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

[Mommyfaithe]

I'm having a hard time understanding how you're getting from A to B here. Giving a child a condom isn't helping them to have sex. It is helping to protect them if they decide to have sex, sure. But keeping condoms from them isn't keeping sex from them, and giving condoms to them isn't promoting sexual behaviour or undermining a parent's opinion that sex isn't ok for their kid.

 

I do understand how it might happen that a parent says "no sex for you!" and the kid gets a condom from the school anyway... but the school isn't causing a parenting issue in that instance.

 

I guess the bottom line is that condoms and education do not take children who are otherwise uninterested in sex and turn them into sex fiends. If we think that our parenting holds so little sway that access to condoms promotes such a departure from what we are teaching our kids, then we are obviously on very thin ice with our children in the first place.

 

 

I disagree. This is like saying that handing a whiskey sour to a kid is not going to make him drink. Condoms are for sex. There is no other purpose (other than water balloons :tongue_smilie:) of a condom.

 

I don't keep my liquor cabinet unlocked. You need to be 21 to legally drink. So, maybe if a kid is going to drink, we should teach them to do it responsibly...even though it is really bad for their health?? Sex is not meant for kids. How about teaching that???

 

Giving a drink to an underage kid is not going to turn them into an alcoholic, but it certainly opens the door...and I am not willing to be the doorman on that one either.

 

Faithe

[Guest aquiverfull]

One word-- unbelievable. That is just going too far. I can't believe that the schools are taking this much freedom with public school children!!!

[Nakia]

Can someone please tell me at what age it becomes legal to have sex? I really don't know.

[Nakia]

I just found this website http://www.avert.org/age-of-consent.htm

 

The legal age to have sex varies from state to state and country to country according to this site. So if you live in a state that says it is illegal for anyone under 18 to have sex, do you believe that a 17 year old should not be provided condoms?

[Mommyfaithe]

I just found this website http://www.avert.org/age-of-consent.htm

 

The legal age to have sex varies from state to state and country to country according to this site. So if you live in a state that says it is illegal for anyone under 18 to have sex, do you believe that a 17 year old should not be provided condoms?

 

I think if you are "grown up" enough to have sex and you are mature enough to handle it...and possibly a resulting child and if you are responsible enough to make that decision, you should be old enough to buy your own rubbers. It is ridiculous that tax money goes into projects like this! If parents feel the need to provide their kids with condoms...so be it...If a doctor wants to hand out samples...fine...

 

BUT, I do not think condom possession is a civil right.

 

Faithe (who has been hee way too much today because Dh has the kids and I am shirking my responsibilty to begin next years planning!

 

Faithe

[Tidbits of Learning]

One word-- unbelievable. That is just going too far. I can't believe that the schools are taking this much freedom with public school children!!!

:iagree:As a former public school parent, I am in shock that they take the liberties that they do and the parents are clueless even when they are involved in school activities. I didn't go to public school until high school and sending my children to public elementary school was an education in itself for me.

[lionfamily1999]

I just found this website http://www.avert.org/age-of-consent.htm

 

The legal age to have sex varies from state to state and country to country according to this site. So if you live in a state that says it is illegal for anyone under 18 to have sex, do you believe that a 17 year old should not be provided condoms?

I think it's pretty counterintuitive for a government entity to provide the tools to break their own laws.

 

All the same, the average is 16, the youngest is Florida with 14.

[Hunter's Moon]

I'm having a hard time understanding how you're getting from A to B here. Giving a child a condom isn't helping them to have sex. It is helping to protect them if they decide to have sex, sure. But keeping condoms from them isn't keeping sex from them, and giving condoms to them isn't promoting sexual behaviour or undermining a parent's opinion that sex isn't ok for their kid.

 

I do understand how it might happen that a parent says "no sex for you!" and the kid gets a condom from the school anyway... but the school isn't causing a parenting issue in that instance.

 

I guess the bottom line is that condoms and education do not take children who are otherwise uninterested in sex and turn them into sex fiends. If we think that our parenting holds so little sway that access to condoms promotes such a departure from what we are teaching our kids, then we are obviously on very thin ice with our children in the first place.

So why can't the public schools fund a seminar on how illegal sex is at such a young age? Health class is sugar coated in public schools. I was taught that sex can result in babies or disease, but using a condom can help prevent it. We were never told of the emotional scars that could result. We were never told it was illegal. There was a pregnant girl in my health class and the health teacher talked to her like she was just another 30-something year old woman having a baby. She would tell her of the joys of parenthood and all the cute little things she could buy for the baby and all the love the baby would give to her. Wouldn't that sound appealing to anyone who was neglected at home? Wouldn't that make the other girls listening who didn't feel loved want to go out and have a baby? I am sure not all public school health classes are like that, but still, children are being sent mixed messages no matter where they are.

 

Actually, where the argument comes is over responsibility.

 

As a PP said, we all do agree that young children shouldn't have sex. And we do agree that young children should be protected from life-long consequences (babies and STDs) that they don't even understand.

 

But - should their parents be ultimately responsible for keeping them safe and dealing with the consequences if they are not safe, or should the schools?

 

Don't kid yourselves. Kids with good conscientious parents still have sex and even if the parent gives them access to condoms, and some still have either unprotected sex by choice or laziness. Having a school program isn't going to change all the statistics.

 

We don't like the fact that kids end up reaping the consequences of their own decisions. Usually we can mitigate that by monitoring kids so that they don't run out into the street and other things that might have dire consequences. But honestly, if there is a negligent parent (and at times of course just a tragic accident) there can be very bad things that happen to kids. And handing over the responsibility to the state isn't going to change that reality.

 

Some parents choose to protect their kids from sexual consequences by teaching them a worldview/values that postpones sexual behavior to adulthood, some choose to protect them by teaching them the facts so that they aren't naive, some choose to protect them by giving them condoms or B.C., some by monitoring their behavior/activities/friends. Most use one or more of the above. Absolutely none of those ways of protecting your children can totally protect a child barring some kind of male as well as female chastity belt, and even then what do you do to protect them STDs that can develop in the mouth?

 

I believe that the responsibility needs to remain with the parents even though some are negligent. And some responsibility lies with the kids themselves even if they seem too young to handle it (though if they are young enough to engage in this activity they should be old enough to understand something of personal responsibility. And I believe that no matter what you do, you can't protect kids from life's consequences 100%.

 

I whole heartedly agree with you!

 

I just found this website http://www.avert.org/age-of-consent.htm

 

The legal age to have sex varies from state to state and country to country according to this site. So if you live in a state that says it is illegal for anyone under 18 to have sex, do you believe that a 17 year old should not be provided condoms?

 

Children at the age of 17 have the sense to search online for their nearest teen sex clinic where that can get condoms for free. I am sure hospitals give them out for free too.

 

I don't believe schools should be illegally supplying children with condoms at the age of 10 or 11 or 12 or whatever. If 18 is the legal age, they shouldn't give condoms to kids who are 17, even if they're 17 3/4! If a 17 year old wants to have sex that bad they will find a free sex clinic and get a condom. If they don't do that, THEY need to take responsibility for the pregnancy or disease that may occur. I feel the same about an elementary school student. If they want sex that bad, they should find free access to condoms as well because obviously if they're old enough to make their own decisions like having sex, they should be able to make their own decisions about protecting themselves. If they can't, then obviously they weren't ready for sex. That is THEIR responsibility and the responsibility of their parent or guardian.

[MelanieM]

Hmmm... The argument about sex being illegal is an interesting one. I hadn't considered that, and am mulling over my opinions on the matter as it pertains to the legal age of consent.

 

I do think the biggest challenge is the desire for parents to have it both ways where schools are concerned. On the one hand, they don't want the schools doing things they disapprove of. On the other hand, they want the schools raising their kids. (The whole "it's your job, deal with it" attitude.) I think as long as we expect schools to be substitute parents, we are going to have issues with them doing things that disagree with some people's parenting approach.

 

Challenging stuff.

[Gratia271]

Preparing to possibly get flamed for this response :D, but I'll post it anyway.

 

I strongly oppose the concept of the school as we know it today - in my view, schools have shifted from being almost exclusively academic institutions to being a sort of prolonged daycare, a place in which we send children also to fulfill their sports needs, to have lengthy breaks between academics which are also a purpose for itself ("socializing"), to get psychological support and whatnot and, amongst other things, to learn a thing or two. So, in such a context - school being a sort of "second family" of the children who attend it - it's understandable that they would want to go past the theoretical education about intimacy in Biology lessons, and arrange all kinds of talks about it, offer condoms to children, arrange them visits to doctors if they request, and so on.

 

One of the main reasons why we homeschool (other than the general insufficiency of the American school system for the type of education we want for our children) is because, well, we don't want the school to be our children's "second family" which will have the power of direct ideological influence over them (as opposed to 'only' subtle ideology that each school system is naturally based on) and the power of treating them on a "living room" level too in addition to the "classroom" level, if you get what I mean. I want to send my kids to a "classroom", not to a "classroom + living room + playground" (with all three components being equally important in these "modern" schools) when I send my children to a school.

