, .

This is hilarious

I know you can't know HOW hilarious it is, but trust me it's hilarious.


I won't elaborate, but sheltered it was not.

Sex under the age of 16 just was for 'slags' , that is what the girls were called who were having sex before they turned 16yrs of age. Now it seems quite the norm for 12yr olds to be having sex. So yes, things have changed. Acceptability amongst the teens has changed.

When I was a child we had 4 TV channels, no Internet and thus no porn. You never saw a penis on TV and very rarely a bare boob. Now look how far that has changed. The media has changed, accessability to 'sex' has changed.

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

When I was a child we had 4 TV channels, no Internet and thus no porn. You never saw a penis on TV and very rarely a bare boob. Now look how far that has changed. The media has changed, accessability to 'sex' has changed.

You say this like it's a bad thing :wink:

Kidding aside, the opposite side of this should also be considered. It's much safer (and more common) for kids to vent their sexual tension privately with pornography than it is for them to engage in the action of their fantasy.

Originally Posted by Frenchi

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

When I was a child we had 4 TV channels, no Internet and thus no porn. You never saw a penis on TV and very rarely a bare boob. Now look how far that has changed. The media has changed, accessability to 'sex' has changed.

You say this like it's a bad thing :wink:

Kidding aside, the opposite side of this should also be considered. It's much safer (and more common) for kids to vent their sexual tension privately with pornography than it is for them to engage in the action of their fantasy.

Clearly this isn't the case or underage sex would not be on the rise.

If you believe sex is a simple biological function with no moral implications, go ahead and give condoms to your own kids. Other people are trying to teach their kids something else. By passing out the condoms in school, you are giving official government endorsement to your moral, or amoral viewpoint. The same people advocating this would probably scream bloody murder if a religious view were to be taught or endorsed in the public schools. How hypocritical.

So, people who agree with one moral viewpoint but disagree with another are hypocrites? How logical.

Instead of handing them out, you could just make them readily available by means of low threshold access.

So that the people of higher moral standards can stick to their principles and not get offended, but people who don't want to end up with a STD or a pregnancy, or both, can protect themselves.

Originally Posted by JaneBennet

So, people who agree with one moral viewpoint but disagree with another are hypocrites? How logical.

No, people who do not want other peoples morality foisted on their kids, but are willing to foist their own on others, are hypocrites.

Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition

I don't think they should be GIVEN the contraceptives, rather be provided if neccesary. .

That is the key distinction. As worded I would have to vote NO. As it was probably intended, and as adaptated/interpreted by Chaotic, then I must vote YES.
[If someone insists upon running across a busy road, against all advice, at least persuade them to look both ways as they do it.]

My 13 yr old seems to be sex mad!

Everything to him at the moment looks like a fanny or a cock!

Just recently he made himself an appointment, of his own volition, with the sexual health nurse at the docs, because he saw an advert for a c-card where young people can get free contraceptives, and he came back clutching an armful of condoms.

Which he now intends to sell and make a profit on at one of his summer holiday camps!

How's that for entrepreneurial!?

I'm just glad he's not too shy to go and talk to people about sex. He seems to have pretty clear idea about the importance of contraception to prevent disease, but also about not always necessarily trusting a girl who says she is on the pill.
I have two friends who became fathers begrudgingly because of this feminine technique of deceit!

To be honest i hate the idea which still surrounds sex that it is something secretive, shameful or dirty.
How utterly ridiculous when without it none of us would be here!

No i think kids should be re-educated that sex is a celebration of life, and they should have access to all the education and resources available and stop all these dirty sex ideas.

There is a reason why children (age 11-15yr) do not use condoms and it is not lack of education, it is pure embarrassment.

Also if your daughter or son is preparing themselves when they go to the school disco for sex then ask yourself why that is.

Why is a virgin of 13yrs old who has been taught 'no sex until age 16+' going to a child orientated event armed with contraceptives anticipating they may have sex?
Who are they going to have sex with? Where are they going to have sex? Where is the adult supervision?

Why are young girls feeling under pressure to have sex when really they don't want to. YES that is the reality. Pressure (consentual rape) is how most girls these days lose their virginity. is that what you want for your daughter? To permit to rape so she can 'get it out the way' to be with 'the in crowd'. We need to teach children about sex in a way that makes them confident to say 'no' and risk being the 'odd one out'.

The only way to prevent underage pregnancy is to prevent underage sex.

That or hand out abortions like smarties which they are doing already.










Kids:

You don't have to have sex just cos the slapper down the road did.

You don't have to get that 'hurdle' out the way, the first time is usually a non event unless you are relaxed and happy with who you are with and most importantly ready and prepared. Doing it to get it out the way with just leave you feeling a little used and a little bit bruised and wondering what the heck the fuss was about. It may hurt due to you being un relaxed and stressed. It may put you off doing it again for a while...which may be a good thing.

But the ideal scenario is that you are buzzing for the person you choose to be with and you trust him/her. Trust them NOT to go bragging all the details to their mates. trust them not to publish details on the web. trust them not to dump you straight away afterwards. Trust them not to slag down your performance. Trust them not to treat you like a slag for letting them 'do it to you'.

TRUST

Things which are highly unlikely for under 15yr olds.

Again, I think a closer look needs to be taken at the actual statistics. It's very easy to generalize and say "Well, there's more sex on TV now, and kids watch TV, so kids must be having more sex." This parrots the vein of sensationalist news stories you see where one kid shares her harrowing ordeal of being teen-pregnant, and the media explodes it into apocalyptic proportions where schools and teen hangouts become dens of sin.

Take a look at the following graphs:









A quick Google search for teen pregnancy rates shows constant decline in teen pregnancy rates. Nested among the graphs are statements such as:

Originally Posted by Dateline: Nov. 18, 2004

The U.S. birth rate among young adolescents aged 10-14 has fallen to the lowest level since 1946 according to a report released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

And one more from this article which also includes how abortion rates have also been on the decline:

Originally Posted by [url

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/or_teen_preg_decline.html[/url]]An examination of the data for various subgroups of teenagers reveals that with little exception, the trends in pregnancy rates have followed the same general pattern across the board, regardless of young women's age, marital status, race or ethnicity.

