You knew it was coming...free condoms provided for elementary kids at school...

[secular_mom]

It is very nice to be liberal and argue a point, but a 6 yr old boy couldn't even use a condom. They don't meet the requirements for even the smallest size. I mean come on here folks! They don't have mini-me condoms for sale. There isn't a pharmacy in the world that world let a 6,8, or 10 yr old boy or girl walk up and buy condoms. I have a 7 yr old son. It isn't physically possible.

What if they wanted them for a science experiment? What if they just want to see what all the fuss is about? I agree that a child of that age

most likely is not in need of a condom or able to use them properly.

 

 

Oh and the 16 yr old boy in elementary school sounds hokey to me. They have a legal age limit that you can be in an educational setting with children younger than you are even if you have special needs. My friends ds has special needs and can only attend the elementary school that goes to 5th grade and he will have to move to the middle school when he is 12.

Laws are very different than when we were kids. Children that repeatedly fail and are not special needs are sent to reform schools or what they used to call ISP schools. You even have to leave high school if you don't graduate by 21. So I can't imagine a 5th grader that is 16. Maybe an 8th grader. Elementary school is either k-3rd or k-5th. At the most kids will be 12.

My elementary school (elementary was in the name of the school) was pre-K through 8th grade. This guy was 16 in either 7th or 8th grade, he finally dropped out after failing again. I don't think he was special needs, he was in the regular classes (this school had special ed classes for those students), he just didn't do the work. I wonder if he just liked being around people at school, or if maybe his home was not safe for him.

[secular_mom]

I don't think minors are allowed in stores that specialize in sex toys and porn or near them in stores that sell them. You can't purchase an R rated movie without ID (in theory) and you can't step foot in the 'porn room' at a movie rental place without an ID either. My guess is, if you can't go in the store, then you can't purchase what they sell either.

Good point, I really am not familiar with such places (that's what the internet is for, LOL).

 

 

 

 

 

I'm trying to take this away from sex, so it is going to get rediculous, but bare with me (:lol:).... If a school decided to hand out slim jims, just in case kids get locked out, and they made sure the kids knew how to use them, maybe they even discussed the laws that could be broken by using that set; then doesn't it seem like they're giving them what they need to break the law? It seems like, especially by making it so clear that the parents can pi** and moan all they want and it won't make a bit of difference, that they aren't just usurping the authority of the parents, but also negating the authority of the law of the land.

 

It doesn't matter that those fools at the state court house said you CANNOT, we know what you're thinking. It's all good, just slide on down to my office and I can hook you up. I'll even keep it on the d/l for ya ;) Parents? Shah, I'm not worried about your parents, I can handle your parents. You just go out now and have a good time.

Good point, this is something that needs to be addressed by those 'in authority'.

[lionfamily1999]

If I'm outraged at anyone, it's with the media, marketing, advertisers, children's clothes designers that have been successfully, imo, encouraging our children to grow up and be mini sex objects all for the sake of profit. Secondly, I'm outraged at parents who don't take the initiative and talk to their children about these issues and provide guidance and direction.

 

As far as the action taken by the schools, it just makes me sad that it's come to this. I don't find it a liberal agenda or non-Christian agenda, but more just trying to find a way to stem this very serious problem we have. Seems like putting a band aid on a gangrenous wound - it's not going to solve the problem. I'm not opposed to the band aid, but I would like to seem something that is attempting to attack the root cause.

I have to wonder about these parents...

 

It seems like this is just another example of a government institution telling us that those parent (wink, wink) are the reasons for all this, all the while they are telling their students that all parents are too befuddled for this.

 

What is the message here? Who is it being addressed to? It's not just being sent from the administration to those students whose parents don't care, it's being broadcast to the entire student body and a big part of this message is, your parents are not in authority, they have to do what we tell them to do.

 

"We know your parents are too stupid/mean/uncool to let you do this. We know they want you to do lame stuff that respect the laws and things. We know you better, we know what you like, we know what you want, and we will tell your parents point blank that we don't care if they don't like it. We will give it to you anyway and then we'll manipulate them into thinking they'll be the bad guys if they complain."

[Joker]

 

This says they are thinking of changing the policy to 5th grade and up.

[hornblower]

Yes, you have to have parent consent to get BC pills even at the health dept. unless you are of legal age of consent.

 

Not here. We have clinics open to anyone & no parental consent is required. For that matter, no $ is required. There is often a small fee but if you can't pay, they won't refuse to give the items the clients need.

 

Yes, sex toy stores require you to be of a certain age to come in and purchase items.

 

I wonder about that. There are stores which have peep shows etc & those say no admittance to under 18. But we also have feminist stores which sell aids and clothing and a variety of items & I don't think they have any signs. I wonder what the law would be there.

 

There isn't a pharmacy in the world that world let a 6,8, or 10 yr old boy or girl walk up and buy condoms.

 

 

 

Here they're just standing on a shelf, within reach of a anyone over about 4 feet tall. Anyone of an age to be in a store by themselves can take a pkg to the check out & pay for it & walk out the store with it. You don't have to take it to the pharmacist. You can pay at the self check out.

 

Even if you go through the cashier, they should not & IME will not question anyone buying anything.

 

The cigarettes are behind the service counter in a locked cabinet with a solid door & pretty much anyone under 30 is asked for ID before buying any tobacco products.

 

But not condoms.

[lionfamily1999]

What if they wanted them for a science experiment? What if they just want to see what all the fuss is about? I agree that a child of that age

most likely is not in need of a condom or able to use them properly.

 

And this is another side effect! You're right, they should be able to use condoms for science projects (that is not tongue in cheek, I am dead serious). They should be able to use them for that. But when the schools start crossing the lines like this it makes it nearly impossible to say something like, "Use some common sense, you can have condoms in the school, but just use your common sense."