I can deal with the ideology I disagree with, to a point. I can deal with it, if it's incorporated in the classroom - then I can address it at home. When it's incorporated in the overall lifestyle of a school, when sending a child to a school is like sending them to another family to spend their day with (and when schools boast about "family atmosphere" and parents are actually buying that without knowing what it actually means!), things like this start going on - infiltrating, on a very practical rather than a theoretical level, into other spheres of a child's life.

 

While I perfectly understand that a school cares about its students and their well-being past the direct academic component they're giving them, I strongly disagree with giving the 'right' to the school to interfere in the "living room" component without a reason too. I don't know how to say this nicely so I'll just be blunt - I don't think pregnant kids, or kids who are having relations, are school's business AT ALL. Schools are there to teach proper Biology, which includes the physiology of the relevant body parts, period. What kids do at home in their free time is essentially not the school's business. Schools shouldn't be health counseling, public health offices, handing out or offering whatever they please, interfering in general.

 

So, while I absolutely will stand up for proper Biology education (not even for specific Sex Ed - regular Biology classes could more than cover the topic, by giving it a special class you're again assigning importance and making it an issue), I definitely disagree with the school organizing or promoting anything of this kind.

 

It's not the issue of whether having an access to condoms is good or bad, leads to this or that - it's the issue of school infiltrating into the sphere of their students' lives it shouldn't infiltrate in. (By default, I believe schools should interfere in non-academic spheres of a child's life when and only if there is a suspect of any type of abuse at home/school - and the cases of latter can seriously be cut to minimum if we give up the notion of the "living room" and "playground" at school and go back to the "classroom" concept of schools, and leaving family issues to family and free time to free time outside of school; it would also considerably shorten the school day.)

 

So, theoretical education - yes, as a part of regular school classes, and mandatory. Practical education, access to this or that, offering condoms - no.

 

I don't think schools should address anything other than the academic needs of the children, with regards to this and other issues. And yes, I know I'm an extremist in that aspect, and coming from a perspective probably totally foreign to most of those of you accustomed to think of schools as "all-inclusive" services where you drop your child to spend the day.

 

The school I went to didn't make me talk about my intimacy, listen about other people's intimacies, pose to be my mom to give me "life advices", or make a public issue out of what is and SHOULD be a very private one. (I can't help it, usually I'm not very conservative, but I can't begin to explain to you how deeply convinced I am that intimacy and relations ARE and absolutely SHOULD belong to the private, rather than the public sphere, despite - and in fact, in spite - of all the sickness of our media.) They did what they should have done with regards to that aspect: taught me Biology and made me pass regular exams on the relevant body parts and processes (in a few cycles on all stages of education, with appropriate complexity), just like on the other ones. And that's, in my opinion, exactly how it should be handled - no less, AND NO MORE.

 

:iagree:

[FloridaLisa]

Preparing to possibly get flamed for this response :D, but I'll post it anyway.

 

I strongly oppose the concept of the school as we know it today - in my view, schools have shifted from being almost exclusively academic institutions to being a sort of prolonged daycare, a place in which we send children also to fulfill their sports needs, to have lengthy breaks between academics which are also a purpose for itself ("socializing"), to get psychological support and whatnot and, amongst other things, to learn a thing or two. So, in such a context - school being a sort of "second family" of the children who attend it - it's understandable that they would want to go past the theoretical education about intimacy in Biology lessons, and arrange all kinds of talks about it, offer condoms to children, arrange them visits to doctors if they request, and so on.

 

One of the main reasons why we homeschool (other than the general insufficiency of the American school system for the type of education we want for our children) is because, well, we don't want the school to be our children's "second family" which will have the power of direct ideological influence over them (as opposed to 'only' subtle ideology that each school system is naturally based on) and the power of treating them on a "living room" level too in addition to the "classroom" level, if you get what I mean. I want to send my kids to a "classroom", not to a "classroom + living room + playground" (with all three components being equally important in these "modern" schools) when I send my children to a school.

I can deal with the ideology I disagree with, to a point. I can deal with it, if it's incorporated in the classroom - then I can address it at home. When it's incorporated in the overall lifestyle of a school, when sending a child to a school is like sending them to another family to spend their day with (and when schools boast about "family atmosphere" and parents are actually buying that without knowing what it actually means!), things like this start going on - infiltrating, on a very practical rather than a theoretical level, into other spheres of a child's life.

 

While I perfectly understand that a school cares about its students and their well-being past the direct academic component they're giving them, I strongly disagree with giving the 'right' to the school to interfere in the "living room" component without a reason too. I don't know how to say this nicely so I'll just be blunt - I don't think pregnant kids, or kids who are having relations, are school's business AT ALL. Schools are there to teach proper Biology, which includes the physiology of the relevant body parts, period. What kids do at home in their free time is essentially not the school's business. Schools shouldn't be health counseling, public health offices, handing out or offering whatever they please, interfering in general.

 

So, while I absolutely will stand up for proper Biology education (not even for specific Sex Ed - regular Biology classes could more than cover the topic, by giving it a special class you're again assigning importance and making it an issue), I definitely disagree with the school organizing or promoting anything of this kind.

 

It's not the issue of whether having an access to condoms is good or bad, leads to this or that - it's the issue of school infiltrating into the sphere of their students' lives it shouldn't infiltrate in. (By default, I believe schools should interfere in non-academic spheres of a child's life when and only if there is a suspect of any type of abuse at home/school - and the cases of latter can seriously be cut to minimum if we give up the notion of the "living room" and "playground" at school and go back to the "classroom" concept of schools, and leaving family issues to family and free time to free time outside of school; it would also considerably shorten the school day.)

 

So, theoretical education - yes, as a part of regular school classes, and mandatory. Practical education, access to this or that, offering condoms - no.

 

I don't think schools should address anything other than the academic needs of the children, with regards to this and other issues. And yes, I know I'm an extremist in that aspect, and coming from a perspective probably totally foreign to most of those of you accustomed to think of schools as "all-inclusive" services where you drop your child to spend the day.

 

The school I went to didn't make me talk about my intimacy, listen about other people's intimacies, pose to be my mom to give me "life advices", or make a public issue out of what is and SHOULD be a very private one. (I can't help it, usually I'm not very conservative, but I can't begin to explain to you how deeply convinced I am that intimacy and relations ARE and absolutely SHOULD belong to the private, rather than the public sphere, despite - and in fact, in spite - of all the sickness of our media.) They did what they should have done with regards to that aspect: taught me Biology and made me pass regular exams on the relevant body parts and processes (in a few cycles on all stages of education, with appropriate complexity), just like on the other ones. And that's, in my opinion, exactly how it should be handled - no less, AND NO MORE.

 

:iagree: No flames here.

 

Lisa

[gpsings]

Preparing to possibly get flamed for this response :D, but I'll post it anyway.

 

I strongly oppose the concept of the school as we know it today - in my view, schools have shifted from being almost exclusively academic institutions to being a sort of prolonged daycare, a place in which we send children also to fulfill their sports needs, to have lengthy breaks between academics which are also a purpose for itself ("socializing"), to get psychological support and whatnot and, amongst other things, to learn a thing or two. So, in such a context - school being a sort of "second family" of the children who attend it - it's understandable that they would want to go past the theoretical education about intimacy in Biology lessons, and arrange all kinds of talks about it, offer condoms to children, arrange them visits to doctors if they request, and so on.

 

One of the main reasons why we homeschool (other than the general insufficiency of the American school system for the type of education we want for our children) is because, well, we don't want the school to be our children's "second family" which will have the power of direct ideological influence over them (as opposed to 'only' subtle ideology that each school system is naturally based on) and the power of treating them on a "living room" level too in addition to the "classroom" level, if you get what I mean. I want to send my kids to a "classroom", not to a "classroom + living room + playground" (with all three components being equally important in these "modern" schools) when I send my children to a school.

I can deal with the ideology I disagree with, to a point. I can deal with it, if it's incorporated in the classroom - then I can address it at home. When it's incorporated in the overall lifestyle of a school, when sending a child to a school is like sending them to another family to spend their day with (and when schools boast about "family atmosphere" and parents are actually buying that without knowing what it actually means!), things like this start going on - infiltrating, on a very practical rather than a theoretical level, into other spheres of a child's life.

 

While I perfectly understand that a school cares about its students and their well-being past the direct academic component they're giving them, I strongly disagree with giving the 'right' to the school to interfere in the "living room" component without a reason too. I don't know how to say this nicely so I'll just be blunt - I don't think pregnant kids, or kids who are having relations, are school's business AT ALL. Schools are there to teach proper Biology, which includes the physiology of the relevant body parts, period. What kids do at home in their free time is essentially not the school's business. Schools shouldn't be health counseling, public health offices, handing out or offering whatever they please, interfering in general.

 

So, while I absolutely will stand up for proper Biology education (not even for specific Sex Ed - regular Biology classes could more than cover the topic, by giving it a special class you're again assigning importance and making it an issue), I definitely disagree with the school organizing or promoting anything of this kind.