Among 18-19-year-olds, the pregnancy rate climbed 8% from the late 1980s until 1991; by 1996, the pregnancy rate had dropped to 12% below the peak level (Figure 2).10 The birthrate followed a similar pattern, falling 9% between 1991 and 1996. The abortion rate among these oldest teenagers hovered around 60 abortions per 1,000 women through much of the 1980s, began a gradual decline in 1990 and had fallen to 45 per 1,000 by 1996, roughly a 25% drop.

Likewise, for 15-17-year-olds, the pregnancy rate hit its peak in 1991, then fell off 17% by 1996 (Figure 3).11 The birthrate fell 13% during that period, while the abortion rate among these young women began to drop in the late 1980s and was 36% lower in 1996 than it had been a decade earlier.

Even among teenagers 14 and younger, who have always had very low rates, pregnancy became even less common in the early 1990s. Some 13 pregnancies occurred per 1,000 females in this age-group in 1996, a reduction from rates of about 17 per 1,000 from the mid-1980s until 1993.12

One thing I am disappointed about is the studies I'm finding are all from the 1998-2004 era. If anyone has some more recent statistics I'd be interested in pouring over them.

statistics which claim to know how many underage kids have sex are 100% unreliable as they rely on honesty!

statistics which claim to know how many underage kids have sex are 100% unreliable as they rely on honesty!

Well then surely the only intelligent recourse is to rely on idle speculation

If you believe sex is a simple biological function with no moral implications, go ahead and give condoms to your own kids. Other people are trying to teach their kids something else. By passing out the condoms in school, you are giving official government endorsement to your moral, or amoral viewpoint. The same people advocating this would probably scream bloody murder if a religious view were to be taught or endorsed in the public schools. How hypocritical.

This is like saying: "Making first-aid-kits available to those who need it provokes accidents!" Now if I ever have seen a hypocritical statement then it's your's above. Sheesh......

Yes, it comes back to parent's responsibilities. If you teach you kids the right values together with an education that encourages them to use their brain before acting you do not have to worry about teen pregnancies.
Well so now we let STDs spread because.....wellllll, god says it's a sin to have extramarital sex and we don't give a rat's ass about the kids from families who where not so fortunate like others i.e. having drunkard, neglecting lowlife parents. That'll teach them in the afterlife!!

Originally Posted by ToR

statistics which claim to know how many underage kids have sex are 100% unreliable as they rely on honesty!

You need to take some courses on how this aspect of sampling can be properly and adequately handled. All you are doing here ToR is displaying your ignorance. (Not your most attractive feature, by the way.)

Originally Posted by Frenchi

Well then surely the only intelligent recourse is to rely on idle speculation

Brilliant.

Originally Posted by Zitterbewegung

Well so now we let STDs spread because.....wellllll, god says it's a sin to have extramarital sex and we don't give a rat's ass about the kids from families who where not so fortunate like others i.e. having drunkard, neglecting lowlife parents. That'll teach them in the afterlife!!

Like you, I often find other people's religious and/or moral beliefs to be silly, quaint, preposterous, objectionable, or even disgusting. Unlike you, I respect their right to hold such beliefs.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Unlike you, I respect their right to hold such beliefs.

isn't that also a moral?

I'm surprised by Frenchi's stats. Because another statistic running counter to that is the declining age of physical puberty onset. In girls, it's been dropping 3-4 months per decade, since 1850. Which roughly means the daughters of a generation will begin puberty about one year earlier than their mothers did. I'd think that if kids are getting all hormonal younger they'd be trying sex younger too.

I started having sex at age 13. It had nothing to do with social pressure and everything to do with hormones. It was in fact embarrassing, because very few of my peers then were getting it. I didn't mention sex to those who could only talk about it, namely all my male friends.

Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Unlike you, I respect their right to hold such beliefs.

isn't that also a moral?

Hey, I never thought of it that way. But my way is obviously more beneficial to society, so do it my way, okay?

Originally Posted by Pong

Because another statistic running counter to that is the declining age of physical puberty onset. In girls, it's been dropping 3-4 months per decade, since 1850.

Interesting. Do we know what's causing this?

Originally Posted by Frenchi

Interesting. Do we know what's causing this?

Scientists believe it to be the result of improved diets.

Fundamentalists believe it is a consequence of the atheistic materialism promoted by Darwinism.

Originally Posted by Frenchi

Originally Posted by Pong

Because another statistic running counter to that is the declining age of physical puberty onset. In girls, it's been dropping 3-4 months per decade, since 1850.

Interesting. Do we know what's causing this?

More fat in the diet? Leading to higher cholesterol levels and other hormones?

Originally Posted by Frenchi

statistics which claim to know how many underage kids have sex are 100% unreliable as they rely on honesty!

Well then surely the only intelligent recourse is to rely on idle speculation

That is all the statistics amount to anyway

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by ToR

statistics which claim to know how many underage kids have sex are 100% unreliable as they rely on honesty!

You need to take some courses on how this aspect of sampling can be properly and adequately handled. All you are doing here ToR is displaying your ignorance. (Not your most attractive feature, by the way.)

Originally Posted by Frenchi

Well then surely the only intelligent recourse is to rely on idle speculation

Brilliant.

Then enlighten me as to how they can know the sexual activity ofchildren from age 9-15 eliminating dishonesty.

It is a known fact men lie about how often they have sex, how long they can have sex for and how long their dicks are, people lie, kids lie even more regardless of safeguards.

I don't believe there is a single foolproof way of knowing who is sexually active and who is not without tagging the kids and testing them for semen residue every other minute. If there is another way then enlighten me.

Declaring my ignorance is not productive without offering the answer.

Originally Posted by Pong

I'm surprised by Frenchi's stats. Because another statistic running counter to that is the declining age of physical puberty onset. In girls, it's been dropping 3-4 months per decade, since 1850. Which roughly means the daughters of a generation will begin puberty about one year earlier than their mothers did. I'd think that if kids are getting all hormonal younger they'd be trying sex younger too.

I started having sex at age 13. It had nothing to do with social pressure and everything to do with hormones. It was in fact embarrassing, because very few of my peers then were getting it. I didn't mention sex to those who could only talk about it, namely all my male friends.

And how many underage girls did you cajole into sex I wonder.

There are not many girls who have sex early who look back on it with fond memories and funnily enough they are the ones who pretty much loathe sex in adulthood.