 

My elementary school (elementary was in the name of the school) was pre-K through 8th grade. This guy was 16 in either 7th or 8th grade, he finally dropped out after failing again. I don't think he was special needs, he was in the regular classes (this school had special ed classes for those students), he just didn't do the work. I wonder if he just liked being around people at school, or if maybe his home was not safe for him.

Our school was 1-7 and then 8-12, I assumed that this elementary school was more traditional 1-5 or 6.

Good point, I really am not familiar with such places (that's what the internet is for, LOL).

 

 

I worked at a movie store and visited some friends at VCU. Lots of those places in Richmond, makes me pretty uncomfortable walking down the street :p

 

 

Good point, this is something that needs to be addressed by those 'in authority'.

:iagree:

[Jean in Newcastle]

Does anyone but me have a mental picture of 4th grade boys turning them into water balloons and having a fight on the playground??

 

Most elementary school kids are in the "eww, yuck!" stage where the opposite sex is concerned. The only elementary school kids I've known who were sexually active were girls who were spending time with MUCH older boys-and I can't imagine an 11 yr old girl telling a 16 yr old that he has to wear a condom and making it stick.

 

I taught fourth grade in an inner-city school 20 years ago. The girls were coming in from the playground crying because the 4th grade boys were threatening to rape them. (I don't know if they understood totally what that meant but they understood enough.)

[Tidbits of Learning]

What if they wanted them for a science experiment? What if they just want to see what all the fuss is about? I agree that a child of that age

most likely is not in need of a condom or able to use them properly.

What science experiment would you do with a condom that couldn't be done with a balloon unless you are specifically talking about an experiment that would link the condom to sexual acts?

 

My elementary school (elementary was in the name of the school) was pre-K through 8th grade. This guy was 16 in either 7th or 8th grade, he finally dropped out after failing again. I don't think he was special needs, he was in the regular classes (this school had special ed classes for those students), he just didn't do the work. I wonder if he just liked being around people at school, or if maybe his home was not safe for him.

There are elementary schools that are k-8th and they are normally in rural areas. They also normally have separate buildings for the middle school grades. You don't have 8th graders using the facilities with a kindergarten child. Even in our elementary with k-3rd the kindergarten have their own wing and own bathrooms.

 

There is no need for them to make it available to children in the guise that they need to protect themselves when they aren't even physically capable of using the condom with another child their own age. In the case of girls, the boy in question would have to be much, much older to even use a condom. In the case of boys, they can't physically use the item for years to come and at least until puberty hits.

Let's be realistic. It may be necessary to have these items available to certain age groups, but under 10 is it really necessary? The health dept. already offers condoms to anyone. They are in big bowls like the lollipop containers at dr.'s offices.

It is about more than whether items should be available though. It is also about our rights as parents to say no we do not want our children to be given sex talks and handed condoms at 6 or 10. When I was in high school (public high school), you could only attend the sex ed/aids seminar with parental consent. So now in 15 years not only do they not need parental consent for teenagers to hear about sex/aids, but they can give the talk to a 6 yr old and give them a condom that they can't physically use...

I mean come on folks...what next, along with that case of formula and baby diapers when you leave the hospital...nurse: here is a 12 pack of condoms...parents: wait I thought we had to wait 6 weeks to have sex...nurse: Silly parents, it isn't for you, it is for you son/daughter be sure to show them how to use it and give them the talk...you never know they may touch themselves and like it...you want them to be prepared.

:auto:

 

[Mejane]

 

Parents are suppose to "parent" their children.....not the pediatric office, educational system, etc.

 

I only wish the real world were as perfect as the one in your head. (no snark intended)

[sheryl]

I only wish the real world were as perfect as the one in your head. (no snark intended)

 

Really???? No snark intended back at ya....;)

[Tidbits of Learning]

Even if you go through the cashier, they should not & IME will not question anyone buying anything.

 

 

Sorry, but here children aren't supposed to be unattended in stores. So a child coming to the checkout without parents and purchasing condoms would raise flags.

I bought cigarettes for my Dad at 7 yr old in the grocery store. That doesn't mean it was a good idea just because it was ok at the time.

[Tidbits of Learning]

Does anyone want to read "1984" and start comparing some of the "parental guidance" the govt. is prepared to give us to the wonderful imaginary world of the future?

Hello? :bigear:

[stripe]

This is very sad (about the 11yo), however think about some Muslim countries or other non-Muslim 3rd world countries in India, other places in Asia, and Africa, where girls are married at 8 or 9 - these early births are common. The real tragedy is that action should be taken to protect those girls and instead they are ignored.

This is an entirely separate issue, in my opinion, including the fact that birth control among married people AND early marriage (not to mention issues surrounding "parental consent"!) are different than an organization dealing only with birth control among very young, unmarried people.

 

Even for those who think it's a great idea, I also wonder how many young children would bother to ask.

 

My high school started distributed condoms (in accordance with district policy) when I was a student, but things like pads for girls were not allowed to be given out. Apparently the nurse would sell them to you, though. I found that odd.

Edited June 25, 2010 by stripe

[Geek]

 

How about Christian agenda being pushed down everyone's throats.... Or were you being tongue in cheek?

No, I wasn't being tongue in cheek. I can assure you I was quite serious.

[Guest ToGMom]

Yes, you have to have parent consent to get BC pills even at the health dept. unless you are of legal age of consent.

 

Put simply....NOT true. I know of more than one 15 year old that has gone to the local Planned Parenthood office and receive an exam and BC pills -- WITHOUT the parent knowing.

 

Then, one of the 15 year olds was able to go to the local ER & pharmacy and get the "morning after pill" and charge everything to their insurance WITHOUT their knowledge or consent. (they were her legal state-appointed guardians)

[Mommee & Baba]

I guess I don't have much more to say about this situation than...