 

It's not the issue of whether having an access to condoms is good or bad, leads to this or that - it's the issue of school infiltrating into the sphere of their students' lives it shouldn't infiltrate in. (By default, I believe schools should interfere in non-academic spheres of a child's life when and only if there is a suspect of any type of abuse at home/school - and the cases of latter can seriously be cut to minimum if we give up the notion of the "living room" and "playground" at school and go back to the "classroom" concept of schools, and leaving family issues to family and free time to free time outside of school; it would also considerably shorten the school day.)

 

So, theoretical education - yes, as a part of regular school classes, and mandatory. Practical education, access to this or that, offering condoms - no.

 

I don't think schools should address anything other than the academic needs of the children, with regards to this and other issues. And yes, I know I'm an extremist in that aspect, and coming from a perspective probably totally foreign to most of those of you accustomed to think of schools as "all-inclusive" services where you drop your child to spend the day.

 

The school I went to didn't make me talk about my intimacy, listen about other people's intimacies, pose to be my mom to give me "life advices", or make a public issue out of what is and SHOULD be a very private one. (I can't help it, usually I'm not very conservative, but I can't begin to explain to you how deeply convinced I am that intimacy and relations ARE and absolutely SHOULD belong to the private, rather than the public sphere, despite - and in fact, in spite - of all the sickness of our media.) They did what they should have done with regards to that aspect: taught me Biology and made me pass regular exams on the relevant body parts and processes (in a few cycles on all stages of education, with appropriate complexity), just like on the other ones. And that's, in my opinion, exactly how it should be handled - no less, AND NO MORE.

 

 

:thumbup: I think you said it perfectly.

[jazzyfizzle]

Preparing to possibly get flamed for this response :D, but I'll post it anyway.

 

I strongly oppose the concept of the school as we know it today - in my view, schools have shifted from being almost exclusively academic institutions to being a sort of prolonged daycare, a place in which we send children also to fulfill their sports needs, to have lengthy breaks between academics which are also a purpose for itself ("socializing"), to get psychological support and whatnot and, amongst other things, to learn a thing or two. So, in such a context - school being a sort of "second family" of the children who attend it - it's understandable that they would want to go past the theoretical education about intimacy in Biology lessons, and arrange all kinds of talks about it, offer condoms to children, arrange them visits to doctors if they request, and so on.

 

One of the main reasons why we homeschool (other than the general insufficiency of the American school system for the type of education we want for our children) is because, well, we don't want the school to be our children's "second family" which will have the power of direct ideological influence over them (as opposed to 'only' subtle ideology that each school system is naturally based on) and the power of treating them on a "living room" level too in addition to the "classroom" level, if you get what I mean. I want to send my kids to a "classroom", not to a "classroom + living room + playground" (with all three components being equally important in these "modern" schools) when I send my children to a school.

I can deal with the ideology I disagree with, to a point. I can deal with it, if it's incorporated in the classroom - then I can address it at home. When it's incorporated in the overall lifestyle of a school, when sending a child to a school is like sending them to another family to spend their day with (and when schools boast about "family atmosphere" and parents are actually buying that without knowing what it actually means!), things like this start going on - infiltrating, on a very practical rather than a theoretical level, into other spheres of a child's life.

 

While I perfectly understand that a school cares about its students and their well-being past the direct academic component they're giving them, I strongly disagree with giving the 'right' to the school to interfere in the "living room" component without a reason too. I don't know how to say this nicely so I'll just be blunt - I don't think pregnant kids, or kids who are having relations, are school's business AT ALL. Schools are there to teach proper Biology, which includes the physiology of the relevant body parts, period. What kids do at home in their free time is essentially not the school's business. Schools shouldn't be health counseling, public health offices, handing out or offering whatever they please, interfering in general.

 

So, while I absolutely will stand up for proper Biology education (not even for specific Sex Ed - regular Biology classes could more than cover the topic, by giving it a special class you're again assigning importance and making it an issue), I definitely disagree with the school organizing or promoting anything of this kind.

 

It's not the issue of whether having an access to condoms is good or bad, leads to this or that - it's the issue of school infiltrating into the sphere of their students' lives it shouldn't infiltrate in. (By default, I believe schools should interfere in non-academic spheres of a child's life when and only if there is a suspect of any type of abuse at home/school - and the cases of latter can seriously be cut to minimum if we give up the notion of the "living room" and "playground" at school and go back to the "classroom" concept of schools, and leaving family issues to family and free time to free time outside of school; it would also considerably shorten the school day.)

 

So, theoretical education - yes, as a part of regular school classes, and mandatory. Practical education, access to this or that, offering condoms - no.

 

I don't think schools should address anything other than the academic needs of the children, with regards to this and other issues. And yes, I know I'm an extremist in that aspect, and coming from a perspective probably totally foreign to most of those of you accustomed to think of schools as "all-inclusive" services where you drop your child to spend the day.

 

The school I went to didn't make me talk about my intimacy, listen about other people's intimacies, pose to be my mom to give me "life advices", or make a public issue out of what is and SHOULD be a very private one. (I can't help it, usually I'm not very conservative, but I can't begin to explain to you how deeply convinced I am that intimacy and relations ARE and absolutely SHOULD belong to the private, rather than the public sphere, despite - and in fact, in spite - of all the sickness of our media.) They did what they should have done with regards to that aspect: taught me Biology and made me pass regular exams on the relevant body parts and processes (in a few cycles on all stages of education, with appropriate complexity), just like on the other ones. And that's, in my opinion, exactly how it should be handled - no less, AND NO MORE.

 

 

 

Here either :iagree:

[pqr]

Preparing to possibly get flamed for this response :D, but I'll post it anyway.

 

I strongly oppose the concept of the school as we know it today - in my view, schools have shifted from being almost exclusively academic institutions to being a sort of prolonged daycare, a place in which we send children also to fulfill their sports needs, to have lengthy breaks between academics which are also a purpose for itself ("socializing"), to get psychological support and whatnot and, amongst other things, to learn a thing or two. So, in such a context - school being a sort of "second family" of the children who attend it - it's understandable that they would want to go past the theoretical education about intimacy in Biology lessons, and arrange all kinds of talks about it, offer condoms to children, arrange them visits to doctors if they request, and so on.

 

One of the main reasons why we homeschool (other than the general insufficiency of the American school system for the type of education we want for our children) is because, well, we don't want the school to be our children's "second family" which will have the power of direct ideological influence over them (as opposed to 'only' subtle ideology that each school system is naturally based on) and the power of treating them on a "living room" level too in addition to the "classroom" level, if you get what I mean. I want to send my kids to a "classroom", not to a "classroom + living room + playground" (with all three components being equally important in these "modern" schools) when I send my children to a school.

I can deal with the ideology I disagree with, to a point. I can deal with it, if it's incorporated in the classroom - then I can address it at home. When it's incorporated in the overall lifestyle of a school, when sending a child to a school is like sending them to another family to spend their day with (and when schools boast about "family atmosphere" and parents are actually buying that without knowing what it actually means!), things like this start going on - infiltrating, on a very practical rather than a theoretical level, into other spheres of a child's life.

 

While I perfectly understand that a school cares about its students and their well-being past the direct academic component they're giving them, I strongly disagree with giving the 'right' to the school to interfere in the "living room" component without a reason too. I don't know how to say this nicely so I'll just be blunt - I don't think pregnant kids, or kids who are having relations, are school's business AT ALL. Schools are there to teach proper Biology, which includes the physiology of the relevant body parts, period. What kids do at home in their free time is essentially not the school's business. Schools shouldn't be health counseling, public health offices, handing out or offering whatever they please, interfering in general.

 

So, while I absolutely will stand up for proper Biology education (not even for specific Sex Ed - regular Biology classes could more than cover the topic, by giving it a special class you're again assigning importance and making it an issue), I definitely disagree with the school organizing or promoting anything of this kind.

 

It's not the issue of whether having an access to condoms is good or bad, leads to this or that - it's the issue of school infiltrating into the sphere of their students' lives it shouldn't infiltrate in. (By default, I believe schools should interfere in non-academic spheres of a child's life when and only if there is a suspect of any type of abuse at home/school - and the cases of latter can seriously be cut to minimum if we give up the notion of the "living room" and "playground" at school and go back to the "classroom" concept of schools, and leaving family issues to family and free time to free time outside of school; it would also considerably shorten the school day.)

 

So, theoretical education - yes, as a part of regular school classes, and mandatory. Practical education, access to this or that, offering condoms - no.

 

I don't think schools should address anything other than the academic needs of the children, with regards to this and other issues. And yes, I know I'm an extremist in that aspect, and coming from a perspective probably totally foreign to most of those of you accustomed to think of schools as "all-inclusive" services where you drop your child to spend the day.

 

The school I went to didn't make me talk about my intimacy, listen about other people's intimacies, pose to be my mom to give me "life advices", or make a public issue out of what is and SHOULD be a very private one. (I can't help it, usually I'm not very conservative, but I can't begin to explain to you how deeply convinced I am that intimacy and relations ARE and absolutely SHOULD belong to the private, rather than the public sphere, despite - and in fact, in spite - of all the sickness of our media.) They did what they should have done with regards to that aspect: taught me Biology and made me pass regular exams on the relevant body parts and processes (in a few cycles on all stages of education, with appropriate complexity), just like on the other ones. And that's, in my opinion, exactly how it should be handled - no less, AND NO MORE.