Like you, I often find other people's religious and/or moral beliefs to be silly, quaint, preposterous, objectionable, or even disgusting. Unlike you, I respect their right to hold such beliefs.

My religion wants me to beat up my wife and kids every sunday to worship my god "Assholium". So this is O.K. with you I guess. Furthermore my religion requires me to shit on the stairs of a catholic church. This is also O.K. with you.

Now tell me what is better: to let the kids have unprotected sex resulting in teen pregnancies and/or abortions as well as STDs or give them low threshhold access to means to protec themselves if they are hell bent to screw around anyway? Thisssssss is the $64.000-question folks

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

And how many underage girls did you cajole into sex I wonder.

I love how it's always the males 'fault' that sex happens. It's as though only guys become curious about the opposite sex and are interested in exploring, while the females must always be victimized in the process, causing them to grow into cold, uncaring women who don't believe in love. At least that's what prime-time TV teaches me. I think it's theoretically valid to say that an equal number of females (or perhaps more, since theres more gals than guys demographically, 6 million more) realize that boys don't have the same bits as they do and get interested. This is especially true if girls are hitting puberty progressively earlier as Pong points out.

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

There are not many girls who have sex early who look back on it with fond memories..

Is there a study showing these results or are you superimposing your own experiences over others? Personal experiences are undoubtedly important in forming a theory and interpreting results, but it's important to consider that one's own case may be in the minority. That goes for myself as well.

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

It is a known fact men lie about how often they have sex, how long they can have sex for and how long their dicks are, people lie, kids lie even more regardless of safeguards.

Maybe to women. I can't get the guys I know to shut up about their sex lives. Contrary to your argument, studies show that women lie about their sex lives more than men; for example:

Originally Posted by [url

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/07/030701220850.htm[/url]] For example, women who thought their answers might be read reported an average of 2.6 sexual partners. But those who thought they were monitored by a lie detector reported an average of 4.4 sexual partners. Women who were not attached to the lie detector, but who had privacy during testing, gave answers in the middle – an average of 3.4 sexual partners.

Men's answers didn't vary as widely. Men who thought they were attached to a polygraph reported an average of 4.0 sexual partners, compared to 3.7 partners for those who thought their answers might be seen.

Frenchi

Not relating to my own experiences at all. I was a healthy 19yrs old before I dived in and very much enjoy sex thank you.

I refer to the girls I know who started early and now would rather have a cup of tea.
A 13yr old boy is unlikely to be found attractive by older girls so the girls he had sex with (I am guessing of course) are most likely age 10-13 which is unacceptably young.

When I was 15, I knew a 14yr old boy who used to have sex with his 8yr old sister. She consented, she enjoyed it. Does that make it ok? I rather think now she looks back and feels somewhat 'abused' but at the time that's not how she felt.

Regardless of how she felt, she was a child and it was the adults job to protect her and they failed. WE couldn't protect her as we were kids ourselves.

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

Not relating to my own experiences at all. I was a healthy 19yrs old before I dived in and very much enjoy sex thank you.

I wasn't insinuating anything, I was just curious where the opinion stems from.

Why do you feel that sex is something harmful that should be protected against? If it weren't for social and religious stigma, nobody would have to feel bad about sex. I've never understood why we should be ashamed of our bodies. I've also never understood why theres such a movement against contraceptives. Sex is great, it's something everyone should practice responsibly; if people can enjoy sex without fear of creating a life-changing consequence (in the form of a baby) until they've found someone they're ready to tackle that part of their life with, even better.

That aside, it's absurd to say that children being curious about sex is unacceptable. It's no more unnatural that they start investigating their genitalia when they hit puberty than it is for them to go to the bathroom when they feel pressure in their bowels.

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

A 13yr old boy is unlikely to be found attractive by older girls so the girls he had sex with (I am guessing of course) are most likely age 10-13 which is unacceptably young.

I'd say it's reasonable for a 13 year old boy to have sex with girls his age. If he was with someone twice his age, then I'd say you have a case for abuse.

Originally Posted by Frenchi

I wasn't insinuating anything, I was just curious where the opinion stems from.

Why do you feel that sex is something harmful that should be protected against? If it weren't for social and religious stigma, nobody would have to feel bad about sex. I've never understood why we should be ashamed of our bodies. I've also never understood why theres such a movement against contraceptives. Sex is great, it's something everyone should practice responsibly; if people can enjoy sex without fear of creating a life-changing consequence (in the form of a baby) until they've found someone they're ready to tackle that part of their life with, even better.

That aside, it's absurd to say that children being curious about sex is unacceptable. It's no more unnatural that they start investigating their genitalia when they hit puberty than it is for them to go to the bathroom when they feel pressure in their bowels.

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

A 13yr old boy is unlikely to be found attractive by older girls so the girls he had sex with (I am guessing of course) are most likely age 10-13 which is unacceptably young.

I'd say it's reasonable for a 13 year old boy to have sex with girls his age. If he was with someone twice his age, then I'd say you have a case for abuse.

Who mentioned feeling bad about sex? You assume a lot. Not much point replying as you make it up as you go along.

Originally Posted by Frenchi

. If he was with someone twice his age, then I'd say you have a case for abuse.

Why Frenchi, you surprise me. What are you, some kind of prude? Isn't it perfectly natural for older people to lust after pre-pubescent teens, and if they wear a condom, what's the harm in it? Just so nobody gets an STD or gets pregnant, that's all thet realy matters. Right?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Why Frenchi, you surprise me. What are you, some kind of prude? Isn't it perfectly natural for older people to lust after pre-pubescent teens, and if they wear a condom, what's the harm in it? Just so nobody gets an STD or gets pregnant, that's all thet realy matters. Right?

Hah, well it sounds kind of creepy when you put it that way. The adult in the situation is definitely beyond his experimentation years. I don't have a definitive criteria for drawing this arbitrary line, but one person in that equation is in a developmental stage, while the other is not. Just as you wouldn't attend a grade school at that age to brush back up on math, you wouldn't 'rediscover' yourself through children, for safety reasons more than anything (there are certain size incompatibilities), but also psychological as well. The only reason I can imagine that an adult would turn to a child for sexual purposes would be because of the degree of influence they can place on the child that they can't on their peers. Their motivation for sex is different than that of a child who has just discovered it.