 

THANK goodness we are homeschooling our children AND making a stand in their lives.

 

I don't want to think of my children having sexual relations, I know they will one day. BUT when they do I want them to be more than prepared and grounded. When they are in elementary school I want them to focus on their education not romantic or sexual relationships.

[Tidbits of Learning]

Put simply....NOT true. I know of more than one 15 year old that has gone to the local Planned Parenthood office and receive an exam and BC pills -- WITHOUT the parent knowing.

 

Then, one of the 15 year olds was able to go to the local ER & pharmacy and get the "morning after pill" and charge everything to their insurance WITHOUT their knowledge or consent. (they were her legal state-appointed guardians)

 

It depends on your state. Every state has different laws and regulations about this...As each state has a different age of consent. I can't see a planned parenthood seeing a 6 yr old and giving them a gyn exam and birth control pills. Planned parenthood is not the same as the health department. As far as I know planned parenthood isn't govt. funded, they are funded by donations. The health dept. is govt. funded and follows the laws of the govt.

[Mejane]

Really???? No snark intended back at ya....;)

 

Nope, meant it sincerely.

 

I'd love to live in a world where all parents would know where their children were and what they were doing with whom. Where they would arm their kids with the knowlege they need to grow into healthy, secure adults, able to protect themselves from pregnancy and STDs, and without shame for what is a natural... dare I say it? God-given human drive.

 

We don't live in that world. Not even close. :glare:

[shea]

Put simply....NOT true. I know of more than one 15 year old that has gone to the local Planned Parenthood office and receive an exam and BC pills -- WITHOUT the parent knowing.

 

Then, one of the 15 year olds was able to go to the local ER & pharmacy and get the "morning after pill" and charge everything to their insurance WITHOUT their knowledge or consent. (they were her legal state-appointed guardians)

 

This just makes me physically sick. The nonchalance of the whole thing. Oh, just hand out these pills like it's no big deal. This would infuriate me if it were my child. I'm thinking about side effects and even allergic reactions. My fears with this are a child having a serious reaction, and the parent not realizing the immediacy of getting the child medical help because they have no idea they were given these pills.

My sister-in-law had a friend who died from a prescription medicine. They found her dead in her bedroom from a medicine that most people probably wouldn't think twice about taking.

Sue

[Colleen]

 

No, I wasn't being tongue in cheek. I can assure you I was quite serious.

I know you were being serious, Natalie; I don't believe, though, that any one camp has co-opted the "agenda pushing" terminology. My "agenda" (such as it is) is anathema to many self-titled Christian conservatives, but I think people on the left are as guilty as those on the right when it comes to accusatory lingo. Having said that, what simultaneously irks and amuses me is the manner in which the word "liberal" is bandied about. A very dirty word, indeed.;)

 

[Colleen]

 

Then homeschoolers can take over the world.

Egads! That's not a particularly appealing thought.

 

[hornblower]

This would infuriate me if it were my child. I'm thinking about side effects and even allergic reactions. My fears with this are a child having a serious reaction, and the parent not realizing the immediacy of getting the child medical help because they have no idea they were given these pills.

 

But if this was your child, you'd have no clue your child was engaging in sexual intercourse. Think about it. If your kid was able to go to the clinic and get bc without your knowledge, they can be having sex without your knowledge.

 

The kids are actually showing pretty decent maturity by taking precautions. The hcp's at these centers educate on std's and also have information about drugs, alcohol abuse, violence against women etc. They also don't just hand out prescription meds like they're tic tac's. The patients are seen by a physician or someone with prescribing authority who take a medical history & dispenses the meds just like any other reputable hcp, advising of risks and side effects.

[Robyn]

It is very nice to be liberal and argue a point, but a 6 yr old boy couldn't even use a condom. They don't meet the requirements for even the smallest size. I mean come on here folks! They don't have mini-me condoms for sale.

 

They're working on this.:blink:

[secular_mom]

What science experiment would you do with a condom that couldn't be done with a balloon unless you are specifically talking about an experiment that would link the condom to sexual acts?

 

 

There are elementary schools that are k-8th and they are normally in rural areas. They also normally have separate buildings for the middle school grades. You don't have 8th graders using the facilities with a kindergarten child. Even in our elementary with k-3rd the kindergarten have their own wing and own bathrooms.

 

There is no need for them to make it available to children in the guise that they need to protect themselves when they aren't even physically capable of using the condom with another child their own age. In the case of girls, the boy in question would have to be much, much older to even use a condom. In the case of boys, they can't physically use the item for years to come and at least until puberty hits.

Let's be realistic. It may be necessary to have these items available to certain age groups, but under 10 is it really necessary? The health dept. already offers condoms to anyone. They are in big bowls like the lollipop containers at dr.'s offices.

It is about more than whether items should be available though. It is also about our rights as parents to say no we do not want our children to be given sex talks and handed condoms at 6 or 10. When I was in high school (public high school), you could only attend the sex ed/aids seminar with parental consent. So now in 15 years not only do they not need parental consent for teenagers to hear about sex/aids, but they can give the talk to a 6 yr old and give them a condom that they can't physically use...

I mean come on folks...what next, along with that case of formula and baby diapers when you leave the hospital...nurse: here is a 12 pack of condoms...parents: wait I thought we had to wait 6 weeks to have sex...nurse: Silly parents, it isn't for you, it is for you son/daughter be sure to show them how to use it and give them the talk...you never know they may touch themselves and like it...you want them to be prepared.