 

A voice of reason.

 

It does not take a village it takes a FAMILY

 

Let me get this straight, people are actually arguing that it is acceptable for an adult to give a pre-teen condoms WITHOUT telling the parents or even over the objections of the parents?

 

I am assuming that when these are provided said individual will also instruct the pre-teen in their use, again without telling the parents?

 

What has happened to this nation? When did the idea that parents raise children become obsolete? Just another reason that I homeschool.

[Joanne]

Then this is child abuse. if you knew another child was beating another child, would you step in and stop it...or would you hand them boxing gloves?? If 2 kids agree to beat the snot out of eachother, should it be ok?? Just what are you saying? If they are going to do it anyway...que cera???

 

I just don't understand this thinking...A 8 or 10 or 12 year old can decide to have sex....with another 8 or 10 or 12 year old and this is OK?????

 

Not only is it ok, but we can assist?

 

How about Russian Roulette? Do we hand out a single bullet to each kid if they ask for it? They are going to shoot eachother anyway...maybe we should provide bullet proof vest too?? How can there be no tolerance for guns and drugs...but tolerance to kids abusing one another sexually. A child is NOT capable of making the decision to have sexual relations.

 

Really, this is how I see it.

 

What a sick society we are becoming when little kids have to be not only exposed to this garbage, but the adults do not step in and help them. (and NOT with condoms, but with love and compassion, security and protection from molestations of any kind.)

 

~~Faithe

__________________

 

Not only is this a terrible leap of logic, it's fairly insulting. Using your reasoning, I could assert that denying condoms is more like your own metaphor of "russian roulette" in that unprotected, sex having children could kill each other with aids transmission.

 

Mutual physical explorations, even early ones, is not molestation.

 

Let's look at this with honesty instead of blind, vehement passion: the children who ARE having sex at elementary ages - or are considering it - are NOT going to "listen" to "it's illegal".

 

They MAY listen to loving, impassioned, reasonable responses from adults (teachers, administration, parents) but it's far more likely non of those adults will be in the know about these kids.

 

 

 

I disagree. This is like saying that handing a whiskey sour to a kid is not going to make him drink. Condoms are for sex. There is no other purpose (other than water balloons :tongue_smilie:) of a condom.

 

I don't keep my liquor cabinet unlocked. You need to be 21 to legally drink. So, maybe if a kid is going to drink, we should teach them to do it responsibly...even though it is really bad for their health?? Sex is not meant for kids. How about teaching that???

 

Giving a drink to an underage kid is not going to turn them into an alcoholic, but it certainly opens the door...and I am not willing to be the doorman on that one either.

 

Faithe

 

Not only is "sex not meant for kids" highly biologically (and even from a Biblical history standpoint) debateable, you are assuming that those who do not vehemently oppose this policy are pro-early sex. I don't even necessarily endorse the policy - I am just not vehemently opposed.

 

I think the reality of very young children (pre-high school) having sex is fairy removed from most of us, and especially so in percentages. I percentage of elementary kids having sex is small; and the percentage OF those children who will actually ask for condoms is even smaller.

 

So, maybe if a kid is going to drink, we should teach them to do it responsibly...even though it is really bad for their health??

 

 

I *personally* teach my kids to not drink -ever - because of the genetic likelihood that they will be pouring alcohol into an alcoholic body.

 

However, there are plenty of responible parents who do allow consumption at home. The "bad for their health" is not accurate.

 

Sex is not meant for kids. How about teaching that???

 

Do you want the schools teaching sexuality at all?

If so, who gets to dictate the approach, the morality involved, the curriculum?

Or do you advocate public schools (since they won't be abolished) not address it at all?

 

BTW, no *curriculum*, teaching or campaigns were mentioned as associated with the "condom availability" policy.

 

And what about the biological reality that the interest in and desire for physical intimacy develops long before most parents here (myself included) want our children having sex?

[secular_mom]

Hmmm... The argument about sex being illegal is an interesting one. I hadn't considered that, and am mulling over my opinions on the matter as it pertains to the legal age of consent.

 

I do think the biggest challenge is the desire for parents to have it both ways where schools are concerned. On the one hand, they don't want the schools doing things they disapprove of. On the other hand, they want the schools raising their kids. (The whole "it's your job, deal with it" attitude.) I think as long as we expect schools to be substitute parents, we are going to have issues with them doing things that disagree with some people's parenting approach.

 

Challenging stuff.

Perhaps an answer would be to create schools for the parents who teach their own children about sex, and other schools for the kids who need to learn about sex. :001_smile: We could call the sex ed schools 'alternative schools'. Or maybe the schools could do some sort of survey to see which kids need to be educated about sex, and which ones don't, and they could just form special classes for those that need the extra instruction. Or maybe they could just start in kindergarten- announce that there will be a short time each day when the teacher discusses human reproduction, and the children with parents who object will be separated from the children whose parents don't object the next year, and so on and so forth.

 

Or maybe the govt. should butt out of educating children altogether, and non-profits can run schools in the way that they see fit. You could have a school that focuses on the environment, a school that focuses on teaching sex, etc. etc.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Perhaps an answer would be to create schools for the parents who teach their own children about sex, and other schools for the kids who need to learn about sex. :001_smile: We could call the sex ed schools 'alternative schools'. Or maybe the schools could do some sort of survey to see which kids need to be educated about sex, and which ones don't, and they could just form special classes for those that need the extra instruction. Or maybe they could just start in kindergarten- announce that there will be a short time each day when the teacher discusses human reproduction, and the children with parents who object will be separated from the children whose parents don't object the next year, and so on and so forth.

 

Or maybe the govt. should butt out of educating children altogether, and non-profits can run schools in the way that they see fit. You could have a school that focuses on the environment, a school that focuses on teaching sex, etc. etc.

 

No, I think the answer is to have a school environment where sexual nonsense is not tolerated. You do not have kids making out in hallways, under bleachers and in corners in many other countries. And those kids are not hormonal mutants in comparison to American kids (and vice versa). Obviously, young people going back to the beginning of time have had hormones and some have acted on them more than others. But if you have an environment that actually keeps them mentally busy and provides lots of supervision from the teachers during the time that they are with them then some of this stuff would fall off.

 

And the answer might be that if kids continue to get into trouble when parents are supposed to be supervising them (and this applies to a lot more than sexual stuff) that the trend of holding parents responsible as well as the children should be applauded and continued.

[Mommyfaithe]

Not only is this a terrible leap of logic, it's fairly insulting.I really do not see it as a leap of logic...maybe a poorly stated metaphor and I am sorry you felt insulted. I do respect you and I think it is ok to have and express different opinions. We can be friends and not agree on things.:) Using your reasoning, I could assert that denying condoms is more like your own metaphor of "russian roulette" in that unprotected, sex having children could kill each other with aids transmission. Ummmm...maybe you could say that, but I wouldn't.

 

SEX aids with STD transmission...condoms or no condoms.Condoms can and do fail...a LOT.

 

Mutual physical explorations, even early ones, is not molestation.

We are not talking about innocent "let me see yours and I will show you mine." We are talking about sexual acts performed between children and I for one am NEVER EVER going to think that is ok nor am I going to advocate condoms for kids.

Let's look at this with honesty instead of blind, vehement passion: the children who ARE having sex at elementary ages - or are considering it - are NOT going to "listen" to "it's illegal".

OK, let's look at it honestly. Neither are the ones who are smoking pot or drinking or stealing candy....BUT WE do not have to make it seem ok by providing access to these things. Watch your (plural) kids. Know where they are...who they are with...especially your little ones. Be careful who you trust with them, do not let them free on the internet or tv....SHEESH!!!! This is common sense. And don't give me the excuse that not everyone can do that. TOUGH! You have kids..take care of your kids. It isn't easy, but don't tell me it can't be done. Some will have sex...maybe...but that is not ok or normal and shouldn't be treated that way. Not gonna change my mind on this one. Sorry.

 

They MAY listen to loving, impassioned, reasonable responses from adults (teachers, administration, parents) but it's far more likely non of those adults will be in the know about these kids. REALLY??? And why is that? Why wouldn't parents be in the "know" on what their kids are doing? Why wouldn't teachers or administrators help parents KNOW what is going on with their kids and why would parents spurn the help of those they entrust their children to on a daily basis. It just baffles the heck out of me. If I trust an adult to watch over my child for a day or week or 12 years...WHY would they not tell me what I need to know and why would I as a parent resent them when they tell me?? This is why the PS system totally boggles my mind.

 

Not only is "sex not meant for kids" highly biologically (and even from a Biblical history standpoint) debateable, you are assuming that those who do not vehemently oppose this policy are pro-early sex. I don't even necessarily endorse the policy - I am just not vehemently opposed.

 

HUH??:001_huh:

 

I think the reality of very young children (pre-high school) having sex is fairy removed from most of us, and especially so in percentages. I percentage of elementary kids having sex is small; and the percentage OF those children who will actually ask for condoms is even smaller.

 

So why bother offering them?