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

Who mentioned feeling bad about sex?

See:

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

Regardless of how she felt, she was a child and it was the adults job to protect her and they failed. WE couldn't protect her as we were kids ourselves.

Also, nice touch with the personal attacks, they definitely make your argument stronger =)

Originally Posted by Frenchi

The only reason I can imagine that an adult would turn to a child for sexual purposes would be because of the degree of influence they can place on the child that they can't on their peers. Their motivation for sex is different than that of a child who has just discovered it.

All right, but what is so special about sex?
Following your earlier logic, nothing. So then why would you think pedophilia is any creepier than, say, an adult playing a game of baseball with a child? Now as far as the psychological effects, that could just be because our uptight society makes a big deal out of it, couldn't it?

Also, nice touch with the personal attacks, they definitely make your argument stronger =)

What personal attacks?

Originally Posted by Frenchi

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

Who mentioned feeling bad about sex?

See:

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

Regardless of how she felt, she was a child and it was the adults job to protect her and they failed. WE couldn't protect her as we were kids ourselves.

are you a paedophile?

She was EIGHT years old, he was 14yrs old.


You see nothing wrong with this? It's all well and good in your world is it?

re your comment about me making a personal attack:
Seeing things again are you? What 'personal attack' - what did I say that was 'personal'? I made an observation (an accurate one) about your posting style. You contiuously write responses to comments that were not made, your accusation of a personal remark is classic example.

Meanwhile,

age 30 is not past the experimentation age, people experiment sexually till the day they die if they have the drive to do so or do you think sex is just for children?

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

And how many underage girls did you cajole into sex I wonder.

I'd like to pretend I didn't read that. :x

But I'm going to be honest here, on the internet, in the modern age of too-much-information.

In my teens, I felt like screwing everything. Hormones can do that. But I also thought I should discriminate, and did think a lot about just who was an appropriate sex partner for me, and why. Remember that a boy at this age is socially clueless and totally manipulated by same-age girls, who are emotionally years ahead. They knew what they were doing better than I did. They were training to manipulate guys by appealing to male urges.

So teen sex is part of a broader learning experience on both sides. The girl is learning to get a male's attention and hook him. As they say, "Men are like linoleum; if you lay them right, you can walk on them for thirty years." The boy is learning to see past that smokescreen of feminine charms. He has to learn by tough experience that his power is not in poking things with his tool, it's in not even looking at the bait i.e. "You went to the hairdresser? I didn't notice." Both are testing their special gender powers in the war of the sexes.

I had sex early, and had "girlfriends" early, and also early: I grew wise enough to ask "Why is she in my face? What's really going on here?"

ToR when you do your makeup just ask yourself which side really initiates the battle, which side is innocent and trying to remain neutral. Well, you do know, and I know you know. You've got a lot of nerve to say teenage boys manipulate girls. Quit the fucking war!

Originally Posted by Pong

ToR when you do your makeup just ask yourself which side really initiates the battle, which side is innocent and trying to remain neutral. Well, you do know, and I know you know. You've got a lot of nerve to say teenage boys manipulate girls. Quit the fucking war!

I don't wear make up for men, wonder why you think I or other women do?

Do you wear nice trainers to impress women?

Teenage boys do manipulate girls.

My experience was this:

strange boy on street - one of a gang of boys

'come to the park'

Me

'no thanks'

friend

'yes'

boy to friends in gang

'that girls not going to 'do' anything'

This boy routinely seduced girls into going to the park where he and his friends would gang rape them, persuading them it was all in good fun.

I once had to pull about 6 teenage boys off a pal of mine as they tried to get her knickers off for 'fun'...what was next for fun I wonder. I kicked them all in the balls. That kind of dampened their desire somewhat.

I know many girls who were assaulted at school in gangs by amorous boys 'all in fun'

Originally Posted by Harold14370

What personal attacks?

Sorry Harold, that wasn't directed at you.

If you'll allow me an aside, I poured over what's been said so far as I was driving home from work, and come to the conclusion that my remarks starting right around "I've never understood why we should be ashamed of our bodies." were a bit off topic and contribute nothing to the subject at hand, so I'll apologize, take my lumps, and get back on track.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

All right, but what is so special about sex?

That depends entirely on the context surrounding the act. It could be love, procreation, pleasure, relief of stress, boredom, distraction. I'm having a difficult time formulating an argument because I think we're both on the same side of the fence here. I was definitely not intending to justify pedophilia, rather I was attempting to justify sex as an acceptable developmental stage coinciding with puberty.

Regardless, what I am attempting to divulge from this debate is why detractors of contraceptives in schools feel the way they do. I know Theory has stated that kids having sex is wrong, but that's a belief. I can't argue a belief. She stated that providing kids with contraceptive options and sex education promotes sex among kids. That's better, that's something falsifiable. If she can back it up with evidence, then fantastic, I'd love to be proven wrong. So far all of my contrary evidence has been brushed aside with a belief.

Frenchi

you have yet to answer:

'what personal attacks?'

thus far you are not worthy of reply when you dream up things like this. But for the readers I will elaborate:

I am anti contraception in school as parents should have knowledge of the drugs their kids are taking as they have side affects and the health officials do NOT give advice about them. I have yet to be advised of side affects and I have been taking contraceptives for 20yrs. I had to do my own home work. No way in hell would I want a child of mine doing these drugs without my knowledge anymore than I want her doing crack cocaine. One brand I had made me suicidal so this is NO small concern.

Re children not having sex

(under age as in less than 15yrs)

Bodies not always properly developed, risk of STD's, heightened risk to girls for cervical cancer, pregnancy, manipulation, not mature enough to make decisions about these matters, no appreciation for the fact that men will always hold the view nice girls say 'no'...majority view, like it or not.

It is also illegal under the age of 16yrs old and this is what we have been raised to believe is an appropriate age of consent for reasons of maturity.

These things apply to women but women are deemed old enough to deal with the results of their decisions themselves whereas parents of children are responsible for their kids actions till they are 18yrs old.

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

age 30 is not past the experimentation age...

It is certainly past the developmental stage. Turning 18 doesn't mean it's time to start learning about sex, you do that at a much younger age. You first have to become comfortable with your body and the bodies of those of the opposite sex. When you're older and more comfortable with sex, you expand your sexual interests.