:auto:

 

But they aren't going to a first grade classroom and saying, "children, our school now offers free condoms and an extra free lesson about human reproduction- see your guidance counselor, teacher or principal after class". They just didn't set a minimum age limit. I don't think they are handing them out at assemblies as the children enter the gym, or in lunch lines, or just hanging them up on the walls and saying 'condoms for EVERYONE!!!!!'. :lol: (can you picture that? what a hoot, it's like a bad made for tv movie or something)

As for science experiments, that's not for me to come up with, just a possible scenario that came to mind. I doubt a K student would come up with a project using condoms, but maybe a slightly older student with older siblings or who has been more... educated... would come up with something. I'm not married to the idea though :D.

[shea]

But if this was your child, you'd have no clue your child was engaging in sexual intercourse. Think about it. If your kid was able to go to the clinic and get bc without your knowledge, they can be having sex without your knowledge.

 

Are you talking in general terms? I happen to have a very close and open relationship with my child. My child knows that she can come to me or her father and either one of us would take her to the doctor for her BC. Besides, both my kids are homebodies. I know where they are at every minute of the day . :001_smile:

 

The kids are actually showing pretty decent maturity by taking precautions. The hcp's at these centers educate on std's and also have information about drugs, alcohol abuse, violence against women etc. They also don't just hand out prescription meds like they're tic tac's. The patients are seen by a physician or someone with prescribing authority who take a medical history & dispenses the meds just like any other reputable hcp, advising of risks and side effects.

 

No, I don't think that they just walk in and are given these pills without being checked out medically. We are talking about minors here. Young adults we are responsible for. They shouldn't be being given prescription meds without a parent's consent or knowledge. As I stated, the possibility of allergic reactions and of side effects concerns me. My sister-in-law's friend died from a PRESCRIPTION medicine. She obviously had to have seen her doctor to get this prescription, and I'm sure her doctor had her medical history and did an exam.

Sue

Edited June 25, 2010 by suenc

[Retired]

I am a Conservative Christian now at age 40. I have taught my boys that sex is special and hopefully for marriage only.

 

But during my teen years I was not a Christian, I was being raised in a very conservative Christian home. I ask my mom to put me on birth control. She cried and then told me to leave.

 

I lived in a small town and to embarrassed to get condoms. I couldn't go to a health department to age 18.

 

I wish that our world was without sin but since that world does not exists. I do think having a source for birth control and condoms are a good thing.

 

I wish they were not needed. I really don't think they are needed in the early grades. I guess the sad fact is around the onset of puberty there should be a resource for the kids.

 

My parents would of never helped me and I was d*mn and determine to have sex in high school (not elementary and middle school) Its by God's saving grace that I didn't come up pregnant or catch anything.

 

My kids know how I feel regarding sex but they also know that I would be the first to buy condoms for them. I can't change their heart, action or desires. They have to have their own convictions.

 

I really do think the parent should be involved and stuff but as the case with my parents they had their convictions and wouldn't help me know matter what.

 

I know I would rather a young girl have access to birth control and condom and use them properly stead of having a abortion.

[fivetails]

The patients are seen by a physician or someone with prescribing authority who take a medical history & dispenses the meds just like any other reputable hcp, advising of risks and side effects.

 

I would be very concerned that a young person may not be able* to give a comprehensive medical history of themselves - or fully understand the risks and potential side effects/conflicts/etc with the meds.

 

*or be willing

[hornblower]

Are you talking in general terms? I happen to have a very close and open relationship with my child. My child knows that she can come to me or her father and either one of us would take her to the doctor for her BC. Besides, both my kids are homebodies. I know where they are at every minute of the day .

 

You said this would infuriate you if this were your child.

 

I'm merely pointing out that either this would never be your child - so why even consider it & consider your emotions, OR it could be your child, in which case they COULD also get pregnant.

 

It can't run both ways. IF your relationship or circumstances are such that it's not possible, then why even consider it?

 

The thing about dying from scrips? Well jee - that's pretty rare. Much more common for parents to be completely oblivious that their kids have std's or are pregnant.

[hornblower]

I would be very concerned that a young person may not be able* to give a comprehensive medical history of themselves - or fully understand the risks and potential side effects/conflicts/etc with the meds.

 

*or be willing

 

You know, I get your concern. But IF they're old enough to have sex & mature enough to consult an hcp, we just have to hope that they'll be honest. Most hcp's in these circumstances are pretty good at establishing a rapport & finding out all sorts of things.

 

I'm not sure what the ideal world would look like with this. A family dr who will honor privacy? A family who will take their kids? I dunno.

 

I'm just glad that for these kids, the resource exists. Sure there is a small chance of some medicine interaction etc. But the chance of them getting pregnant or an std is much, much greater.

[Tidbits of Learning]

But they aren't going to a first grade classroom and saying, "children, our school now offers free condoms and an extra free lesson about human reproduction- see your guidance counselor, teacher or principal after class". They just didn't set a minimum age limit. I don't think they are handing them out at assemblies as the children enter the gym, or in lunch lines, or just hanging them up on the walls and saying 'condoms for EVERYONE!!!!!'. :lol: (can you picture that? what a hoot, it's like a bad made for tv movie or something)

As for science experiments, that's not for me to come up with, just a possible scenario that came to mind. I doubt a K student would come up with a project using condoms, but maybe a slightly older student with older siblings or who has been more... educated... would come up with something. I'm not married to the idea though :D.

Well, I think that younger children pick up on things from older friends and older siblings. I am sure that there will be a 6 yr old that has a 10 yr old brother or sister and will ask eventually. Having seen how they hand out condoms at schools and make them available...it will probably be in a big fish bowl in the nurses office to grab and see for everyone.

My senior year they implemented child care for the parents that were still in school. It can either be seen as a way to keep kids in school or as the low point of my graduating class. I had friends that had toddlers. I had friends that were late for class their first day of senior year b/c they had to take their child to their first day of kindergarten. These friends all lived with their parents and none were still with the other parent of their children.