 

 

I *personally* teach my kids to not drink -ever - because of the genetic likelihood that they will be pouring alcohol into an alcoholic body.

 

However, there are plenty of responible parents who do allow consumption at home. The "bad for their health" is not accurate. Ohhhkkkkaaayyyy....so it is healthy for kids to drink? Really?? I will have to do some research here.

 

 

 

Do you want the schools teaching sexuality at all? No.

If so, who gets to dictate the approach, the morality involved, the curriculum? Exactly why I don't think it should be taught in school

Or do you advocate public schools (since they won't be abolished) not address it at all?Only as it pertains to biology and human reproduction without all the extra bells and whistles. Keep it technical

 

BTW, no *curriculum*, teaching or campaigns were mentioned as associated with the "condom availability" policy.

No...just some really bad press coverage..over...and over...and over...and the fact that parents can't opt out or even be clued in to the fact that their OWN CHILD may be at risk for std's, pregnancies or even a rape charge.

And what about the biological reality that the interest in and desire for physical intimacy develops long before most parents here (myself included) want our children having sex?

Yep...what about that desire?? What about self control? What about self respect?? What about being open and honest with our kids about their feelings and the consequences of expressing those feelings in a way that will hurt them? What about teaching them about love, responsibility, honor and civility? What about teaching them the patience to wait and choose for themselves truly when they are ready to bind themselves to their life partner and maybe have children?

Sorry, Joanne, I disagree with you. It's ok...we can have different views and still respect and honor the others opinion. That is what is so cool about being here. We all come from different perspectives and I am always interested in others ideas even if they do not align with my own.

 

Peace,

Faithe

[Joanne]

Yep...what about that desire?? What about self control? What about self respect?? What about being open and honest with our kids about their feelings and the consequences of expressing those feelings in a way that will hurt them? What about teaching them about love, responsibility, honor and civility? What about teaching them the patience to wait and choose for themselves truly when they are ready to bind themselves to their life partner and maybe have children?

 

I'm not against those things. I am very much for many of those things. I teach my children those things. I'd like other parents to teach *their* children the same.

 

That doesn't change the fact that if elementary aged children are having sex (and some ARE), condoms are better than no condoms.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

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.

 

So when does the school employee handing out a condom to an elementary aged student cross the line into having a reasonable suspician that abuse and/or statutory r*pe is occuring. When do they cross the line between assisting in a public health issue and aiding the expl*itation of a minor? If the age of consent is several years above the average age of an elementary student, this makes me think that a student asking for a condom is need of more protection than a condom is going to provide. How does this conflict with the spirit of educators being mandatory reporters for abuse.*

 

In my mind, the school is doing the opposite of protecting these students' well-being. Even if you make the arguement that the parents have abdicated their responsibility, then it seems that the role of the school ought to be to step in as a wise counselor to discuss the physical and emotional consequences of intimacy, not to hand them a packet and then look the other way.

 

We've come a long way from my elementary days, when I wasn't allowed to watch a film on menstruation because I forgot to bring a permission slip.

 

*For clarity, I don't think that all intimacy is inherently abusive. I do think that children in elementary school are too young to legitimately give consent and are likely to be acquiescing under pressure. And that this may in fact represent abuse.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

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.

 

Planned Parenthood is not a government agency. However, in 2008 (the latest annual report on their website), they received 34% of their revenue from government grants and contracts.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

I just found this website http://www.avert.org/age-of-consent.htm

 

The legal age to have sex varies from state to state and country to country according to this site. So if you live in a state that says it is illegal for anyone under 18 to have sex, do you believe that a 17 year old should not be provided condoms?

 

If a person think that he has the maturity level for that level of intimacy, then I think that heshould man up, walk into the drugstore and buy his own. That is what being a grown up is about. If you aren't man enough for that, then you should think twice about the activity that you are contemplating. (And if that is too intimidating, I'm sure there are still coin operated machines in any number or area truck stops. Get your own roll of quarters instead of expecting someone else to foot the bill.)

 

Because unless they are being passed out by the manufacturer or by a charity, it means that tax money is being used to fund this. Which means that I am being asked to underwrite the s*xual activities of someone else. Sorry, but I'm just not down with that.

 

I also don't really get how s*x is thought to be an area where reason just flies out the window. You don't see high schools offering free alcohol at prom because many teens are going to drink that evening and you wouldn't want them to get ahold of something that will make them go blind.

 

We spend thousands of dollars on anti-drug campaigns but when it comes to intimate relations, we get all tongue tied and don't want to come out and say that there is a set of choices that is going to be more advantageous in the long run than another set of choices. I think this is moral cowardice.

[Blessedfamily]

Well, this is just one more example of two trains of thought colliding.

 

1.)That schools should teach ABC's and 123's and that's the end of their job. (Except, addressing signs of physical abuse/danger)

 

2)That the government, through schools, should take additional steps when there is a "justifiable" social problem. The dilemma with this is deciding what is/isn't a justifiable concern.

 

 

Personally, I agree with Ester Maria on this issue.

 

(Of course, the reason I home-school is because I don't need/want them to do either 1 or 2. I do both myself.)

Edited June 27, 2010 by Blessedfamily

[duckens]

going off topic here.......

 

There was a pregnant girl in my health class and the health teacher talked to her like she was just another 30-something year old woman having a baby. She would tell her of the joys of parenthood and all the cute little things she could buy for the baby and all the love the baby would give to her. Wouldn't that sound appealing to anyone who was neglected at home? Wouldn't that make the other girls listening who didn't feel loved want to go out and have a baby?

Many of us are guilty of this, and it would be wrong to not "buy cute baby things" for teen parents who will need so much help getting established in life!

 

Young girls see the older teens with babies, and think that it would be "fun" to have a baby. Few are ready for the financial and emotional commitment and sacrifices.

 

It is also unacceptable for the most harried, unhappy, and poverty-stricken teen mom to say, "I wish I had never had my child." That is sacrilege.

 

Is it possible to talk to the older teen parents and ask, "Gee, I know you wouldn't trade your child for the world, but do you ever wish you had just waited five years? You could have finished school. You could have a better job. You may have benefits and health care through work...."

 

This is where the mom inevitably add that they would also have chosen someone different with whom to have a baby if they had waited five years; this acknowledges for the younger kids the transience of teen love.

 

This puts no condemnation on the innocent child, and it begins a dialogue (for younger kids) that being a teen mother is more work than fun, and waiting for sex/parenthood may be a good idea.

 

If we are willing to challenge these ideas with the older teen moms, they may be more likely to express them to others when asked about how "fun" it is to be a mommy.

 

---------------------------------------------------

 

I'm not sure that we speak smartly enough with our teens about sex, too. Yes, we have the pregnancy talk. Yes, we talk about stds. Yes, premarital sex is "sinning" in the eyes of most deity figures.

 

What if we discussed it as, "Premarital sex is wrong because it hurts children."

 

When children are born before the parents are ready to be REALISTIC about the sacrifices a child will need and WILLING to make those sacrifices, the children suffer. They are less likely to have an intact home, financial stability, a safe home, healthcare they need, protection from abuse, proper nutrition, etc, etc, etc.

 

Full disclosure: Dd was an unplanned pregnancy at age 35 for me. We are one of the rare happy endings.

 

--Duckens

who has spent a significant part of her life babysitting for people who had kids under the wrong circumstances....and watching the kids suffer

[Jean in Newcastle]

going off topic here.......

 

Many of us are guilty of this, and it would be wrong to not "buy cute baby things" for teen parents who will need so much help getting established in life!

 

Young girls see the older teens with babies, and think that it would be "fun" to have a baby. Few are ready for the financial and emotional commitment and sacrifices.

 

It is also unacceptable for the most harried, unhappy, and poverty-stricken teen mom to say, "I wish I had never had my child." That is sacrilege.

 

Is it possible to talk to the older teen parents and ask, "Gee, I know you wouldn't trade your child for the world, but do you ever wish you had just waited five years? You could have finished school. You could have a better job. You may have benefits and health care through work...."

 

This is where the mom inevitably add that they would also have chosen someone different with whom to have a baby if they had waited five years; this acknowledges for the younger kids the transience of teen love.

 

This puts no condemnation on the innocent child, and it begins a dialogue (for younger kids) that being a teen mother is more work than fun, and waiting for sex/parenthood may be a good idea.

 

If we are willing to challenge these ideas with the older teen moms, they may be more likely to express them to others when asked about how "fun" it is to be a mommy.

 

 

 

I don't know if it did any good, but when ds13 was an infant a group of teens stopped me outside the grocery store. They were oohing and aahing (which of course I accepted as our due;)) but then one of them said to the other, "See, they're so cute! I told you if I had one it would be great." I had never seen these girls before so of course I had no street cred at all with them, but I told them about how many times this cutie had gotten me up during the night, what he was like from 4 - 6pm every night, how to deal with it when a diaper blows out. . . The girls listened to me and then went on their way. I always wondered if that girl had her baby or not.

[Mejane]

Because unless they are being passed out by the manufacturer or by a charity, it means that tax money is being used to fund this. Which means that I am being asked to underwrite the s*xual activities of someone else. Sorry, but I'm just not down with that.