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

Seeing things again are you? What 'personal attack' - what did I say that was 'personal'?

Commenting on my posting style is a personal attack, it has nothing to do with the subject matter, adds nothing to the conversation, and is intended to belittle the recipient instead of providing a meaningful rebuttal.

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

I am anti contraception in school as parents should have knowledge of the drugs their kids are taking as they have side affects and the health officials do NOT give advice about them.

Perfect Now, if you'll indulge me, is your problem with the idea of contraceptive itself or the fact that parents don't know what's going to their children? By this I mean, if the group behind the contraceptive made an effort to educate the parents about what is being offered, would you feel the same way?

Very few women who have been on various forms of contraception from pill to IUD are aware that their mood swings, temper outbursts, depression are contraception related. The suppliers are not going to start telling anyone these things, though a list of some 100+ contra-indications are listed in the size 6 printed leaflets inside the little boxes, but of course you get no such information with an IUD, injection/implant.

Condoms and kids don't match either. Studies show they fail due to not going on soon enough, coming off too early,breakages, not being used properly, not being used at all.

Is there going to be a Dr on site in every school when these contraceptives are being given out? Unlikely. Thus this will be a first. Not even pharmacists with knowledge of these matters can issue contraceptives yet they wish them handed out by 'uneducated in the matter teachers' or a school nurse who is also uneducated in this area.

School is NOT the place to obtain contraception, the Dr's or family health clinic is.

Originally Posted by Frenchi

I'm having a difficult time formulating an argument because I think we're both on the same side of the fence here.

I don't think we are.

I was definitely not intending to justify pedophilia, rather I was attempting to justify sex as an acceptable developmental stage coinciding with puberty.

I didn't think you were. I was just trying to prove a point, that being you have a moral position which cannot be argued based on objective, health related criteria. I think everybody else does too.

Yet, everybody wants to argue the point solely with health statistics without taking into account anybody else's moral position which may differ from their own.

That is just absurd, most sex ed courses should cover the proper use of condoms. Moreover, it is ridiculous to bring in to the discussion forms of birth control like the pill. The topic here is condoms, which are the only form of contraceptive that prevent spread of disease, and have no adverse health effects apart from the occasional person with an allergy. I don't know where you make the jump from condoms being available at the nurses office, to shoving pills down the kids throats.

If your problem with giving condoms to kids is they don't know how to use them, then sex education should be improved. Despite the fact that the statistics show that they reduce the spread of disease and incidence of pregnancy very well.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

I was just trying to prove a point, that being you have a moral position which cannot be argued based on objective, health related criteria. I think everybody else does too.

You got me there, and I fessed up to it. I think I need to pick less controversial threads to get involved in =)

Originally Posted by Harold14370

School is NOT the place to obtain contraception, the Dr's or family health clinic is.

What will be the requirements to acquire contraceptives under this new plan?

Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy

That is just absurd, most sex ed courses should cover the proper use of condoms. Moreover, it is ridiculous to bring in to the discussion forms of birth control like the pill. The topic here is condoms, which are the only form of contraceptive that prevent spread of disease, and have no adverse health effects apart from the occasional person with an allergy. I don't know where you make the jump from condoms being available at the nurses office, to shoving pills down the kids throats.

If your problem with giving condoms to kids is they don't know how to use them, then sex education should be improved. Despite the fact that the statistics show that they reduce the spread of disease and incidence of pregnancy very well.

In the words of Homer Simpson

DUHHHHHHH

Read the OP again not just the title this time.

Think you will find the pill gets a considerable mention.

Originally Posted by me not Harold

School is NOT the place to obtain contraception, the Dr's or family health clinic is.

Originally Posted by Frenchi

What will be the requirements to acquire contraceptives under this new plan?

Whatever they are now, it's not a plan, contraceptives are already available to kids from these sources.

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

'what personal attacks?'

thus far you are not worthy of reply when you dream up things like this.

Why, you... :x :wink:

See, "you" kinda gives it away. Just about everything said is going to be positive or negative, directed at the person not argument, obviously. Are you deaf to your own voice?

Anyway, if I asked just how many underage boys, you ToR manipulated into sex, you'd flip out I'm sure.

The discussion cannot go well with poison splattering around.


***

I'm unsure that gang rape has much to do with providing condoms at schools. Anybody care to draw the connection?

***

I bought condoms from drugstore shelves, somewhat embarrassed. I did not buy over the counter from convenience stores because for one I'd want to read the package and make comparisons before purchase, and for two I was shy to call aloud, "toss me a twelve pack of unribbed lubricated Feelex". This was mid 1980's, when a lot of people still thought AIDS was a gay disease and condoms weren't available through school. I think that for free condom distribution to work for younger teens, it must be discreet. There are actually practical reasons why discreet distribution is very difficult to engineer in a crowded high school.

***

ToR has a good point about condoms and kids not going well together. Honestly, I was (we were) clumsy with them, and used a good many in a session just putting them on, taking them off and of course filing them which a boy in early teens excels at. Sexual newbies experiment. A condom in the pocket doesn't give a couple much freedom.

Still, until we eradicate STDs condoms and teen intercourse must go together. Then I feel (from personal experience) boys should be able to get reversible vasectomy through family doctor without parental knowledge. The boys who could could use it know who they are. That would nearly eliminate teen pregnancies, because you just won't find a boy on Earth dreaming of his own baby named "Destiny"... if one catches my drift.

Here's a thought experiment: If we don't feel circumcision (which is now believed fairly useless by the medical profession) an imposition, is giving baby boys reversible vasectomies as a matter of course, an imposition, or not? A good idea? Why?

Originally Posted by Pong

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

'what personal attacks?'

thus far you are not worthy of reply when you dream up things like this.

Why, you... :x :wink:

See, "you" kinda gives it away. Just about everything said is going to be positive or negative, directed at the person not argument, obviously. Are you deaf to your own voice?

Anyway, if I asked just how many underage boys, you ToR manipulated into sex, you'd flip out I'm sure.

blah blah

?

Pong,

This was a personal remark which followed the alleged personal attack

May I suggest you thus mind your own business

I have not had sex with anyone under the age of 21 ever even when I was under the age of 21. Thus I have no need to flip out as I have no indiscretions for which I need to get defensive about.