It is sad. You can think what you want, but it is a license to throw away your childhood.

[secular_mom]

 

It is sad. You can think what you want, but it is a license to throw away your childhood.

We had teen moms in my schools from 7th grade and up. They didn't hand out condoms at my schools. I fail to see that offering condoms to children who are having sex ANYWAY = 'a license to throw away your childhood'.

Some children aren't 'allowed' to have a 'childhood' because of abusive parents or neglectful parents and/or other difficult situations. "Innocence" is not guaranteed for anyone, and it surely is not a requirement. Though I do not equate ignorance of human reproduction with innocence.

[shea]

You said this would infuriate you if this were your child.

 

I'm merely pointing out that either this would never be your child - so why even consider it & consider your emotions, OR it could be your child, in which case they COULD also get pregnant.

 

It can't run both ways. IF your relationship or circumstances are such that it's not possible, then why even consider it?

 

:blink: Sooo, because my relationship is such that it's not possible, I shouldn't even consider the possibility that it could happen? I shouldn't consider how I would feel or react if it was my child? Wouldn't that make me one of those oblivious parents you refer to below. :D

 

The thing about dying from scrips? Well jee - that's pretty rare.

 

That's not very comforting when it hits so close to home. Maybe it is rare, but it still happens.

 

Much more common for parents to be completely oblivious that their kids have std's or are pregnant.

 

Sue

[Tidbits of Learning]

We had teen moms in my schools from 7th grade and up. They didn't hand out condoms at my schools. I fail to see that offering condoms to children who are having sex ANYWAY = 'a license to throw away your childhood'.

Some children aren't 'allowed' to have a 'childhood' because of abusive parents or neglectful parents and/or other difficult situations. "Innocence" is not guaranteed for anyone, and it surely is not a requirement. Though I do not equate ignorance of human reproduction with innocence.

 

That is you, this is me. I don't want my children to take on the emotional and physical requirements of intimacy when they are just a babe themselves. It isn't just a simple act. If we were animals, then maybe it would just be a baser instinct. As it is, we were given minds and intellect.

Childhood to me means being able to freely play and enjoy life without the stress and requirements of adulthood. When you take on sex, you take on the act of an adult that understands those requirements and consequences.

I would not have my children ignorant of human production and they are not. However, I do not believe it is the school's job to tell me what I can or can't be involved with in this discussion. This school has said that the school overrides the parental unit.

They aren't offering condoms to just students who are having sex anyway. We aren't talking about high school or middle school. We are talking about elementary school. These kids are just that kids. Most not even at the age of puberty.

If you want to argue this point, then go out on the street and start handing condoms to children age 6-12 and then watch their parents come after your argument of they were going to have sex anyway. Just because it is a school doing it doesn't make it right.

You are free to believe what you want, but a child that is not exposed to sex at a young age and peers having sex and discussing it with them are not going to seek out sex at an elementary school age.

 

BTW, I used the word childhood not the term innocence. They have two very different meanings.

Edited June 25, 2010 by OpenMinded

[hornblower]

Two things I think about are:

 

1) I'm not so sure that our lovely water color romantic paintings of bygone days are really representative of the times.

 

Throughout most of the 19th century, the minimum age of consent for sexual intercourse in most American states was 10 years. In Delaware it was only 7 years.

 

As late as 1930, twelve states allowed boys as young as 14 and girls as young as 12 to marry (with parental consent).

 

 

The History of Marriage as an Institution

 

So when I think back of those 'good old days' & children being children, it's clear it wasn't all roses and sunshine and toy boats and fishing by the stream until the kiddies reached their 20's.

 

2) the other thing I wonder about are the religious break away sects which have very young girls married off to members of the group. (of course the parents consent) Should we all be just ok with that? Does the state/the community have any say in how the kids are raised or should it all be just the parents' wishes?

 

I realize these are the old stand by's on a hs board. They'll never go away b/e they're so fundamental in this endless pursuit of a balancing act between parental rights on one hand & community obligations to set standards for the protection of those who are not able to speak for themselves.....

[Nicole M]

We had teen moms in my schools from 7th grade and up. They didn't hand out condoms at my schools. I fail to see that offering condoms to children who are having sex ANYWAY = 'a license to throw away your childhood'.

Some children aren't 'allowed' to have a 'childhood' because of abusive parents or neglectful parents and/or other difficult situations. "Innocence" is not guaranteed for anyone, and it surely is not a requirement. Though I do not equate ignorance of human reproduction with innocence.

 

I agree. And this might be an appropriate moment to point out, once again, that between half and two thirds of the fathers of babies born to teen mothers in this country are over 21. We're talking about men in their 20s and 30s having sex with girls as young as 12 and 13. Now those girls may not be able to convince a grown man to use a condom, but I sure as heck want them to have access to condom.

[secular_mom]

 

 

Childhood to me means being able to freely play and enjoy life without the stress and requirements of adulthood. When you take on sex, you take on the act of an adult that understands those requirements and consequences.

What do you mean by 'take on sex'? Do you mean engage in sexual activity?

 

I would not have my children ignorant of human production and they are not. However, I do not believe it is the school's job to tell me what I can or can't be involved with in this discussion. This school has said that the school overrides the parental unit.

I hear your frustration. I do believe that the public education system in general steps on the freedoms of people everyday. I abhor it.

 

 

They aren't offering condoms to just students who are having sex anyway. We aren't talking about high school or middle school. We are talking about elementary school. These kids are just that kids. Most not even at the age of puberty.

If you want to argue this point, then go out on the street and start handing condoms to children age 6-12 and then watch their parents come after your argument of they were going to have sex anyway. Just because it is a school doing it doesn't make it right.