 

 

 

Oh, well if we now get to decide how our tax money is being spent... then I'm not down with the war, education, much of the welfare system, services for illegals, medicaid/medicare funding for unnecessary procedures, aid to foreign countries... just to name a few. I also don't think churches should get tax breaks. It becomes a slippery slope, doesn't it?

[Wheres Toto]

I don't know if it did any good, but when ds13 was an infant a group of teens stopped me outside the grocery store. They were oohing and aahing (which of course I accepted as our due;)) but then one of them said to the other, "See, they're so cute! I told you if I had one it would be great." I had never seen these girls before so of course I had no street cred at all with them, but I told them about how many times this cutie had gotten me up during the night, what he was like from 4 - 6pm every night, how to deal with it when a diaper blows out. . . The girls listened to me and then went on their way. I always wondered if that girl had her baby or not.

 

I think having two younger siblings and living in very small, close quarters with loud, crying, pooping babies did more to convince my oldest that she's not ready to have children until she's MUCH, MUCH older than any talks we had through the years. Reality is so much more convincing.

[Mejane]

I think having two younger siblings and living in very small, close quarters with loud, crying, pooping babies did more to convince my oldest that she's not ready to have children until she's MUCH, MUCH older than any talks we had through the years. Reality is so much more convincing.

 

:iagree:One summer as a mother's helper for twin infants convinced my daughter. She may never have sex. :D

[Mejane]

going off topic here.......

 

Many of us are guilty of this, and it would be wrong to not "buy cute baby things" for teen parents who will need so much help getting established in life!

 

Young girls see the older teens with babies, and think that it would be "fun" to have a baby. Few are ready for the financial and emotional commitment and sacrifices.

 

It is also unacceptable for the most harried, unhappy, and poverty-stricken teen mom to say, "I wish I had never had my child." That is sacrilege.

 

Is it possible to talk to the older teen parents and ask, "Gee, I know you wouldn't trade your child for the world, but do you ever wish you had just waited five years? You could have finished school. You could have a better job. You may have benefits and health care through work...."

 

This is where the mom inevitably add that they would also have chosen someone different with whom to have a baby if they had waited five years; this acknowledges for the younger kids the transience of teen love.

 

This puts no condemnation on the innocent child, and it begins a dialogue (for younger kids) that being a teen mother is more work than fun, and waiting for sex/parenthood may be a good idea.

 

If we are willing to challenge these ideas with the older teen moms, they may be more likely to express them to others when asked about how "fun" it is to be a mommy.

 

---------------------------------------------------

 

I'm not sure that we speak smartly enough with our teens about sex, too. Yes, we have the pregnancy talk. Yes, we talk about stds. Yes, premarital sex is "sinning" in the eyes of most deity figures.

 

What if we discussed it as, "Premarital sex is wrong because it hurts children."

 

When children are born before the parents are ready to be REALISTIC about the sacrifices a child will need and WILLING to make those sacrifices, the children suffer. They are less likely to have an intact home, financial stability, a safe home, healthcare they need, protection from abuse, proper nutrition, etc, etc, etc.

 

Full disclosure: Dd was an unplanned pregnancy at age 35 for me. We are one of the rare happy endings.

 

--Duckens

who has spent a significant part of her life babysitting for people who had kids under the wrong circumstances....and watching the kids suffer

 

Excellent post.

[lionfamily1999]

 

I'm not against those things. I am very much for many of those things. I teach my children those things. I'd like other parents to teach *their* children the same.

 

That doesn't change the fact that if elementary aged children are having sex (and some ARE), condoms are better than no condoms.

So, forget it's illegal and have a government institute hand out tools to help people break the law.

 

Again, this sounds like conspiracy to be an accessory before the fact in a crime against a child.

[Rosie_0801]

So, forget it's illegal and have a government institute hand out tools to help people break the law.

 

Again, this sounds like conspiracy to be an accessory before the fact in a crime against a child.

 

Joanne is saying that these kids are already making bad choices. We can respond to them in a bad way or a worse way. The bad way is to provide condoms, which we all know shouldn't need to be done. Handing out condoms is not helping children break the law, because they don't need a condom to break the law, but yes it does sound a lot like conspiracy to be an accessory. However bad that choice is, the worse choice is not to provide the condoms, and the kids to be having unprotected sex. We all know condoms don't prevent all diseases or all pregnancies, but they protect a lot. We don't think any kid of that age should be having sex, but since they are, would we rather they do it the most unsafe way, or the safer way? "Well they shouldn't be having sex" is perfectly true but doesn't in any way answer the question. Nakia works with these kids and sees the results. I've read about kids overseas having kids, and perforating their bladders in the process. Young bodies aren't ready to carry pregnancies and it does damage. Providing condoms is a way of protecting them against some of the long term consequences they are creating for their immature selves.

 

If not handing out condoms prevented kids having sex, we'd be all for it, but it doesn't.

 

Rosie

Edited June 28, 2010 by Rosie_0801

[Mejane]

I've read about kids overseas having kids, and perforating their bladders in the process. Young bodies aren't ready to carry pregnancies and it does damage. Providing condoms is a way of protecting them against some of the long term consequences they are creating for their immature selves.

 

 

 

Yes, go to the Fistula Foundation website if you want to see info on the physical damage caused when pre-teens and young teens have babies. Educate yourselves before you jump up on the soapbox. Young kids are having sex and some of them will become pregnant. Wishful thinking and pie-in-the-sky won't change that, but birth control might.

[lionfamily1999]

Joanne is saying that these kids are already making bad choices. We can respond to them in a bad way or a worse way. The bad way is to provide condoms, which we all know shouldn't need to be done. Handing out condoms is not helping children break the law, because they don't need a condom to break the law, but yes it does sound a lot like conspiracy to be an accessory. However bad that choice is, the worse choice is not to provide the condoms, and the kids to be having unprotected sex. We all know condoms don't prevent all diseases or all pregnancies, but they protect a lot. We don't think any kid of that age should be having sex, but since they are, would we rather they do it the most unsafe way, or the safer way? "Well they shouldn't be having sex" is perfectly true but doesn't in any way answer the question. Nakia works with these kids and sees the results. I've read about kids overseas having kids, and perforating their bladders in the process. Young bodies aren't ready to carry pregnancies and it does damage. Providing condoms is a way of protecting them against some of the long term consequences they are creating for their immature selves.

 

If not handing out condoms prevented kids having sex, we'd be all for it, but it doesn't.

 

Rosie

Rosie, it's against the law for them to have sex at those ages, though.

 

Is the suggestion to legalize sex for children six and over, so we can LEGALLY give them bc? Otherwise, what you have is a government insistuation that is conspiring to be an accomplice before the act in a crime against a minor.

 

That's not good. School's being allowed to conspire to be accomplices in crimes against children is not good. It's just not.

 

No one is arguing that their having sex is okay, but no one is complaining that the school is sanctioning it?

[Rosie_0801]

Rosie, it's against the law for them to have sex at those ages, though.

 

Yeah, I know. It's not stopping them though.

 

Is the suggestion to legalize sex for children six and over, so we can LEGALLY give them bc?

 

To be honest, I don't know. It sounds like a horrifically ridiculous thing to do, but not encouraging sexually active people, sexually active YOUNG people, to use condoms seems more horrifically stupid. It's pretty hard to make a good choice when there isn't one available.

 

Otherwise, what you have is a government insistuation that is conspiring to be an accomplice before the act in a crime against a minor.

 

A pretty weird situation to create, I agree.

 

No one is arguing that their having sex is okay, but no one is complaining that the school is sanctioning it?

 

I think it's more that no one has thought of a better way of making sure these kiddies have access to condoms. After all, they are not going to ask their parents, and they are at school all day. Where else could they get them from?

 

When you are looking at an issue that is jammed between a rock and a hard place, lecturing the issue for existing doesn't soften the rock or the hard place. We can't make the kids follow the law and keep themselves to themselves, so they need the condoms. People who have sex need access to condoms, denying it for the most vulnerable people (these kids who are too young to know how stupid they are being) is not going to prevent problems. "You are legally too young to have this problem, so we won't provide any solution or care" is neglectful.

 

Rosie

[lionfamily1999]

Yeah, I know. It's not stopping them though.

 

To be honest, I don't know. It sounds like a horrifically ridiculous thing to do, but not encouraging sexually active people, sexually active YOUNG people, to use condoms seems more horrifically stupid. It's pretty hard to make a good choice when there isn't one available.

 

A pretty weird situation to create, I agree.

 

I think it's more that no one has thought of a better way of making sure these kiddies have access to condoms. After all, they are not going to ask their parents, and they are at school all day. Where else could they get them from?

 

When you are looking at an issue that is jammed between a rock and a hard place, lecturing the issue for existing doesn't soften the rock or the hard place. We can't make the kids follow the law and keep themselves to themselves, so they need the condoms. People who have sex need access to condoms, denying it for the most vulnerable people (these kids who are too young to know how stupid they are being) is not going to prevent problems. "You are legally too young to have this problem, so we won't provide any solution or care" is neglectful.

 

Rosie

Having the schools help cover for them, though, makes it appear that the laws don't matter just so long as you can get away with it, and you don't have to worry about being turned in because the school will cover for you.

 

Usually in these sorts of threads at least someone brings up the horribly abused victim that's just struggling to keep their head above water. I must admit, I was surprised when that type of victim was not brought up. What I wonder is, how is this victim (that appears in so many debates about sex ed and eroding parental rights) helped by access to condoms? How is she helped by a school that turns a blind eye to her illegal sexual activity?

 

What about the kids that are neglected (they're all in this thread)? How are they actually helped? Is there anyone talking to them? Is anyone resporting them to child protective services? A child, an elementary school child having sex is a child that desparately needs intervention. Not condoms. They do not need adults handing them the tools for self destruction. They need the adult to put their foot down and say this is not right.

 

To the first bolded section, condoms are available everywhere. Most men's rooms have machines. If they wanted condoms they could get them.

 

To the second, that's not neglectful. A parent on these boards had a child that broke into some place and stole something. They did not help their child cover their tracks. They turned them in to the owners of the building. Teaching a child responsibility includes teaching them to face the music. Making it easier to get away with breaking the law just teaches them that it's alright, as long as you can get away with it. Telling them, this activity is illegal and I cannot help you, teaches them that laws aren't made to be stretched or bent.

 

And, again... What about the victims? I cannot imagine an elementary school child having sex WITHOUT an adult predator in their life. There is a seriously wrong thing going on here and the adults aren't asking, they're giving the kid stuff to make the abuse less obvious.

[Caroline]

School nurses are mandatory reporters. These children will get reported to a social worker, just not their parents. The schools are now adding another adult who could find out about the sex in a nonthreatening way, and perhaps get the kids the help they need. Quite frankly, if your ten year old is having sex, I think you have already dropped the ball.

 

 

 

Having the schools help cover for them, though, makes it appear that the laws don't matter just so long as you can get away with it, and you don't have to worry about being turned in because the school will cover for you.

 

Usually in these sorts of threads at least someone brings up the horribly abused victim that's just struggling to keep their head above water. I must admit, I was surprised when that type of victim was not brought up. What I wonder is, how is this victim (that appears in so many debates about sex ed and eroding parental rights) helped by access to condoms? How is she helped by a school that turns a blind eye to her illegal sexual activity?

 

What about the kids that are neglected (they're all in this thread)? How are they actually helped? Is there anyone talking to them? Is anyone resporting them to child protective services? A child, an elementary school child having sex is a child that desparately needs intervention. Not condoms. They do not need adults handing them the tools for self destruction. They need the adult to put their foot down and say this is not right.

 

To the first bolded section, condoms are available everywhere. Most men's rooms have machines. If they wanted condoms they could get them.

 

To the second, that's not neglectful. A parent on these boards had a child that broke into some place and stole something. They did not help their child cover their tracks. They turned them in to the owners of the building. Teaching a child responsibility includes teaching them to face the music. Making it easier to get away with breaking the law just teaches them that it's alright, as long as you can get away with it. Telling them, this activity is illegal and I cannot help you, teaches them that laws aren't made to be stretched or bent.

 

And, again... What about the victims? I cannot imagine an elementary school child having sex WITHOUT an adult predator in their life. There is a seriously wrong thing going on here and the adults aren't asking, they're giving the kid stuff to make the abuse less obvious.

[lionfamily1999]

School nurses are mandatory reporters. These children will get reported to a social worker, just not their parents. The schools are now adding another adult who could find out about the sex in a nonthreatening way, and perhaps get the kids the help they need. Quite frankly, if your ten year old is having sex, I think you have already dropped the ball.

Where'd you get this information?

 

(I was under the impression they'd decided against doing this after all the fuss).

[mommaduck]

School nurses are mandatory reporters. These children will get reported to a social worker, just not their parents. The schools are now adding another adult who could find out about the sex in a nonthreatening way, and perhaps get the kids the help they need. Quite frankly, if your ten year old is having sex, I think you have already dropped the ball.

 

Honestly, I have trouble believing the first part.

 

The bolded part, I totally agree with!

[Rosie_0801]

A child, an elementary school child having sex is a child that desparately needs intervention. Not condoms. They do not need adults handing them the tools for self destruction. They need the adult to put their foot down and say this is not right.

 

 

Yeah of course they desperately need intervention, but until they get it, they need condoms. If they are sexually active, they are already self destructing. There are safer ways to self destruct and there are less safe ways. The easiest way to make sure they use condoms is to give it to them. No, they shouldn't be having sex. Yes, someone should be trying to stop them. (No, I have no idea who could do what about it.) What you seem to be saying is "You shouldn't be having sex, so any sex you are having had better be unsafe sex because you are too young to be given condoms." No sex is the best option, but if that can't be ensured, then safe sex is better than unsafe sex. Adults can put their feet down and say "This isn't right" as much as they like, but the kids who reply "Do I care what you have to say?" still need to be practicing safe sex.

 

I cannot imagine an elementary school child having sex WITHOUT an adult predator in their life. There is a seriously wrong thing going on here and the adults aren't asking, they're giving the kid stuff to make the abuse less obvious.

 

You are probably right, but would you rather these kids be having unsafe sex? That is far worse for them than safe sex is, and that is bad enough for them. You used theft as an example in your post. Yes, that is an example of breaking the law. It is not in any way comparable to this situation though, because people don't get pregnant or diseased from stealing stuff. Shouting "this shouldn't be happening" won't prevent these kids getting diseases and getting pregnant, with all the horrible affects that has on a small body.

 

When push comes to shove, I don't think the letter of the law is more important than preventing disease and pregnancy, since that is what the spirit of the law is all about.

 

Rosie

[mommaduck]

I cannot imagine an elementary school child having sex WITHOUT an adult predator in their life. There is a seriously wrong thing going on here and the adults aren't asking, they're giving the kid stuff to make the abuse less obvious.

 

I can. There is something seriously wrong and it's not just adult predators. I was in Guam as a child and went to a private school. The girls in particular were very protected by these families. When I came back stateside, the first culture shock I experienced was how sexualised my 4th grade class was (and younger for my kid brother's age group). There was "clothesburning" against the bell tower out front of the school, guys grabbing girls' chests, and yes, kids experimenting. This was SMALL TOWN, MIDWEST, 1980's. The principle laughed and the teachers not only didn't do anything, but had their abuses as well. Most of the parents worked. The only kids "protected" were those that had money, whose parents were "somebody" in town, or went to bat for their kids (and sorry to say, there were a lot of us that didn't have those parents as they were too busy and sided the adults over their children).

[lionfamily1999]

Yeah of course they desperately need intervention, but until they get it, they need condoms. If they are sexually active, they are already self destructing. There are safer ways to self destruct and there are less safe ways. The easiest way to make sure they use condoms is to give it to them. No, they shouldn't be having sex. Yes, someone should be trying to stop them. (No, I have no idea who could do what about it.) What you seem to be saying is "You shouldn't be having sex, so any sex you are having had better be unsafe sex because you are too young to be given condoms." No sex is the best option, but if that can't be ensured, then safe sex is better than unsafe sex. Adults can put their feet down and say "This isn't right" as much as they like, but the kids who reply "Do I care what you have to say?" still need to be practicing safe sex.

 

 

 

You are probably right, but would you rather these kids be having unsafe sex? That is far worse for them than safe sex is, and that is bad enough for them. You used theft as an example in your post. Yes, that is an example of breaking the law. It is not in any way comparable to this situation though, because people don't get pregnant or diseased from stealing stuff. Shouting "this shouldn't be happening" won't prevent these kids getting diseases and getting pregnant, with all the horrible affects that has on a small body.

 

When push comes to shove, I don't think the letter of the law is more important than preventing disease and pregnancy, since that is what the spirit of the law is all about.

 

Rosie

I would rather the school system does not imply that it condones (and will act as an accomplice) crimes against minors, or perpetrated by minors.

 

Realistically, these kids are already making irresponsible decisions and my money's on you could give them a box of condoms every week and they still wouldn't use them for anything more than water balloons. The idea that children who are already making decisions that every state in the US (iow, I don't know what your laws are there, but I'm talking about here) has decided are decisions they are not able to make for themselves are going to have some stunning revelation of responsibility because the nurse's office carries condoms is a pipe dream.

 

The reason we have ages of consent is because we know that children under a certain age are not capable or reasonable enough to make those decisions and any person that makes that decision for them is a predator. Now, the school is making the decision for them. The school is doing what parents shudder to think of any other adult doing. The school is introducing them to sex and saying it's alright for them.

 

Kids cannot drive. They can't drive because, just like in the case of sex, they are not developed enough to handle it. Sure, there are kids that drive. That doesn't mean we should move driver's ed down to elementary school (some of these kids are going to drive anyway and this way they will be safe). It doesn't mean that we give them car insurance options in elementary school (the closes thing I could use to continue with the comparison), just in case they do drive and get into an accident. It surely doesn't mean that we allow the school to tell the parents that their opinion or decision in the matter does not matter. Even if a student takes driver's ed in high school, it's left up to the parents to get the license. Neglectful parents might not care. They might even let their pre-teen use the car, but the school doesn't make it any easier for them to be bad parents in that case. I don't understand why, with sex, it's so much different.

 

Kids break and enter. Kids rape. Kids murder. Kids steal. But only in the case of rape do we decide they need the tools to keep themselves safe?!?

[TXMary2]

**

Edited June 28, 2010 by TXMary2

[M&MsMom]

So if the justification for this policy is that "some parents aren't doing their job", then why continue to keep the parents out of the picture? For the parents who are not involved, getting a call from the school that their child requested a condom might jump start their involvement. And for the parents who are doing their job, don't they deserve the respect of being kept in the loop?

[justamouse]

Not only is this a terrible leap of logic, it's fairly insulting. Using your reasoning, I could assert that denying condoms is more like your own metaphor of "russian roulette" in that unprotected, sex having children could kill each other with aids transmission.

 

Mutual physical explorations, even early ones, is not molestation.

 

Let's look at this with honesty instead of blind, vehement passion: the children who ARE having sex at elementary ages - or are considering it - are NOT going to "listen" to "it's illegal".

 

They MAY listen to loving, impassioned, reasonable responses from adults (teachers, administration, parents) but it's far more likely non of those adults will be in the know about these kids.

 

Not only is "sex not meant for kids" highly biologically (and even from a Biblical history standpoint) debateable, you are assuming that those who do not vehemently oppose this policy are pro-early sex. I don't even necessarily endorse the policy - I am just not vehemently opposed.

 

I think the reality of very young children (pre-high school) having sex is fairy removed from most of us, and especially so in percentages. I percentage of elementary kids having sex is small; and the percentage OF those children who will actually ask for condoms is even smaller.

 

I *personally* teach my kids to not drink -ever - because of the genetic likelihood that they will be pouring alcohol into an alcoholic body.

 

However, there are plenty of responible parents who do allow consumption at home. The "bad for their health" is not accurate.

 

Do you want the schools teaching sexuality at all?

If so, who gets to dictate the approach, the morality involved, the curriculum?

Or do you advocate public schools (since they won't be abolished) not address it at all?

 

BTW, no *curriculum*, teaching or campaigns were mentioned as associated with the "condom availability" policy.

 

And what about the biological reality that the interest in and desire for physical intimacy develops long before most parents here (myself included) want our children having sex?

 

What she said.

[MelanieM]

When you are looking at an issue that is jammed between a rock and a hard place, lecturing the issue for existing doesn't soften the rock or the hard place. We can't make the kids follow the law and keep themselves to themselves, so they need the condoms. People who have sex need access to condoms, denying it for the most vulnerable people (these kids who are too young to know how stupid they are being) is not going to prevent problems. "You are legally too young to have this problem, so we won't provide any solution or care" is neglectful.

 

Rosie

 

Yeah of course they desperately need intervention, but until they get it, they need condoms. If they are sexually active, they are already self destructing. There are safer ways to self destruct and there are less safe ways. The easiest way to make sure they use condoms is to give it to them. No, they shouldn't be having sex. Yes, someone should be trying to stop them. (No, I have no idea who could do what about it.) What you seem to be saying is "You shouldn't be having sex, so any sex you are having had better be unsafe sex because you are too young to be given condoms." No sex is the best option, but if that can't be ensured, then safe sex is better than unsafe sex. Adults can put their feet down and say "This isn't right" as much as they like, but the kids who reply "Do I care what you have to say?" still need to be practicing safe sex.

 

When push comes to shove, I don't think the letter of the law is more important than preventing disease and pregnancy, since that is what the spirit of the law is all about.

 

Rosie

 

:iagree:Excellent posts, Rosie.

 

The reason we have ages of consent is because we know that children under a certain age are not capable or reasonable enough to make those decisions and any person that makes that decision for them is a predator. Now, the school is making the decision for them. The school is doing what parents shudder to think of any other adult doing. The school is introducing them to sex and saying it's alright for them.

 

 

The school, and anyone else who supports this idea, is *not* saying that sex is ok for these kids, and they are most certainly not introducing them to sex. The kids who are looking for condoms are going to have to go and ask for them, which means they already have the intentions. It's not about schools handing them out and telling kids "here, have at it!"

 

I think the people coming up with these policies are working within the framework of what Rosie describes... it's a crappy situation, and you have to do what you can to protect kids from themselves some times.

 

I also don't really understand the idea that kids should go get their condoms from the mens room, as if that's a better option for a 10 year old. Isn't it better that they have an adult to talk to so that at least someone has a chance of knowing what is going on with them? I am sure if any child goes in to ask for a condom they are at least somewhat more monitored after the fact than before, and that has to be a good thing. Kids have a far better chance of getting help and receiving counseling when things are out in the open and an adult can see that there's an issue. I don't get how even those that are absolutely opposed to the idea of condoms in schools can't see the benefit in this regard, at least.

[lionfamily1999]

The school, and anyone else who supports this idea, is *not* saying that sex is ok for these kids, and they are most certainly not introducing them to sex. The kids who are looking for condoms are going to have to go and ask for them, which means they already have the intentions. It's not about schools handing them out and telling kids "here, have at it!"

 

I think the people coming up with these policies are working within the framework of what Rosie describes... it's a crappy situation, and you have to do what you can to protect kids from themselves some times.

 

I also don't really understand the idea that kids should go get their condoms from the mens room, as if that's a better option for a 10 year old. Isn't it better that they have an adult to talk to so that at least someone has a chance of knowing what is going on with them? I am sure if any child goes in to ask for a condom they are at least somewhat more monitored after the fact than before, and that has to be a good thing. Kids have a far better chance of getting help and receiving counseling when things are out in the open and an adult can see that there's an issue. I don't get how even those that are absolutely opposed to the idea of condoms in schools can't see the benefit in this regard, at least.

The condoms are available. That was the problem that was stated, availability. Well, they are available.

 

The schools are condoning the behavior, because they are giving the kids the tools to do the job. If a person gives out blood remover, because sometimes you don't mean to kill someone and this way at least their floors won't be ruined forever, it's still be an accomplice and thereby condoning the behavior.

 

Again, they are assisting in crimes against minors.

 

Any Joe on the street would be arrested, tarred and feathered for doing this.

[MelanieM]

But a school isn't just any Joe on the street. It's an institution that is charged with the welfare of children. (You could argue whether or not this is for the welfare of the children, or even if that should be the role of schools; I'm simply pointing out the faulty comparison.)

 

In Vancouver there are safe places where drug users can go to get clean needles. Yes, they're given supplies to engage in illegal activities. But not having clean needles isn't going to stop the drug use, and having clean needles doesn't turn people into junkies. What it does do is give people a safe place to go, a chance at getting some help, and a better possibility of finding a way out of a very dangerous situation.

 

When it comes down to it, I think the best we can do for anyone, regardless of what harmful behaviour they are engaging in, is to meet them with love and compassion and an openness that encourages dialog. I think there's a better chance of that with trusted adults handing out condoms than with trusted adults condemning behaviour and turning a blind eye to pretend it doesn't exist. Saying "don't do that" just doesn't make people stop.

[lionfamily1999]

I cannot see assisting someone in breaking the law or destroying themself as an act of love and compassion.

 

I do not give my sons ladders to assist them in their quest to climb to the top of the house. I do not fill my yard with landing pads. Leaping off things is dangerous. My love and compassion lead me to keep them from doing these things and helping them heal when they do manage to do it anyway. My love and compassion says, "no means no." I'll love you even if you don't listen and screw up, but I will not assist you in doing so.

[Mejane]

But a school isn't just any Joe on the street. It's an institution that is charged with the welfare of children. (You could argue whether or not this is for the welfare of the children, or even if that should be the role of schools; I'm simply pointing out the faulty comparison.)

 

In Vancouver there are safe places where drug users can go to get clean needles. Yes, they're given supplies to engage in illegal activities. But not having clean needles isn't going to stop the drug use, and having clean needles doesn't turn people into junkies. What it does do is give people a safe place to go, a chance at getting some help, and a better possibility of finding a way out of a very dangerous situation.

 

When it comes down to it, I think the best we can do for anyone, regardless of what harmful behaviour they are engaging in, is to meet them with love and compassion and an openness that encourages dialog. I think there's a better chance of that with trusted adults handing out condoms than with trusted adults condemning behaviour and turning a blind eye to pretend it doesn't exist. Saying "don't do that" just doesn't make people stop.

 

:iagree:Thanks for your sensible reply.

[MelanieM]

I cannot see assisting someone in breaking the law or destroying themself as an act of love and compassion.

 

I do not give my sons ladders to assist them in their quest to climb to the top of the house. I do not fill my yard with landing pads. Leaping off things is dangerous. My love and compassion lead me to keep them from doing these things and helping them heal when they do manage to do it anyway. My love and compassion says, "no means no." I'll love you even if you don't listen and screw up, but I will not assist you in doing so.

 

And that's fine. But if your neighbours knew that one of your kids was about to jump off the roof of your house, and no amount of calling up to tell him it was wrong was going to stop him, then wouldn't you want them to put down a landing pad before he jumped?