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

Originally Posted by Pong

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

'what personal attacks?'

thus far you are not worthy of reply when you dream up things like this.

Why, you... :x :wink:

See, "you" kinda gives it away. Just about everything said is going to be positive or negative, directed at the person not argument, obviously. Are you deaf to your own voice?

Anyway, if I asked just how many underage boys, you ToR manipulated into sex, you'd flip out I'm sure.

blah blah

?

Pong,

This was a personal remark which followed the alleged personal attack

May I suggest you thus mind your own business

I have not had sex with anyone under the age of 21 ever even when I was under the age of 21. Thus I have no need to flip out as I have no indiscretions for which I need to get defensive about.

OK, that's out of the way. Thanks.

So what do you think about "blah blah" and "?" ?

Originally Posted by Pong

So what do you think about "blah blah" and "?" ?

I am anti circumcision on babies so would be anti vasectomy on boy babies surgery.

I don't know the health implications of reversible vasectomy, so cannot comment on the merits of this idea.

Meanwhile if it was performed on boy babies, who would pay for the reversal years later? What if years later the procedure for what ever reason was no longer funded or performed? Not a good road to go down.

As far as I know, reverable vasectomies are only reversable most of the time...

Just checked some facts, the success of reversibility depends largely on how soon after the vasectomy the reversal is done. Thus it is NOT advisable as a form of contraception.

So what are your thoughts on a solution? Is there a contraceptive method or educational program local governments could make available to kids that they aren't already? Is the only option to get parents educated and involved with their children's development to make sure they have a proper influence on how their kids behave?

Off the top of my head, a more thorough pediatric program might be a good choice. School aged kids could be appointed to a pediatrician they see every few months at school to discuss such issues behind closed doors. If they're sexually active, they have the option of getting regular check-ups, discussing contraceptive options with an actual doctor, or getting advice and support anonymously. If everyone is required to visit their pediatrician, even if they're not sexually active, theres no pressure not to go because you might be seen visiting the counselor.

Originally Posted by Frenchi

Off the top of my head, a more thorough pediatric program might be a good choice. School aged kids could be appointed to a pediatrician they see every few months at school to discuss such issues behind closed doors. If they're sexually active, they have the option of getting regular check-ups, discussing contraceptive options with an actual doctor, or getting advice and support anonymously. If everyone is required to visit their pediatrician, even if they're not sexually active, theres no pressure not to go because you might be seen visiting the counselor.

Only problem here is one of cost.

Originally Posted by Frenchi

So what are your thoughts on a solution? Is there a contraceptive method or educational program local governments could make available to kids that they aren't already? Is the only option to get parents educated and involved with their children's development to make sure they have a proper influence on how their kids behave?

Off the top of my head, a more thorough pediatric program might be a good choice. School aged kids could be appointed to a pediatrician they see every few months at school to discuss such issues behind closed doors. If they're sexually active, they have the option of getting regular check-ups, discussing contraceptive options with an actual doctor, or getting advice and support anonymously. If everyone is required to visit their pediatrician, even if they're not sexually active, theres no pressure not to go because you might be seen visiting the counselor.

There's a danger that if we promote anything other than condoms, condoms won't be used in any case.

In my time, sexually active girls (with long term boyfriend, or...whatever) were generally quick to pick up some form of birth control, except condoms were left to the boy's initiative. In that scenario they're not going to be used much.

One of my solutions to the "problem" of a girlfriend on the pill and HIV lurking all around, was to get routinely tested for HIV. I understood that it would show up in blood within 6 months. So I would figure 6 months since last plausible infection (and plausible covers nearly everybody) and get a test, wait for result, then know OK at least I'm not about to kill my girlfriend if we don't use a condom.

I did think at the time HIV testing could be a lot easier. I had to book appointment with family doctor, just to say in person I want an HIV test, he'd then coordinate with some lab across the city where I'd have another appointment, the results would go to doctor's office and as if that wasn't bureaucratic enough I'd have to book a second appointment with family doctor (he got paid for these visits) just to learn the result, positive or negative.

I thought a self-serve testing booth somewhat like a bank-machine would serve people better. Sterile thumbpricks indexed to secret PIN & dropped into cooler for pickup by the lab folks. I don't think sterility is a problem as we already have needle-drops in washrooms and vending machines dispense all kinds of uncontaminated products. You could phone an automated service later for result. Then get a real test if positive. Well, it's better than nothing. Some people would use it frequently. And it must cost less than paying all those street-front leases and receptionists and GPs who'd rather be golfing, same reason bank deposits are automated now.

One problem I can think of with pricking-booths is the contamination factor. You really don't want to make any kind of blood work automated or done anonymously. We keep doctors in the loop to make 100% sure that equipment is sterilized, patients aren't prone to bleeding uncontrollably, the environment doesn't contain hazards, etc. It would only take one malfunction or dumb person injuring or killing himself somehow for such a system to be lobbied into obliteration.

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

Only problem here is one of cost.

We've spent billions more on less worthy things =)

Originally Posted by Frenchi

One problem I can think of with pricking-booths is the contamination factor.

We've already developed biometric prickers for security. Maintaining a non-infectious kiosk is not difficult IMO. But another way is to dispense a packaged kit which users then deposit in sealed envelope. Properly deposited kits would be impervious to cross contamination even if some users botched their own. A moist towelette, bandage, and legal disclaimer is really enough.

OK someone could squirt acid or whatever into the slot but that doesn't stop cash deposits does it?

Originally Posted by Frenchi

We've spent billions more on less worthy things =)

The government doesn't care about safe education and distribution though, it cares about population control and unhealthy sterile teens with shorter life spans are just as much a bonus as is an aborted baby when arriving at that end.

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

The governmen doesn't care about safe education and distribution though...

It was more speculation than anything, I'm sure the gov't isn't going to be throwing any more free healthcare and pharmaceuticals down the chute, especially with the economy in the state it is.

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

...it cares about population control and an unhealthy sterile teens with shorter life spans are just as much a bonus as is an aborted baby when arriving at that end.