You are free to believe what you want, but a child that is not exposed to sex at a young age and peers having sex and discussing it with them are not going to seek out sex at an elementary school age.

 

I guess you're right, I mean, it's not like 10 and 11 year olds are getting pregnant or acquiring STD's, so why should they be offered condoms and education on how to prevent such things? Kids AREN'T interested in sex until those crazy teachers start pushing condoms on them (whether they ask for them or not) and telling them that they are going to have sex anyway so they might as well use a condom.

[Karenciavo]

I'm not surprised considering the district. :001_rolleyes:

[Tidbits of Learning]

What do you mean by 'take on sex'? Do you mean engage in sexual activity?

 

 

I hear your frustration. I do believe that the public education system in general steps on the freedoms of people everyday. I abhor it.

 

 

 

 

I guess you're right, I mean, it's not like 10 and 11 year olds are getting pregnant or acquiring STD's, so why should they be offered condoms and education on how to prevent such things? Kids AREN'T interested in sex until those crazy teachers start pushing condoms on them (whether they ask for them or not) and telling them that they are going to have sex anyway so they might as well use a condom.

 

Now you are just being rude. I don't think teachers push condoms on children, but most children aren't sexually curious before puberty unless they have some previous exposure and knowledge. You used the generalization that these kids were having sex anyway. Go out on the street and find me that the majority of elementary school kids grades k-5th grade only are having sex. Prove it. It isn't the norm. It is the exception.

The majority of 10 and 11 year olds are not getting pregnant and are not acquiring STD's. If you can find something that says over 50% of 10 and 11 year olds are plagued with this dilemma then it is justified. I am not talking teen pregnancy numbers or 10% or 20% I am talking a majority of children in this age bracket that would appropriate such a drastic measure that a school district would tackle the job of supplying them with the tools and knowledge to avoid such a sad and inevitable fate of being pregnant or having an STD.

Snarky is as snarky does. Go ahead, pitch the idea to your school board. This is only news b/c the media drags up the most sensational, ridiculous stories to get the most viewers. Just like we are all playing with swords in the front yard and letting the kids decide to watch video games and tv as homeschoolers ;)

Take on sex does not just mean the act. READ the words I wrote. There is a big difference between physically being able to have sex and being ready for sex. It is a heady experience with high emotions and repercussions. I can tell my children the differences and speak from my experiences both good and bad. I can tell them things that a school nurse will not be able to divulge. It isn't just a physical act. It may be for animals, but I don't consider the human species to be on that level. We have brains and emotions. Sex is a powerful act that can have long and lasting effects that do not include pregnancy and std's. A school worker is not going to convey that to a horny kid.

You have a wonderful way of comprehending things the way you want them to read. I happen to be very liberal and believe in sexual education and birth control. I do think that a parent should have the right to opt out of their children being exposed to someone else's viewpoint on the subject. I just happen to believe it is my place not a could care less school workers to give my kids the birds and bees speech as well as don't you bring home a baby b/c I am not raising it.

I'm sure you will pick and choose what sound bites from this that you want to respond to as well. By chance, do you carry a press pass ;)

Edited June 25, 2010 by OpenMinded

[Mrs Mungo]

I'm not surprised considering the district. :001_rolleyes:

 

Me either, Massachusetts has one of the lowest teen pregnancy rates in the country.

[secular_mom]

Now you are just being rude. I don't think teachers push condoms on children, but most children aren't sexually curious before puberty unless they have some previous exposure and knowledge. You used the generalization that these kids were having sex anyway. Go out on the street and find me that the majority of elementary school kids grades k-5th grade only are having sex. Prove it. It isn't the norm. It is the exception.

The majority of 10 and 11 year olds are not getting pregnant and are not acquiring STD's. If you can find something that says over 50% of 10 and 11 year olds are plagued with this dilemma then it is justified. I am not talking teen pregnancy numbers or 10% or 20% I am talking a majority of children in this age bracket that would appropriate such a drastic measure that a school district would tackle the job of supplying them with the tools and knowledge to avoid such a sad and inevitable fate of being pregnant or having an STD.

Snarky is as snarky does. Go ahead, pitch the idea to your school board. This is only news b/c the media drags up the most sensational, ridiculous stories to get the most viewers. Just like we are all playing with swords in the front yard and letting the kids decide to watch video games and tv as homeschoolers ;)

Take on sex does not just mean the act. READ the words I wrote. There is a big difference and physically being able to have sex and being ready for sex. It is a heady experience with high emotions and repercussions.

You have a wonderful way of comprehending things the way you want them to read. I happen to be very liberal and believe in sexual education and birth control. I do think that a parent should have the right to opt out of their children being exposed to someone else's viewpoint on the subject. I just happen to believe it is my place not a could care less school workers to give my kids the birds and bees speech as well as don't you bring home a baby b/c I am not raising it.

I'm sure you will pick and choose what sound bites from this that you want to respond to as well. By chance, do you carry a press pass ;)

:lol: No, I don't carry a press pass. Don't we all 'pick and choose' what we respond to though? I don't think I'm different in that regard, than any other poster here. I said that I abhor the public education system because of it's disregard for the rights of people.

I asked for clarification on 'the words you wrote', because I wasn't sure of what you were saying. Sorry, didn't realize that asking a question to clarify something instead of making assumptions was a 'rude' thing. My bad :tongue_smilie:

 

So, really, you think that 50% of elementary aged students should be 'proven' to be sexually active before they are offered education/protection? :confused: I think that ALL children deserve to know the truth, no matter their age. Now, I DO also agree that the negative aspects of engaging in sexual activity at such a young age (including death from child birth, STD'S, complications of BC pills and abortions, etc.) should be included as a large part of such education.

 

My 'generalization' was that the kids who ARE sexually active/curious would be the ones to ask for the condoms. I don't think that a bowl of condoms on a nurse's desk will spur an outbreak of preteen orgies. ;)

 

Of course you are free to think what you will, as am I.

 

*I* think that if the stigma of being curious about sex and sex ed. were removed completely, that children who are being abused might feel more comfortable talking to someone to get help. I'm not saying that is a fact, just a thought- I'm not even saying that it's what 'should' be done. :)

[swimmermom3]

I recently read in a newspaper of an 18 years old young woman being charged with rape for having sex with a 14 year old boy. These kids should be paying attention.

 

We should all be paying attention. If your son is 17 and his girlfriend is 16, please remind him that he is legally an adult when he turns 18 and that his girlfriend is a minor. I don't care how "good" your son is; have the talk. Laws vary by state. Here, we have a mandatory reporting law. If a teacher or counselor is told by a student/patient, whatever that a minor is involved with an adult, that person must report it to the state. Whether or not the state acts on it is another story and varies by situation.

 

If I'm outraged at anyone, it's with the media, marketing, advertisers, children's clothes designers that have been successfully, imo, encouraging our children to grow up and be mini sex objects all for the sake of profit. Secondly, I'm outraged at parents who don't take the initiative and talk to their children about these issues and provide guidance and direction.

 

As far as the action taken by the schools, it just makes me sad that it's come to this. I don't find it a liberal agenda or non-Christian agenda, but more just trying to find a way to stem this very serious problem we have. Seems like putting a band aid on a gangrenous wound - it's not going to solve the problem. I'm not opposed to the band aid, but I would like to seem something that is attempting to attack the root cause.

 

Have you ever had to purchase an Abercrombie and Fitch gift card for a preteen or teen?:blushing: I would agree that this is neither a liberal or non-Christian agenda. The schools are facing serious problems. They could as many have suggested, not participate in the solution at all since we have established that it is the parents' right and responsibility to address issues regarding s*x, domestic violence, harassment, drugs, alcohol, and bullying. Could you imagine the outcry if the schools stepped back and sat on their hands? Could you imagine the environment in those schools? Perhaps it doesn't matter to you because your kids are "safe" at home. However, your children will go to college, will work along side, and yes, perhaps marry products of that environment. Schools are d*mned no matter what they do. It's a bit like finding a balanced American history book. (ETA: Janet, I didn't mean you. Hopefully this makes sense.)

 

 

I have to wonder about these parents...

 

It seems like this is just another example of a government institution telling us that those parent (wink, wink) are the reasons for all this, all the while they are telling their students that all parents are too befuddled for this.

 

What is the message here? Who is it being addressed to? It's not just being sent from the administration to those students whose parents don't care, it's being broadcast to the entire student body and a big part of this message is, your parents are not in authority, they have to do what we tell them to do.

 

"We know your parents are too stupid/mean/uncool to let you do this. We know they want you to do lame stuff that respect the laws and things. We know you better, we know what you like, we know what you want, and we will tell your parents point blank that we don't care if they don't like it. We will give it to you anyway and then we'll manipulate them into thinking they'll be the bad guys if they complain."

 

Maybe the schools in your area operate on this level. If that is the case, I am truly sorry to hear it as no one wins in that situation. In our district, there is very clear communication regarding health classes and parents are given a choice to opt out should they so desire. Both of my older kids have taken the freshman health class with my blessing. Had I already covered the topics? You bet! They did tell the kids how to correctly use condoms. Am I bothered by this? No! I know all too well that there are plenty of dads out there that are never having this discussion with their sons because they don't give a rip about the girl on the other end. After all, their son can't get pregnant. Sorry, but I want every young man out there with working apparatus to have this knowledge. Girls too, for that matter. That health teacher's coverage of stds was more complete and more convincing (gross pictures) than mine was. At the end of the day, there was no wink and no disparaging remark about parents. The kids were told flat out, that the best option was abstinence. They were told that condoms break, bc fail, and that it is darn hard work to be a teen parent.

 

I don't believe what the schools are doing encourages the behavior. While I don't agree with the way this school in question handled the issue, I can see why they chose not to make an age limit.

Edited June 25, 2010 by swimmermom3
clarification

[shea]

Me either, Massachusetts has one of the lowest teen pregnancy rates in the country.

 

This would be wonderful. If a person could trust the statistics. Call me cynical, but "statistics" or "rates" don't sway me either way. I don't trust them. Any group can manipulate statistics to prove their point of view. Consider, a group or state could manipulate the statistics to show their teen-age pregnancy rate was low so that they could claim their "XYZ" program was working. Continue our funding. Another group or state looking to receive or increase their funding could manipulate their statistics to claim high teen-age pregnancy rates. "Give us funding. We have an epidemic of teen-age pregnancies." They could be including 18 and 19 year olds (who ARE technically teenagers but of legal age; could even be married) in their statistics to bump their rate. Just a thought. :001_smile:

Sue

[Hunter's Moon]

Things like this, children as young as 1st grade having access to condoms, is what makes children have sex so young a lot of the time. Not always, because I understand some kids just do it, whether they have the resources or not, but when children have access to something, they are more likely to use it than a child who has to buy or steal the condoms.

 

Off topic, but Miley Cyrus for example. I in no way think that how she has been acting lately is okay, but people are pretty much forcing it on her. One news station said if she wanted to get more girls' attention she would have to dress/be sexier. THAT is the type of pressure she and lots of other children are under and it is ridiculous, especially when a news station is saying that. Sure, maybe she decided one day to act sexy, but I am sure there was a certain amount of publicity she thought that she needed to continue her career.

 

That is just the same way I see the condom situation. You start giving elementary school children access to free condoms, and they will begin to think that sex is alright. It would be like passing out syringes to children. I know, not THAT extreme, but the idea is the same. If syringes were passed out, it would show kids that drugs were okay. Condoms are passed out, so children think sex is okay. That is just how an elementary child's mind works. If you think about it, that is how they are taught. They are taught to believe that everything the public school does for them is for their own good.

 

So, that was my rant :rant: :lol:

[Mrs Mungo]

This would be wonderful. If a person could trust the statistics. Call me cynical, but "statistics" or "rates" don't sway me either way. I don't trust them. Any group can manipulate statistics to prove their point of view. Consider, a group or state could manipulate the statistics to show their teen-age pregnancy rate was low so that they could claim their "XYZ" program was working. Continue our funding. Another group or state looking to receive or increase their funding could manipulate their statistics to claim high teen-age pregnancy rates. "Give us funding. We have an epidemic of teen-age pregnancies." They could be including 18 and 19 year olds (who ARE technically teenagers but of legal age; could even be married) in their statistics to bump their rate. Just a thought. :001_smile:

Sue

 

Let's look at the breakdown by age.

 

http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/state-data/state-comparisions.asp?id=3&sID=19

 

Yes, stats are higher for girls 18-19, but 30 out of 1,000 girls 13-17 were pregnant in Massachusetts, compared to 48 in Alabama.

[shea]

Let's look at the breakdown by age.

 

http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/state-data/state-comparisions.asp?id=3&sID=19

 

Yes, stats are higher for girls 18-19, but 30 out of 1,000 girls 13-17 were pregnant in Massachusetts, compared to 48 in Alabama.

 

These rates assume that all teen-age pregnancies are being reported accurately in every state. I don't believe these rates to be 100% reliable. See, I said you could call me cynical. :D

Sue

[Caroline]

I teach high school in a school district that teaches abstinence only. We do not give out condoms in our schools at any level. I teach calculus, both AP and multivariable. These are the hardest classes in the school, and I always have the top students in the school in my classes. I have yet to teach a semester without pregnant girls in my class. These are smart girls. I don't think there would be more sex going on if we gave out condoms.

 

If your (universal your, not anyone specific) child is having sex and not telling you, it isn't because the public school is giving out condoms. If you don't want your kid to have condoms, tell him not to have sex. But don't for a minute think that a public school nurse is the only place he can get a condom. Condoms are not locked up at Target, and the cashier isn't going to stop anyone from buying one.

[Mejane]

Things like this, children as young as 1st grade having access to condoms, is what makes children have sex so young a lot of the time. Not always, because I understand some kids just do it, whether they have the resources or not, but when children have access to something, they are more likely to use it than a child who has to buy or steal the condoms.

 

 

I think you might be giving condoms a bit too much power here. If a kid is determined to have sex, s/he is going to do it with or without a condom. If a kid isn't interested, making condoms available isn't going to suddenly set them afire. My kids know where my husband stores the condoms. To my knowlege, neither of them has rushed out willy-nilly clutching a handful in search of a partner to use them with.

[secular_mom]

 

To my knowlege, neither of them has rushed out willy-nilly clutching a handful in search of a partner to use them with.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

[MelanieM]

Things like this, children as young as 1st grade having access to condoms, is what makes children have sex so young a lot of the time. Not always, because I understand some kids just do it, whether they have the resources or not, but when children have access to something, they are more likely to use it than a child who has to buy or steal the condoms.

 

I know many people hold this opinion, but I confess that I find this to be a bizarre perspective. I don't think kids having condoms makes them more likely to have sex. I think it might make them more likely to *use a condom* when they're having sex. And really, if they're going to have sex, I want them protected.

 

As for this particular situation, it sounds to me like they're simply saying they want to have condoms available so that kids who *are* choosing to be sexually active have somewhere to go to get protection. I imagine that those requests for condoms are going to come with a little conversation and education, so perhaps this is a way to save some kids from themselves rather than encourage more kids to have sex.

 

I understand not wanting to set an age restriction, and fully support that. In fact, I think setting an age restriction is more likely to come across as normalizing sex at a certain age. Think about the difference between a 10 year old knowing that the office has condoms for anyone who needs them and a 10 year old knowing that the office has condoms for 10+ year olds. Doesn't the latter somehow suggest that if you're over 10 you must be ready for condoms, and therefore ready for sex? I know the kids in my world put a lot of emphasis on being old enough for XYZ. Any time there's an age restriction you can bet they're pointing out when they've crossed the line and are now allowed to partake.

[Nakia]

Things like this, children as young as 1st grade having access to condoms, is what makes children have sex so young a lot of the time. Not always, because I understand some kids just do it, whether they have the resources or not, but when children have access to something, they are more likely to use it than a child who has to buy or steal the condoms.

 

 

 

I think you might be giving condoms a bit too much power here. If a kid is determined to have sex, s/he is going to do it with or without a condom. If a kid isn't interested, making condoms available isn't going to suddenly set them afire. My kids know where my husband stores the condoms. To my knowlege, neither of them has rushed out willy-nilly clutching a handful in search of a partner to use them with.

 

Agreeing with Mejane! I don't think accessible condoms makes kids want to have sex younger or sooner. What makes kids want to have sex younger and sooner is all the sexualization of children in our society, lack of discipline and adequate role models, and plain ole' hormones, among many other things.

 

I can't find it now, but whomever said teens can't get birth control pills for free at the public health depts is wrong. I did, at 15, with no parent consent. And I'm not that old, so it wasn't that long ago. I hope my girls don't have sex outside of a loving committed relationship as an adult, but if they do, and they "can't" talk to me about it, I want them to have access to forms of protection.

Edited June 26, 2010 by Nakia