I'm not sure what to say about this. They've got nothing to gain by destroying the next generation of Americans; where else are they going to collect all their tax dollars? =) We lambaste our public officials when they start acting like a nanny state, and when they back off, we accuse them of allowing our kids to become delinquents. This is a bit more philosophy than science, but public opinion is split so severely that it's difficult for any governing body to put one plan in place that doesn't offend anyone. What you think is best for your kids might be polarly opposite from what I want for my kids. Whose stance takes preference?

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

The government doesn't care about safe education and distribution though, it cares about population control and unhealthy sterile teens with shorter life spans are just as much a bonus as is an aborted baby when arriving at that end.

Yeah like the powers-that-be can't decide between engineering stillbirths or just leaking radiation 'till our gonads fall out. WTF.

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

In the words of Homer Simpson

DUHHHHHHH

Read the OP again not just the title this time.

Think you will find the pill gets a considerable mention.

It's irrelevant whether you made the illogical jump from condoms to pills being available in the first post or the 10th, you're still making a baseless jump.

Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

In the words of Homer Simpson

DUHHHHHHH

Read the OP again not just the title this time.

Think you will find the pill gets a considerable mention.

It's irrelevant whether you made the illogical jump from condoms to pills being available in the first post or the 10th, you're still making a baseless jump.

There was no jump, the topic of this thread is identified in the first post, you never read it.

You have shown yourself to be foolish and have enough egg on your face to make the worlds largest omelette.

There is a complete jump from going from the question of contraceptive at school, to immediately assuming this includes the pill. You go from talking about giving contraceptives at school, to an anecdote about your childhood, to sex ed, to increasing the rate of teen sex, and then end with talking about the pill. When someone talks about contraceptive at school, this means condoms, not the pill.

I think that if one finds the issue of kids having sex disconcerting, that's good and I truly do respect the feelings behind it. We can't have useful discussion on such grounds though, valid as they may be. One might try to keep some emotional distance here, and see what happens. Who knows, maybe we'll arrive by cool thinking to the same conclusions. We won't know 'till we make an honest effort.

Originally Posted by Pong

I think that if one finds the issue of kids having sex disconcerting, that's good and I truly do respect the feelings behind it. We can't have useful discussion on such grounds though, valid as they may be. One might try to keep some emotional distance here, and see what happens. Who knows, maybe we'll arrive by cool thinking to the same conclusions. We won't know 'till we make an honest effort.

This is ridiculous.

As a parent it is disconcerting

risk of abuse, pregnancy, disease, damaged reputation, risk of lack of self worth.

It is no different to discussing the rights and wrong of children taking hard drugs.

But i suppose you think that's ok too, it's their body after all, they a e curious, why not?

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

i suppose you think...

Whatever you like ToR. I don't believe you give a damn what I think.

Originally Posted by Pong

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

i suppose you think...

Whatever you like ToR. I don't believe you give a damn what I think.

You can't eliminate a belief system from this thread and this type of topic results from beliefs and morals. The topic is not:

Should kids be allowed to have sex at any age?

It is assuming we are already of some shared moral view that underage sex is best avoided for the reasons already noted in the thread. You seem to think it's ok at any age, probably because you started young.

In prison no criminal believes they are guilty of anything either. It's the way human nature works. We justify our actions.

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

In the words of Homer Simpson

DUHHHHHHH

I take serious offense to this TheoryofRelativity. It's D'OH!, not Duh!

Originally Posted by portcontrol7

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

In the words of Homer Simpson

DUHHHHHHH

I take serious offense to this TheoryofRelativity. It's D'OH!, not Duh!

I stand corrected

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

There is a reason why children (age 11-15yr) do not use condoms and it is not lack of education, it is pure embarrassment.

Rubbish! Not all youngsters are embarrassed about sex or condoms. It depends on what they've been taught by the adults around them and their reactions. If a mother is embarrassed about the issue of sex and contraceptives then the child will feel embarrassed!

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

Also if your daughter or son is preparing themselves when they go to the school disco for sex then ask yourself why that is.

And why not? If my son hopes to get lucky and takes a condom just in case he does I think the foresight in protection is commendable!

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

Why is a virgin of 13yrs old who has been taught 'no sex until age 16+' going to a child orientated event armed with contraceptives anticipating they may have sex?

Oh come on ToR, get into the real world and put all that idealism aside for a moment will you!
The reality is that my son is exposed to 'sex' every day through music videos, adverts, discussions with friends etc etc, and practically most things these days in the media have some kind of sexual connotation behind it. Kids aren't controlled by the law, they're controlled by their own feelings, curiosity and experience!
My son comes home from his camps and activities and tells me what the kids get up to! If i expressed shock or horror, he wouldn't tell me and I'm glad he does, because most of it is harmless horseplay and flirting. At least i know what's going on.
I think there is no harm in young people being curious and experimenting between themselves and in their own age groups.
It's healthy!

It's over moral puritanical prudism which isn't healthy!

Sex is something which can be abused like anything in this world.

The focus should be on raising awareness and educating young people that it isn't shameful or dirty and emphasizing the necessity to feel ready and not be forced.

There will always be nasties in this world and people who abuse others and much abuse involves sex. But i believe it is a lack of education and awareness which makes this worse and not the other way round!

I think if it's left to the media or their mates to educate our kids about sex, than that's where the biggest trouble lies and the greatest harm can be done.

Originally Posted by Absum!

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

Also if your daughter or son is preparing themselves when they go to the school disco for sex then ask yourself why that is.

And why not? If my son hopes to get lucky and takes a condom just in case he does I think the foresight in protection is commendable!

.

So you think it's commendable that your 12yr old is taking condoms to school and hoping to have sex with possibly an 11yr old girl?

No wonder we have a rise in teenage delinquents with parenting like this.

.................................................. .........................

Selene you are an unreliable source as you make things up as you go along.

However

Regards you commending your son for going out 'prepared' as I said, no wonder we have a lot of juvenile delinquents. Doesn't matter how you wrap it up, your son is going out hoping to find some girl (younger than him as unlikely an older girl would be interested) who will be stupid enough to open her legs for him. He neither respect for himself or young girls and he learned this from you.

Regards sexuality, it starts as soon as they can touch themselves, but they need to be taught self respect and respect for others early.

It's very natural for siblings to want to 'play' with each other and explore. Is this ok with you too, as it's natural? At what age is them having sex no longer acceptable to you, when you have your first deformed grandchild?

Men who should know better still get pushy when they want sex, even when no condom is present, so what chance do boys have of showing more restraint than a grown man. NIL

You are what is called a passive parent, yes he tells you what he does, but does what he likes. So where is the parenting?

Your hoping he runs away at the first offer of sex is naive indeed.

Keep hoping, and while you are at it hope the 12 yr old he gets pregnant doesn't accuse him of rape, when her father finds out and she denies consent out of shame. Oh and do be prepared to be a granny from a very young age.

But hey, least he'll tell you about it!

With regards an open attitude to sex. I run a site for cross-dressers and write about sex, I'm not a prude by any stretch, but I am a parent. I won't relinquish my responsibility because I want to be best friends with my children. Being their friend is not my job, being their parent is.

Lighting fires is fun, some get a sexual kick out of it. You gonna let them be arsonists cos it's what they want to do? I don't think so. Your attitude to your child reflects your own and you are teaching him your values rather than teaching him values that will mean he and those around him are safe until old enough to take responsibility for themselves. That is what parenting is.

The age limit exists as you say to prevent abuse. Kids don't know the difference between sex with adults and sex with kids and cannot be expected to honor the difference when one is allowed by their own parent.

Kids need to be taught their feelings are normal, that they can enjoy themselves by them self in the privacy of their own room, but when it comes to sexual contact with others, they need to learn self restraint and this self restraint is something they will need to exercise often as adults so teaching them early can only be a good thing.

All the gooey 'find the right person' crap you are preaching isn't the way it happens in reality.Men don't care about emotional bonds when having sex, women do, not always but often. So sex in a steady relationship is not something a young lad is going to be fussed about.

It is very unfair, but these are the realities.

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

Men don't care about emotional bonds when having sex, women do, not always but often.

Maybe not the blind-drunk guys one would pick up at the bar... Otherwise I would say this argument reeks of misandry. Men are just as capable of emotional connection through sex as women, just as women are just as capable of using sex to fulfill a lust. Avert your gaze to these:

Originally Posted by [url

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_pwwi/is_200312/ai_mark1842084874[/url]] Men are more interested in finding emotional intimacy than sex in a romantic relationship according to a new national study. The findings contradict conventional wisdom that sex is a man's number one priority in romantic relationships.

According to the survey, 31 percent of adult Americans believe emotional intimacy is what men want most in a romantic relationship. Substantially fewer Americans -- 23 percent -- say sex is a man's number one priority. 'Good times' ranked third, supported by 17 percent of respondents. Gold diggers beware. According to the survey, only 2 percent of Americans (1 percent of men; 3 percent of women) believe men are looking for a "trophy."

Originally Posted by [url

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_emotion[/url]]Research by Associate Professor of Psychology Ann Kring found that women aren't more emotional than men, they are just more expressive of their emotions. "It is incorrect to make a blanket statement that women are more emotional than men," Kring says. "It is correct to say that women show their emotions more than men."

Originally Posted by [url

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=82994[/url]]Top 10 Reasons Why Women Have Sex

The researchers broke down the leading reasons why men and women have sex. Eight of the top 10 reasons were shared by men and women.

Here are women's top 10 reasons for having sex:

1. I was attracted to the person.
2. I wanted to experience the physical pleasure.
3. It feels good.
4. I wanted to show my affection to the person.
5. I wanted to express my love for the person.
6. I was sexually aroused and wanted the release.
7. I was "horny."
8. It's fun.
9. I realized I was in love.
10. I was "in the heat of the moment."

Top 10 Reasons Why Men Have Sex

1. I was attracted to the person.
2. It feels good.
3. I wanted to experience the physical pleasure.
4. It's fun.
5. I wanted to show my affection to the person.
6. I was sexually aroused and wanted the release.
7. I was "horny."
8. I wanted to express my love for the person.
9. I wanted to achieve an orgasm.
10. I wanted to please my partner.

Originally Posted by [url

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17537500?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez. Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum[/url]]Data from 105 racially and economically diverse 10th-grade boys were analyzed. Results indicated that the most commonly endorsed motives for dating and intercourse focused on the boys' partners and relationships, and that boys' motives tended to be consistent across dating and sexual behavior. Peer conformity motives were less frequently endorsed and typically co-occurred with other motives. Findings revealed few connections between motives, masculinity ideology, and sexual behaviors. Discussion highlights the importance of moving beyond stereotypes when examining boys' romantic and sexual motives.

Frenchi

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

Men don't care about emotional bonds when having sex, women do, not always but often.

This generalisation was meant to apply equally to men and women

It is based upon men's after thoughts re one night stands compared to women's.

Well ToR

I wonder how on earth you managed to have children yourself

Any guy that ever came anywhere near you must have been scared off with you screaming RAPE!

As for parenting, which you seem to have much opinion about but little clue...........

I do sincerely hope that your kids have someone other than you they can talk to about sex.

You have a habit of jumping to such hasty opinions based on little evidence but pre-determined prejudice and narrow-minded speculation......

You consider yourself to be an expert and an authority on such matters because you write blogs about it, but i have read some of your blogs and they demonstrate a severe lack of insight and appear to be simply the ramblings of a dissatisfied woman with a chip on her shoulder without the capacity to think very hard or deeply and come across as regurgitations of small minded prejudices........

Have you ever considered offering your writing talents to the Daily Mail?



Don't be surprised if you discover your children going elsewhere for unbiased and rational advice on sex

Originally Posted by Absum!

Well ToR

I wonder how on earth you managed to have children yourself

I suggest you read up on human reproduction Selene.

Meanwhile


If my children are having sex at 13 or under then I will consider that I have failed them, not that they have failed themselves. It is my job to help them to make wise choices and the work is already is progress.

Good grief ToR

That really is some kind of attitude and opinion you have got there.

Try raising your head from the gutter

You might possibly see some light?

I request all parties here to keep a respectful tone in your posts and focus on the facts.
Ophiolite in moderator mode

Sorry i havn't looked through all the posts so i fear i may just be repeating what someone else has already said, but here goes anyway....

I believe kids will do as they please no matter what we do, we can't watch them 24/7, so we have to try and trust that if we give out free condoms at school then if they are having sex at least thay are being safe about it..... (We hope)... :wink: