Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

Quill

Opinion discussion: How do you feel about public schools distributing

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, Quill said:

This is my thinking and why ITA with what Bluegoat posted. It’s a wide-scale infantalizing of young people that I do not see as a net societal benefit. “We” treat teens like we don’t expect them to plumb the depths of their resourcefulness for any purpose. There’s so much talk now - as we were just discussing on these boards a week or two ago - about upper teens not being “ready” to learn to drive. We’re talking about having kids do a Gap Year because they aren’t “ready” to go to college. And I have had the same thought about the bus stops; bus stop when I was a kid served all kids on my cul-de-sac and a few kids several houses down the main road. Now buses stop 500 times it seems like, in front of each individual house. 

 

 

Admittedly, I have difficulty shifting my view to that reality. It isn’t that I don’t believe it to be widespread reality, but that I mostly only read about it online. I don’t often see it IRL. My daughters, as “teen” as they may be at home, have it more together than some adults we know, as do most of the friends they choose.  The irony is that neither of them wants to have kids. At 16 or at 36.

I’ve no doubt that they could figure out bc on their own, but I’ve also made it clear that I am more than willing to help, because I don’t see growing and birthing a baby as a minor inconvenience to be withstood because of some sort of transportation or online ordering snafu! Regardless of how capable they might be. “You weren’t smart enough to find condoms, so make a person now” (or other results) doesn’t add up to me.

I can’t shift society, and I can’t make all teens be abstinent, but I can support measures that offer teens who are “too irresponsible” to otherwise access birth control an option to avoid becoming teen parents who are then, assumedly, much too irresponsible to have children!

Will it save everyone? No. Could it mean everything to a few? Yes. Good enough for me.

Signed,
Someone who deeply struggled with multiple unplannned pregnancies as a married, stable adult. And that’s hard enough.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Frances said:

I believe she advocated for comprehensive education plus making condoms available.

Yes, she did. I am just trying to clarify because apparently there are schools that think simply passing out the condoms is enough, and it's not.  A comprehensive program is going to cost money and schools already have their dollars stretched so thin, that spending the extra money to develop (or purchase outright if someone else has developed a great one) a program is often beyond them. So I think it's important to be really clear that when we are talking about doing what works, that's about spending the dollars on the education, not just spending a couple hundred on a basket of condoms.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, ChocolateReignRemix said:

But we don't have accurate statistics from the time period you reference (there were serious reporting bias issues in the early surveys), so much of what is claimed about that time is anecdotal.

Regardless, it is hard to claim " nowadays casual hookups are considered the norm" for teens when the data shows they aren't the norm. 

 

There is a difference between what people considered normative, and what people do.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: condoms combined with sex ed.

It's no only a matter of whether condoms without sex ed has the same effect.  It's whether the sex ed without the condoms is as good as with.  Maybe its really the education element that makes the main difference.

I do't know - I think there are groups where passing out free condoms can make a big difference.  People working in prostitution being the foremost example.  Teens who have particular vulnerabilities, I would not be surprised.

Middle class teens - I'm not so sure that there is much more effect beyond what they'd get from a good program .  Certainly at my university, I think it was more about: people feeling good about helping by doing something that was essentially easy - a company getting some exposure for donating them to the school - kids liking the feeling of grown up maturity where it was assumed they were sexually active.  (In that, it was kind of typical of a lot of the popular social justice initiatives - that was the era where the most popular was Free Tibet, which was essentially going to parties/concerts featuring free Tibet slogans.)

In the case of the OP, what I'd really want to know is why there is an increase in STIs.  It isn't likely that suddenly condoms are less available.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eventually I assume we will have some data and anecdotes telling us whether or not the presence of free, confidentially available condoms helped or caused problems in actual people's lives.

I have to admit that this just isn't something I'm passionate about.  Everyone has their own ideas of what will reduce early pregnancies and STDs.  Nobody's ideas are fool proof.  I'm guessing all of us are just hoping and praying that our own kids will be all right, whatever happens.  So to me, if they want to have condoms at school, whatever.  Whether I agree with it or not, I'm not going to fight it. 

I will say that my views on this have changed as my kids have grown.  "My kid would never" has become an almost extinct saying around here.  Give me a few years and extinction may be complete.  😛

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bluegoat said:

 

There is a difference between what people considered normative, and what people do.  

 

11 hours ago, ChocolateReignRemix said:

But we don't have accurate statistics from the time period you reference (there were serious reporting bias issues in the early surveys), so much of what is claimed about that time is anecdotal.

Regardless, it is hard to claim " nowadays casual hookups are considered the norm" for teens when the data shows they aren't the norm. 

 

Bluegoat's comment is what I was getting at. Regardless of how many teens are actually engaging in this type of sexual behavior, most of them don't think it's abnormal for their peers to casually hook up with several different partners during high school. In fact, from what I've gathered by talking to teens in my area, most of them think that not engaging in these behaviors is what is abnormal. And I think the opposite held true in times past like the 50's. Perhaps a lower but roughly similar number of teens were still active, but it was most definitely not considered "normal" behavior in those days to have several partners, as many diaries and primary sources and just interviewing your grandparents and other of their generation would tell you even if the statistics don't.

I am not advocating we go back to the 50's, don't get me wrong. That's not my intent at all. And I'm not advocating for abstinence only sex ed either, as I've said several times in this thread. It is just astonishing to me that someone could claim that sexual norms nowadays do not include casual hookups much more than they did in times past.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly? If I had the slightest suspicion that DD or any of her peers that come over to our house were sexually active in a manner where condoms are of help, I would have them freely available, no questions asked, in the guest bathroom.

If kids are going to be active, whether or not they have a condom on hand is unlikely to change their minds about it. But it might help them be a little safer, at least physically. I see no down side.

  • Like 9
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Momto5inIN said:

 

 

Bluegoat's comment is what I was getting at. Regardless of how many teens are actually engaging in this type of sexual behavior, most of them don't think it's abnormal for their peers to casually hook up with several different partners during high school. In fact, from what I've gathered by talking to teens in my area, most of them think that not engaging in these behaviors is what is abnormal. And I think the opposite held true in times past like the 50's. Perhaps a lower but roughly similar number of teens were still active, but it was most definitely not considered "normal" behavior in those days to have several partners, as many diaries and primary sources and just interviewing your grandparents and other of their generation would tell you even if the statistics don't.

I am not advocating we go back to the 50's, don't get me wrong. That's not my intent at all. And I'm not advocating for abstinence only sex ed either, as I've said several times in this thread. It is just astonishing to me that someone could claim that sexual norms nowadays do not include casual hookups much more than they did in times past.

 

But if most aren't actually doing the hook ups (and most teens are not - even those engaging in sexual activities are more often in a steady relationship), then what is really being pushed is yet another moral panic by some. 

No one has said hook ups don't happen, but what is evident in the data is that they are *not* the norm for teens as the vast majority do not participate,

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it possible that this thread made it this far without discussing the fact that we're in a massive sex recession?

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/12/the-sex-recession/573949/

Quote

To the relief of many parents, educators, and clergy members who care about the health and well-being of young people, teens are launching their sex lives later. From 1991 to 2017, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Youth Risk Behavior Survey finds, the percentage of high-school students who’d had intercourse dropped from 54 to 40 percent. In other words, in the space of a generation, sex has gone from something most high-school students have experienced to something most haven’t. (And no, they aren’t having oral sex instead—that rate hasn’t changed much.)

Meanwhile, the U.S. teen pregnancy rate has plummeted to a third of its modern high. When this decline started, in the 1990s, it was widely and rightly embraced. But now some observers are beginning to wonder whether an unambiguously good thing might have roots in less salubrious developments. Signs are gathering that the delay in teen sex may have been the first indication of a broader withdrawal from physical intimacy that extends well into adulthood.

 

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they should be free nation wide. Personally, I have kept stocks of them distributed around my house (in every bathroom, in opened boxes so it's not obvious how many were/are there) ever since my oldest was a teen. I send big boxes to college, too. My goal is to do my part to make sure no teen/college kid I or my kids know gets pregnant unintentionally. From a purely selfish standpoint, can you imagine how distracting and upsetting it'd be if your college roommate got knocked up by her fling? I know that at least two doses of Plan B (that I paid for) have prevented that mishap in my kids' circle of friends. Worth every penny. 

It's not my business when or how or if they get used, but neither is whether poor parents feed their kids. I donate to food banks, too. 

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Farrar said:

Is it possible that this thread made it this far without discussing the fact that we're in a massive sex recession?

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/12/the-sex-recession/573949/

 

Yes, this was discussed, though in different terms.

Personally I still think 40% is way too high, but I don't think anyone has really figured out what to do about that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Farrar said:

Is it possible that this thread made it this far without discussing the fact that we're in a massive sex recession?

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/12/the-sex-recession/573949/

 

Yep. We talked about it. It's hard for many to believe but, yep, today's teens are having less sex than their grandparents.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Late to the game, but honestly, I’m fine with it. I don’t think the ability to get condoms would encourage kids who weren’t planning or wanting to have sex already, to do so. I think lots of teens are having sex; safety and pregnancy prevention are more responsible ways to do it.

I’m conservative when it comes to this. I think sex is best saved for marriage, but we don’t live in a perfect world. What I’d prefer is that there were less terminated pregnancies, and less diseases being spread amongst young people. With that in mind, I’m all for it.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I concur with Stacey. Studies show teens are having less sex than 50 years ago. But the ones that are having sex are at risk, and frankly, as a tax payer we all end up paying for that often in the guise of Planned Parenthood services, medicaid for pregnancy and babies, WIC, etc. clinics for STD's you name it. I am not against providing these things at all. Really. But it also behooves us as a society to do what we can to prevent the need widespread need of them, and try to insure more babies are born to ready parents than unready. It is wise to limit STD's if we can. So while I don't think a basket of condoms at the nurse's desk will cause teens to go, "OH yay...now I can have sex" because the ones that are wanting to have sex have already been thinking about it and very likely decided to risk it, I do think it could spur them to think, "Hmmmm I was going to have sex, but if I can be safe, that's cool", and maybe they'll use one. It isn't expensive so why not give it a shot.

My son's college health department provides them free all over campus. LOL, their motto when doing a presentation at his freshman welcome session was, "Don't be silly. Wrap your willy!" I think a lot of parents weren't happy, but I was fine with it. They'd had an increase in students coming to them for pregnancy tests or STD testing, and they decided to tackle the issue. In the three years since they've done, the numbers of students seeking this assistance has dropped by a huge percentage, and they are handing out A LOT of condoms. That's not surprising. Shoot even when I was in college way back in the Stone Ages and staying in the conservative, no party dorm, my floor mates were having a lot of sex, and every year there were abortions or dropping out school for pregnancy mixed with whispers of "I think I have herpes" or some such disease. I am quite happy that my son's college is being proactive.

We have to try. That's my position. Biology is strong, and abstinence education has been proven to be ineffective at combating the problems. So hand out condoms, make diaphragms and IUD's easy to get, free would be great, and educate, educate, educate. I think that is the single biggest issue. When a couple of our local high schools abandoned abstinence education and adopted very real, explicit health courses that fully explain human biology and reproductive issues, their pregnancy rates went down to nothing. We have whole years when the high school with 500 students doesn't have a single teen mom, and the abortion rate for the county is getting down to literally single digit numbers. Good job! Good job! Keep it up! One of the very few things, educationally speaking, that is working in my county of otherwise academically pathetic schools.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/22/2019 at 3:16 PM, Quill said:

I don’t know what the point of hair-splitting over how many of our grandparents had sex as teens, whether it is rising and by how much, and how it accounts for who just plain got married young vs. who was abstinent by choice - geez, guys; it’s kind of beside the point. Should we start talking about whether women have become more attractive since the fifties, what with the advent of good bras and red lipstick and the permanent wave? So that really, more sex is about better-looking available partners? 

I’m being facetious, obviously. 

When I brought up this topic in the OP, the rationale, according to the news story I read, is that STDs among teens in the proposed county are on the rise. Therefore, either more teens are having sex than previously, more teens are having sex with multiple partners than previously and/or more teens are having sex without using condoms than previously. It is one or a combination of these factors that made STDs increase in teens in the county initiating this program. 

Also, I think it is important to note tha the county implementing this program is very affluent. If there are kids in Howard County, MD with NO ability to afford and transport themselves to a store to buy condoms, I have no idea which teens that might describe. I’m not saying there’s no such thing as a poor kid with few resources here, but they are not a large population. I think that fact alone puts a pretty big fact check on the idea that teens need condoms because it’s such an obstacle to buy them. Maybe that’s true in some places, but not here in this bougie county. 

 

Quill, I would guess that many on this thread view the issue of teen sex/condom access and availability through a particular worldview lens. Yes, there variations, but for many there is the idea that premarital sex is careless and stupid.  To hold this viewpoint, you have to believe that marriage has value.

My dd had a good friend who was the "polar opposite" of our family. We are white, comfortably middle class, well-educated, and grew up in married 50+ year families that had strong faith roots. "D" was black, from a poor, broken family and his dad was a drug dealer. To this day, whenever I think of "D," it is with fondness and a sincere wish for happiness, stability, and love for him. He taught our family so much. At the our dinner table one night, he told us, "You all say 'please and thank you.'" "The meal is great and I am so glad to be here, but I can't say 'please'."  He equated "please" with begging as in "please don't hurt me, please don't hurt mom." "Please" had to do with addicts who came to the house.  A word that meant civility to us, meant anything but civility to him.

Marriage held little meaning for him. It wasn't sacred. It wasn't safe. Love wasn't a factor.

Do you think young high school girls that have been sexually assaulted by a family member, a trusted coach, or a religious faith think that sex outside of marriage is "stupid and careless?" What I am trying to say is that more than ever, many of those high school students have worldviews and experiences that widely vary from the stereotypical American middle class image. Does that make sense?

Nationally, for the first time ever, 50% of our school age children live in household at or below the poverty line. Your neighborhood may be affluent like mine, but I suspect that you have significant pockets where students qualify for free lunch programs, which means cars and $10 for a pack of condoms may not be as accessible as you think.

 

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my area, teen health clinics opened in the high schools back when I was still in high school.  My 20th reunion has come and gone.  So this is not news for me in the slightest and I really don't see the controversy as relevant to reality.  I support meeting kids where they are at.  I think the teen health clinics in schools here have been remarkably successful.  

In my state, pregnant teens have medical decision making for themselves.  I'm not sure why it would be in anyone's best interest to insist that a parent must consent to OTC birth control but a few weeks or months later, if the teen becomes pregnant, they will be in the driver's seat for their medical decisions.  Why not make it as easy as possible for them to NOT get pregnant in the first place?

My niece sees a mental health counselor and gets all of her primary health care at school.  This is a rich city and many of her classmates are as affluent as they come.  She, however, is from poverty and the teen clinic is an indispensable resource for her.  

Edited by LucyStoner
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, swimmermom3 said:

 

Quill, I would guess that many on this thread view the issue of teen sex/condom access and availability through a particular worldview lens. Yes, there variations, but for many there is the idea that premarital sex is careless and stupid.  To hold this viewpoint, you have to believe that marriage has value.

My dd had a good friend who was the "polar opposite" of our family. We are white, comfortably middle class, well-educated, and grew up in married 50+ year families that had strong faith roots. "D" was black, from a poor, broken family and his dad was a drug dealer. To this day, whenever I think of "D," it is with fondness and a sincere wish for happiness, stability, and love for him. He taught our family so much. At the our dinner table one night, he told us, "You all say 'please and thank you.'" "The meal is great and I am so glad to be here, but I can't say 'please'."  He equated "please" with begging as in "please don't hurt me, please don't hurt mom." "Please" had to do with addicts who came to the house.  A word that meant civility to us, meant anything but civility to him.

Marriage held little meaning for him. It wasn't sacred. It wasn't safe. Love wasn't a factor.

Do you think young high school girls that have been sexually assaulted by a family member, a trusted coach, or a religious faith think that sex outside of marriage is "stupid and careless?" What I am trying to say is that more than ever, many of those high school students have worldviews and experiences that widely vary from the stereotypical American middle class image. Does that make sense?

Nationally, for the first time ever, 50% of our school age children live in household at or below the poverty line. Your neighborhood may be affluent like mine, but I suspect that you have significant pockets where students qualify for free lunch programs, which means cars and $10 for a pack of condoms may not be as accessible as you think.

 

No, that does not make sense to me. We don’t debase our expectations because someone had different experiences, negative experiences. That’s like saying, “Well, this boy grew up with parents who smoked cigarettes, in a neighborhood full of people who also smoked, in fact, he has not had one steady figure in his life who does not smoke, so we should give him vaping supplies so maybe he will take up vaping instead of cigarettes.” 

Personally, I’m not a big pearl-clutcher over teen/unmarried sex. I don’t instruct my teens that it’s stupid and careless, merely that it’s not a small matter and can come with consequences that last a lifetime. I don’t think it’s impossible to instruct teens in using condoms without also giving them condoms for free. Teens don’t appear to be having difficulty getting alcohol, cigarrettes, Juuls, drugs, pornography and who-knows-what-else, despite not being able to legally obtain these items and despite them costing money. It’s hard for me to see how a kid who manages to keep up a vaping habit would not also be able to buy sex wrappers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Quill said:

No, that does not make sense to me. We don’t debase our expectations because someone had different experiences, negative experiences. That’s like saying, “Well, this boy grew up with parents who smoked cigarettes, in a neighborhood full of people who also smoked, in fact, he has not had one steady figure in his life who does not smoke, so we should give him vaping supplies so maybe he will take up vaping instead of cigarettes.” 

Personally, I’m not a big pearl-clutcher over teen/unmarried sex. I don’t instruct my teens that it’s stupid and careless, merely that it’s not a small matter and can come with consequences that last a lifetime. I don’t think it’s impossible to instruct teens in using condoms without also giving them condoms for free. Teens don’t appear to be having difficulty getting alcohol, cigarrettes, Juuls, drugs, pornography and who-knows-what-else, despite not being able to legally obtain these items and despite them costing money. It’s hard for me to see how a kid who manages to keep up a vaping habit would not also be able to buy sex wrappers. 

I think because in the case of the drugs, the drug is the experience they're seeking. Without the drug, the experience doesn't exist so they seek it out. In the case of sex, sex is the experience they're seeking. Condoms are just a side thing. The sex - the experience they're actually seeking - is free.

I find it hard to conceive of people who can't think ahead to consequences to that extent. But also, I was raised in a loving home with enough to eat. I was always going to pass that marshmallow test. But all the studies now say that the marshmallow test is a function of poverty and wealth. And it's the same thing for condoms.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Farrar said:

I think because in the case of the drugs, the drug is the experience they're seeking. Without the drug, the experience doesn't exist so they seek it out. In the case of sex, sex is the experience they're seeking. Condoms are just a side thing. The sex - the experience they're actually seeking - is free.

I find it hard to conceive of people who can't think ahead to consequences to that extent. But also, I was raised in a loving home with enough to eat. I was always going to pass that marshmallow test. But all the studies now say that the marshmallow test is a function of poverty and wealth. And it's the same thing for condoms.

But giving out condoms at school does not guarantee they are there when the marshmallow is presented. The kid still has to be thinking ahead enough to seek out condoms from the nurse and perhaps survive the embarassment of the nurse knowing they are coming in to get them, and, should they go access them repeatedly, then the nurse knows that, too. If being well able to think forward is the obstacle, getting them at school from the nurse vs getting them from a corner store are not drastically different; both requiring some planning and having one’s act together enough to secure the needed items and bring them along and use them when the moment is at hand. There is such a thing as having a drawer full of condoms but not using them, either because the drawer full of condoms is not where the person is when needed or because simple willfullness makes the person choose not. 

I was also a kid who would have passed the marshmallow test but at least one of my siblings probably wouldn’t have, though we were raised in the same environment, which was relative poverty (relative to our low middle class social class). Also, self-discipline is a skill that can be learned, no matter how one begins. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Quill said:

But giving out condoms at school does not guarantee they are there when the marshmallow is presented. The kid still has to be thinking ahead enough to seek out condoms from the nurse and perhaps survive the embarassment of the nurse knowing they are coming in to get them, and, should they go access them repeatedly, then the nurse knows that, too. If being well able to think forward is the obstacle, getting them at school from the nurse vs getting them from a corner store are not drastically different; both requiring some planning and having one’s act together enough to secure the needed items and bring them along and use them when the moment is at hand. There is such a thing as having a drawer full of condoms but not using them, either because the drawer full of condoms is not where the person is when needed or because simple willfullness makes the person choose not. 

I was also a kid who would have passed the marshmallow test but at least one of my siblings probably wouldn’t have, though we were raised in the same environment, which was relative poverty (relative to our low middle class social class). Also, self-discipline is a skill that can be learned, no matter how one begins. 

My primary point is that the argument that young people will pay for or get some things, therefore they will also find ways to pay for or get condoms is very weak. I don't think it holds water.

Are there still barriers? Sure. But I'm in favor of removing as many barriers as possible. Whether or removing those barriers works has been one of the major topics of this thread, obviously. I have to admit that I don't fully care if the evidence supports that it helps ever so much or not. I think it's worth a try regardless. The cost is low, the potential benefit is high. Other people have other takes on it based on the data and their various moral beliefs, which have been pretty well explored, I think.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/22/2019 at 1:28 PM, Bluegoat said:

 

If family life is being compared to single life doing your own thing, I tend to agree, on a macro scale.

There are other possibilities though for the celibate.  Military life.  Being a scholar.  Something like monasticism.  All of those involve purpose and living in community.

I have wondered if going on in coming years this sort of thing might become important. I think we are going to have to look at a worldwide slow decline in human population.  On the other hand, I am not sure that very small families as the norm is really best.  But those two thoughts together would tend to lead to a lot of people living in some meaningful way without a family to be that stabilising element.

I know plenty of people who maintain family type relationships without contributing to the global population. People who live with and take care of their parents as they age, people who help take care of and provide for nieces and nephews (without necessarily having any legal obligation to do so) people who form proxy families with peers and with younger people in friend/mentor situations; people who simply settle down as a couple with someone, without kids but with companionship (one friend I have in mine remained consciously child-free, but was married at one point and after divorce and a break from being in a LTR has been in a long-term live-in relationship for over a decade; she's in her late 40's); people who choose to live in polyamorous, multigenerational, or other extended/expanded family households (ex: my younger sisters shared a household for a number of years. One was married, the other a single mom. The married one has a child now, but that niece came along several years after this arrangement started); people who only have one child but who go on to help care for grandkids; people who adopt. There are at least seven people in the world who call my mother "mom" and she only gave birth to 3 of us. 

If the laws would catch up and let more than 2 people at a time adopt/take legal responsibility to act as guardian for a child (with the consent of existing parents of course), there would be more security available for such arrangements, to the benefit of the children involved.

The "modern" nuclear family is an accident of history, and not the only answer to how to have families, keep people connected in families over the life course, and raise children. It's not even a very good answer, with the way elders and childless people can fall through the cracks, the lack of safety net when reality falls short of the ideal, the importance it places on sex over any other kind of loving human interaction, and the remaining vestiges of ownership of women and children that cling to it out of the patriarchal feudal system that preceded it..

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Farrar said:

My primary point is that the argument that young people will pay for or get some things, therefore they will also find ways to pay for or get condoms is very weak. I don't think it holds water.

Are there still barriers? Sure. But I'm in favor of removing as many barriers as possible. Whether or removing those barriers works has been one of the major topics of this thread, obviously. I have to admit that I don't fully care if the evidence supports that it helps ever so much or not. I think it's worth a try regardless. The cost is low, the potential benefit is high. Other people have other takes on it based on the data and their various moral beliefs, which have been pretty well explored, I think.

But why would we (society we) want to make yet one more instance of the responsible, fully mature people sweeping away the consequences of the less responsible, less mature people’s actions? Why do we want to say, “Oh, we see you can’t plan accordingly to protect your own health and prevent undesired babies, so we’ll make it as easy as possible to see that you suffer no ill effects of your own decisions.” It’s more treating young people as though they are impulsive imbeciles. And what happens when these young people graduate high school or drop out of high school? Do they then complain that the govt. is not providing condoms at health clinics for free? 

I think removing barriers for functional adults is one of the things we’re doing wrong as a society. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Quill said:

But why would we (society we) want to make yet one more instance of the responsible, fully mature people sweeping away the consequences of the less responsible, less mature people’s actions? Why do we want to say, “Oh, we see you can’t plan accordingly to protect your own health and prevent undesired babies, so we’ll make it as easy as possible to see that you suffer no ill effects of your own decisions.” It’s more treating young people as though they are impulsive imbeciles. And what happens when these young people graduate high school or drop out of high school? Do they then complain that the govt. is not providing condoms at health clinics for free? 

I think removing barriers for functional adults is one of the things we’re doing wrong as a society. 

Because there is the potential for an innocent baby to brought into a bad situation or for an abortion to occur. I’m all for letting people suffer the consequences of their immature actions. But they are not the ones with the most potential for harm or suffering when it comes to unprotected sex. Sure, a few might rise to the occasion and with enough support (if available), be able to parent effectively. But we know the reality is that many will not. And all of us will potentially pay down the road for their irresponsibility.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Quill said:

But why would we (society we) want to make yet one more instance of the responsible, fully mature people sweeping away the consequences of the less responsible, less mature people’s actions? Why do we want to say, “Oh, we see you can’t plan accordingly to protect your own health and prevent undesired babies, so we’ll make it as easy as possible to see that you suffer no ill effects of your own decisions.” It’s more treating young people as though they are impulsive imbeciles. And what happens when these young people graduate high school or drop out of high school? Do they then complain that the govt. is not providing condoms at health clinics for free? 

I think removing barriers for functional adults is one of the things we’re doing wrong as a society. 

 

Because the net cost of free condoms is a heck of a lot cheaper than the net cost of the consequences of kids not using them-  disease and teen pregnancy, which often comes with medicaid for pregnancy and childbirth, nurse visits to the home covered by that medicaid, pediatric care for the child, and, IME, unfortunately often foster care which brings the expense of social workers, parenting classes, rehab, multiple lawyers and judges, foster parents, WIC for the baby, paying for daycare, etc. Schools leaving fishbowls of free condoms in the bathrooms or handing them out for free costs NOTHING in comparison.

Many teen girls in foster care are there because they got thrown out of their parents house when they got pregnant, which is ANOTHER additional layer of the same costs involved. Others just make just as irresponsible decisions with their infants as they did when they got pregnant, leading babies to be in care for months while social workers figure out who in the family can be trusted with the infant.

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Katy said:

 

Because the net cost of free condoms is a heck of a lot cheaper than the net cost of the consequences of kids not using them-  disease and teen pregnancy, which often comes with medicaid for pregnancy and childbirth, nurse visits to the home covered by that medicaid, pediatric care for the child, and, IME, unfortunately often foster care which brings the expense of social workers, parenting classes, rehab, multiple lawyers and judges, foster parents, WIC for the baby, paying for daycare, etc. Schools leaving fishbowls of free condoms in the bathrooms or handing them out for free costs NOTHING in comparison.

Many teen girls in foster care are there because they got thrown out of their parents house when they got pregnant, which is ANOTHER additional layer of the same costs involved. Others just make just as irresponsible decisions with their infants as they did when they got pregnant, leading babies to be in care for months while social workers figure out who in the family can be trusted with the infant.

The problem is when that is ALL the schools do.  Schools need to do MORE than leave out fishbowls of condoms in order to be effective.  And that is where the real expense comes in.  But studies linked earlier show that if all schools do is leave condoms out (which yes costs nothing and is easier) it actually has the opposite effect.  If schools want to leave out fishbowls of condoms, they have to commit to having additional programs in place for education in order to be effective.  Which of course makes one wonder....is it the education program effective without the fishbowls of condoms?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ravin said:

I know plenty of people who maintain family type relationships without contributing to the global population. People who live with and take care of their parents as they age, people who help take care of and provide for nieces and nephews (without necessarily having any legal obligation to do so) people who form proxy families with peers and with younger people in friend/mentor situations; people who simply settle down as a couple with someone, without kids but with companionship (one friend I have in mine remained consciously child-free, but was married at one point and after divorce and a break from being in a LTR has been in a long-term live-in relationship for over a decade; she's in her late 40's); people who choose to live in polyamorous, multigenerational, or other extended/expanded family households (ex: my younger sisters shared a household for a number of years. One was married, the other a single mom. The married one has a child now, but that niece came along several years after this arrangement started); people who only have one child but who go on to help care for grandkids; people who adopt. There are at least seven people in the world who call my mother "mom" and she only gave birth to 3 of us. 

If the laws would catch up and let more than 2 people at a time adopt/take legal responsibility to act as guardian for a child (with the consent of existing parents of course), there would be more security available for such arrangements, to the benefit of the children involved.

The "modern" nuclear family is an accident of history, and not the only answer to how to have families, keep people connected in families over the life course, and raise children. It's not even a very good answer, with the way elders and childless people can fall through the cracks, the lack of safety net when reality falls short of the ideal, the importance it places on sex over any other kind of loving human interaction, and the remaining vestiges of ownership of women and children that cling to it out of the patriarchal feudal system that preceded it..

 

I think multi-generational and other wider family nets will likely become more common.  It's also been common in many societies for people who don't marry to have other social institutions that provide some of that function.

As far as family law catching up - that's possible in some ways.  I don't think though that ad hoc arrangements will ever be able to be a primary model for a society.  That sounds lively to westerners who have been raised with a lot of respect for individualism, but my strong suspicion is that it wouldn't work as anything other than an exception.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Katy said:

 

Because the net cost of free condoms is a heck of a lot cheaper than the net cost of the consequences of kids not using them-  disease and teen pregnancy, which often comes with medicaid for pregnancy and childbirth, nurse visits to the home covered by that medicaid, pediatric care for the child, and, IME, unfortunately often foster care which brings the expense of social workers, parenting classes, rehab, multiple lawyers and judges, foster parents, WIC for the baby, paying for daycare, etc. Schools leaving fishbowls of free condoms in the bathrooms or handing them out for free costs NOTHING in comparison.

Many teen girls in foster care are there because they got thrown out of their parents house when they got pregnant, which is ANOTHER additional layer of the same costs involved. Others just make just as irresponsible decisions with their infants as they did when they got pregnant, leading babies to be in care for months while social workers figure out who in the family can be trusted with the infant.

And meanwhile, the critical first three years of the baby life are potentially spent in chaos and dysfunction.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there are two lenses through which to look at this. One is moral - people should be responsible for themselves, no one else has any obligation to do anything if they don't want, and if they aren't then they should suffer the consequences and no one else. The other is practical - who cares if they *should* when innocent children will suffer and taxpayers will end up paying, whatever the cheapest solution is to the problem (in this case, buying free condoms for everyone in the nation might even be cheaper than paying the costs in STI treatment and for unwanted children, especially if you consider the cost of those children when they grow up if they were raised in difficult, unloving circumstances instead of being adopted) we should just do that and not worry too much about the moral implications.

Of course - some people want a little of both - a safety net that keeps "the worst" (whatever that is in the situation or to the viewer) from happening while still placing the primary responsibility on individuals. Or want policy that will encourage people to take responsibility rather than letting the government take it themselves. So, say, condoms in some situations/schools/clinics, but not all. Or free prenatal care for unwanted pregnancies. Or free STI/STD treatment for people below a certain income.

I have no (and I really mean no) innate moral issue with consenting older teens having sex. So that's definitely informing my thinking. I think most people in this thread would rather teens not have sex. I genuinely don't care.

Edited by Farrar
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

The problem is when that is ALL the schools do.  Schools need to do MORE than leave out fishbowls of condoms in order to be effective.  And that is where the real expense comes in.  But studies linked earlier show that if all schools do is leave condoms out (which yes costs nothing and is easier) it actually has the opposite effect.  If schools want to leave out fishbowls of condoms, they have to commit to having additional programs in place for education in order to be effective.  Which of course makes one wonder....is it the education program effective without the fishbowls of condoms?

Hasn't this been repeatedly said by pretty much every single person in the thread advocating for the condom distribution that we also support comprehensive education? At this point, can we all assume that all of us advocating for the condoms also support comprehensive sex ed?

As to the condoms, I'll stand by my previous answer that, I guess it would be good to know which aspects help the most and put the money there if it's limited. But since the condoms, as you point out, are one of the cheaper parts and have the largest potential payoff... I can't bring myself to be against them. There definitely are teens who have no money, who are going to have sex. I'd like them to have the condoms. Even if it doesn't statistically help as much as comprehensive sex ed.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9

1 hour ago, Farrar said:

I think there are two lenses through which to look at this. One is moral - people should be responsible for themselves, no one else has any obligation to do anything if they don't want, and if they aren't then they should suffer the consequences and no one else. The other is practical - who cares if they *should* when innocent children will suffer and taxpayers will end up paying, whatever the cheapest solution is to the problem (in this case, buying free condoms for everyone in the nation might even be cheaper than paying the costs in STI treatment and for unwanted children, especially if you consider the cost of those children when they grow up if they were raised in difficult, unloving circumstances instead of being adopted) we should just do that and not worry too much about the moral implications.

Of course - some people want a little of both - a safety net that keeps "the worst" (whatever that is in the situation or to the viewer) from happening while still placing the primary responsibility on individuals. Or want policy that will encourage people to take responsibility rather than letting the government take it themselves. So, say, condoms in some situations/schools/clinics, but not all. Or free prenatal care for unwanted pregnancies. Or free STI/STD treatment for people below a certain income.

I have no (and I really mean no) innate moral issue with consenting older teens having sex. So that's definitely informing my thinking. I think most people in this thread would rather teens not have sex. I genuinely don't care.

Those two lenses are a false dichotomy. I am much more practical than I am interested in moral arguments, but in practicality, it matters whether or not a proposed solution will end in the hoped-for outcome. Having access to condoms, even if they are free, does not necessarily mean they will be used in the desired manner with the optimal result. If a teen gets some free condoms and even uses them a few times but then doesn’t use them because (any reason - doesn’t go get more, is embarassed to go get more, gets more but leaves them in his book bag, gets more but doesn’t want to use them and partner doesn’t insist), then that person is risking undesired outcomes. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Katy said:

 

Because the net cost of free condoms is a heck of a lot cheaper than the net cost of the consequences of kids not using them-  disease and teen pregnancy, which often comes with medicaid for pregnancy and childbirth, nurse visits to the home covered by that medicaid, pediatric care for the child, and, IME, unfortunately often foster care which brings the expense of social workers, parenting classes, rehab, multiple lawyers and judges, foster parents, WIC for the baby, paying for daycare, etc. Schools leaving fishbowls of free condoms in the bathrooms or handing them out for free costs NOTHING in comparison.

Many teen girls in foster care are there because they got thrown out of their parents house when they got pregnant, which is ANOTHER additional layer of the same costs involved. Others just make just as irresponsible decisions with their infants as they did when they got pregnant, leading babies to be in care for months while social workers figure out who in the family can be trusted with the infant.

Having them available does not equate to their use. 

Also, we are ignoring that there are reasons some people do not use condoms beyond not having the money or the ability to get them. A lot of young women even want to have babies and do not care if there is no dad. I remember once, in a college class when the professor asked a young black man why he thinks the incidence of fatherless children in the poor black communities was such a problem, he indicated that if he were to meet an attractive young black woman in her twenties who did not yet have a baby, he would wonder what was the matter with her. 

ETA: changed the wording because someone was concerned I was mocking a black man

Edited by Quill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Farrar said:

Hasn't this been repeatedly said by pretty much every single person in the thread advocating for the condom distribution that we also support comprehensive education? At this point, can we all assume that all of us advocating for the condoms also support comprehensive sex ed?

As to the condoms, I'll stand by my previous answer that, I guess it would be good to know which aspects help the most and put the money there if it's limited. But since the condoms, as you point out, are one of the cheaper parts and have the largest potential payoff... I can't bring myself to be against them. There definitely are teens who have no money, who are going to have sex. I'd like them to have the condoms. Even if it doesn't statistically help as much as comprehensive sex ed.

The reason I keep bringing bringing it up is because it keeps being said that putting condoms out is inexpensive.  But if we are talking about a comprehensive sex education, that’s going to be more expensive, which makes the effective solution more expensive than throwing some condoms in some fishbowls.  

Now, that doesn’t mean I am against sex ed programs, whether they include condoms or not.  It only means I am against throwing condoms in fishbowls and thinking that’s a cheap way to help.  If condoms only is going to increase teen pregnancies and std rates, then I am against that (therefore, against the “cheap” solution) because it wastes money and is not part of the solution.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, happysmileylady said:

The reason I keep bringing bringing it up is because it keeps being said that putting condoms out is inexpensive.  But if we are talking about a comprehensive sex education, that’s going to be more expensive, which makes the effective solution more expensive than throwing some condoms in some fishbowls.  

Now, that doesn’t mean I am against sex ed programs, whether they include condoms or not.  It only means I am against throwing condoms in fishbowls and thinking that’s a cheap way to help.  If condoms only is going to increase teen pregnancies and std rates, then I am against that (therefore, against the “cheap” solution) because it wastes money and is not part of the solution.  

The Howard County Maryland school system has had comprehensive sex education since at least the 1970’s. (I went to school there. I recently met with a couple of health teachers from middle schools and high school there. It’s comprehensive.) Also, in the 1980’s there were condoms in the schools. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Caroline said:

The Howard County Maryland school system has had comprehensive sex education since at least the 1970’s. (I went to school there. I recently met with a couple of health teachers from middle schools and high school there. It’s comprehensive.) Also, in the 1980’s there were condoms in the schools. 

Ok.  I am not sure what that has to do with what I said?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Ok.  I am not sure what that has to do with what I said?

Well that’s the school system we are talking about in this thread. They don’t have to spend money on a new curriculum. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Caroline said:

Well that’s the school system we are talking about in this thread. They don’t have to spend money on a new curriculum. 

Ok.  That's great.  We have all agreed that comprehensive programs are great.

 

A poster specifically said that leaving fishbowls of condoms in bathrooms costs nothing.

I said schools have to do more than that if they want to be effective so the cost is more than just the cost of leaving condoms in fishbowls

Another poster said (as I just did above) that we all agree that comprehensive programs are good so why do I keep bringing it up

I explained that I am bringing it up because the idea that condoms in fishbowls cost nothing, and that I am pointing out comprehensive programs cost more than just putting condoms in fishbowls.  Comprehensive programs don't "cost nothing" so no, I don't support a "costs nothing" program that statistics show isn't effective.

I also however said I support comprehensive programs, regardless of condoms in fishbowls or not.  I was specifically addressing the idea that condoms in fishbowls cost nothing.  Sure, it's the cheap easy thing to do.  But the actual solution, the comprehensive program, doesn't "cost nothing."  We can't argue for an effective solution as if it "costs nothing."  

 

 

 

(in regards to "don't have to spend money on a new curriculum".....If the system is still using the same curriculum and materials that they started with in the 70s.....I think that might be a problem.  I would hope that the system has spent money updating the curriculum and materials on a regular basis.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Ok.  That's great.  We have all agreed that comprehensive programs are great.

 

A poster specifically said that leaving fishbowls of condoms in bathrooms costs nothing.

I said schools have to do more than that if they want to be effective so the cost is more than just the cost of leaving condoms in fishbowls

Another poster said (as I just did above) that we all agree that comprehensive programs are good so why do I keep bringing it up

I explained that I am bringing it up because the idea that condoms in fishbowls cost nothing, and that I am pointing out comprehensive programs cost more than just putting condoms in fishbowls.  Comprehensive programs don't "cost nothing" so no, I don't support a "costs nothing" program that statistics show isn't effective.

I also however said I support comprehensive programs, regardless of condoms in fishbowls or not.  I was specifically addressing the idea that condoms in fishbowls cost nothing.  Sure, it's the cheap easy thing to do.  But the actual solution, the comprehensive program, doesn't "cost nothing."  We can't argue for an effective solution as if it "costs nothing."  

 

 

 

(in regards to "don't have to spend money on a new curriculum".....If the system is still using the same curriculum and materials that they started with in the 70s.....I think that might be a problem.  I would hope that the system has spent money updating the curriculum and materials on a regular basis.)

Of course they aren’t using the same curriculum as they were in 1970. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a Canadian, I don’t look for solutions that retain a maximum-practical level of personal responsibility for choices and “consequences” — especially not when one person’s “consequence” actually turns out to be another actual person and citizen.

Instead, I’m in favour not only of comprehensive sex ed and free condoms with unobserved access in schools — but also access to condoms for everyone of all ages: in public health clinics, during / after (free) doctor visits, and at any other venues that make sense. I’m also in favour of complete, accessible and free women’s healthcare, parenting assistance, and other services for pregnancy, and the for the many needs of children who might experience unsteady scenarios through childhood. As citizens, I believe children should be entitled to that kind of family-based support: as much as is needed.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Caroline said:

The Howard County Maryland school system has had comprehensive sex education since at least the 1970’s. (I went to school there. I recently met with a couple of health teachers from middle schools and high school there. It’s comprehensive.) Also, in the 1980’s there were condoms in the schools

Interesting. I would like to know when and under what circumstances it was quit, such that it is now being reinstated. It also must have been after my husband was graduated as I have never heard of this program having been there before, but he did graduate in ‘81, so presumably it was in place after that time. (I should ask his younger siblings about it.) 

I have no doubts it is comprehensive, though. Then and now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bolt. said:

As a Canadian, I don’t look for solutions that retain a maximum-practical level of personal responsibility for choices and “consequences” — especially not when one person’s “consequence” actually turns out to be another actual person and citizen.

Instead, I’m in favour not only of comprehensive sex ed and free condoms with unobserved access in schools — but also access to condoms for everyone of all ages: in public health clinics, during / after (free) doctor visits, and at any other venues that make sense. I’m also in favour of complete, accessible and free women’s healthcare, parenting assistance, and other services for pregnancy, and the for the many needs of children who might experience unsteady scenarios through childhood. As citizens, I believe children should be entitled to that kind of family-based support: as much as is needed.

Well there is a point on which we would agree. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Caroline said:

Of course they aren’t using the same curriculum as they were in 1970. 

So they are regularly spending money on updated curriculum then, correct?

34 minutes ago, bolt. said:

As a Canadian, I don’t look for solutions that retain a maximum-practical level of personal responsibility for choices and “consequences” — especially not when one person’s “consequence” actually turns out to be another actual person and citizen.

Instead, I’m in favour not only of comprehensive sex ed and free condoms with unobserved access in schools — but also access to condoms for everyone of all ages: in public health clinics, during / after (free) doctor visits, and at any other venues that make sense. I’m also in favour of complete, accessible and free women’s healthcare, parenting assistance, and other services for pregnancy, and the for the many needs of children who might experience unsteady scenarios through childhood. As citizens, I believe children should be entitled to that kind of family-based support: as much as is needed.

The thing is, studies have been done on free condom access without the factor of comprehensive programs and it INCREASED rates of teen pregnancies and STDs.  IOW, free for all condoms, without the additional factor (and cost) of the comprehensive program became part of the problem instead of part of the solution.  I am absolutely in favor of a comprehensive program, with or without condom access....adding condom access TO the comprehensive program doesn't add much to the cost of the comprehensive program so having that access is irrelevant to me.  But if we are going to support free condom access in schools, what we ACTUALLY have to support is comprehensive programs *with* condom access...not just "costs nothing" condom access.  Because effective programs don't "cost nothing," even if condoms "cost nothing."

 

 

Edited by happysmileylady

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, happysmileylady said:

The problem is when that is ALL the schools do.  Schools need to do MORE than leave out fishbowls of condoms in order to be effective.  And that is where the real expense comes in.  But studies linked earlier show that if all schools do is leave condoms out (which yes costs nothing and is easier) it actually has the opposite effect.  If schools want to leave out fishbowls of condoms, they have to commit to having additional programs in place for education in order to be effective.  Which of course makes one wonder....is it the education program effective without the fishbowls of condoms?

Are there schools that have fishbowls of condoms, but no health courses that cover responsible sexual/non-sexual behavior?

I ask because if a high school does not have sex education classes, it's usually because parents do not want it, so I can't imagine then having the fishbowl.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

So they are regularly spending money on updated curriculum then, correct?

The thing is, studies have been done on free condom access without the factor of comprehensive programs and it INCREASED rates of teen pregnancies and STDs.  IOW, free for all condoms, without the additional factor (and cost) of the comprehensive program became part of the problem instead of part of the solution.  I am absolutely in favor of a comprehensive program, with or without condom access....adding condom access TO the comprehensive program doesn't add much to the cost of the comprehensive program so having that access is irrelevant to me.  But if we are going to support free condom access in schools, what we ACTUALLY have to support is comprehensive programs *with* condom access...not just "costs nothing" condom access.  Because effective programs don't "cost nothing," even if condoms "cost nothing."

 

 

I wasn't aware that comprehensive sex ed was uncommon, so I was thinking in terms of 'adding free condoms' to schools that were already covering a normal curriculum. I think it's my different cultural context that led me to suppose that comprehensive sex ed was the norm. (America is so strange to me in a lot of ways: it's just so "normal" that it's totally familiar 99% of the time, and then, out of nowhere, there's a cultural difference that I totally wasn't expecting.)

I agree that wherever schools aren't teaching genuine sex ed, that would definitely be a problem to solve first. I wouldn't expect free condoms to be terribly useful to students who lack the information to manage their own sexual decisions in the first place.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, swimmermom3 said:

Are there schools that have fishbowls of condoms, but no health courses that cover responsible sexual/non-sexual behavior?

I ask because if a high school does not have sex education classes, it's usually because parents do not want it, so I can't imagine then having the fishbowl.

I am specifically referencing studies linked earlier in the thread.  You are welcome to go find them.  The studies specifically mention an increase in pregnancies in STDs and pregnancies when when condoms are made accessible without any other program involved.

 

I would expect these schools are likely in situations where they don't have a lot of money and a "costs nothing" solution that is easy to implement seems like the thing to do.  I taught in a school that didn't have enough money for textbooks for reading, spelling or language arts.  I imagine a school that can't afford a reading curriculum would likely find a solution that "costs nothing" like tossing condoms in fishbowls would feel like they are probably doing *something* even if they can't afford a comprehensive program.

Edited by happysmileylady
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, happysmileylady said:

So they are regularly spending money on updated curriculum then, correct?

The thing is, studies have been done on free condom access without the factor of comprehensive programs and it INCREASED rates of teen pregnancies and STDs.  IOW, free for all condoms, without the additional factor (and cost) of the comprehensive program became part of the problem instead of part of the solution.  I am absolutely in favor of a comprehensive program, with or without condom access....adding condom access TO the comprehensive program doesn't add much to the cost of the comprehensive program so having that access is irrelevant to me.  But if we are going to support free condom access in schools, what we ACTUALLY have to support is comprehensive programs *with* condom access...not just "costs nothing" condom access.  Because effective programs don't "cost nothing," even if condoms "cost nothing."

 

 

Thanks for your explanation. That makes your point much clearer to me.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want lots and lots of sex ed, at lots and lots of levels.  And sure....free condoms available.  Let's remove all the barriers we can to consequences of poor decision making.  But I want to point out something from awhile back.  We are in a sex recession.  Kids are having a lot less sex than they used to, which is great!  And the norm when they do have sex is to do it in the context of relationships.  But....they change relationships fairly frequently.  High school monogamy is not like marriage.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, bolt. said:

I wasn't aware that comprehensive sex ed was uncommon, so I was thinking in terms of 'adding free condoms' to schools that were already covering a normal curriculum. I think it's my different cultural context that led me to suppose that comprehensive sex ed was the norm. (America is so strange to me in a lot of ways: it's just so "normal" that it's totally familiar 99% of the time, and then, out of nowhere, there's a cultural difference that I totally wasn't expecting.)

I agree that wherever schools aren't teaching genuine sex ed, that would definitely be a problem to solve first. I wouldn't expect free condoms to be terribly useful to students who lack the information to manage their own sexual decisions in the first place.

 

The US government spends at least $2 billion a year supporting abstinence-only education programs. While the number of teen pregnancies is going down, we still have among the highest rates in the developed word, as well as for STIs.

  • 24 states and the District of Columbia require public schools teach sex education (21 of which mandate sex education and HIV education).
  • 33 states and the District of Columbia require students receive instruction about HIV/AIDS.
  • 20 states require that if provided, sex and/or HIV education must be medically, factually or technically accurate. State definitions of “medically accurate" vary, from requiring that the department of health review curriculum for accuracy, to mandating that curriculum be based on information from “published authorities upon which medical http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/state-policies-on-sex-education-in-schools.aspx

When sex ed is taught, 37 states require that abstinence information be required. 26 states require that it be emphasized.

There are 11 states that have no sex or HIV education mandate. Five of those states rank in the top 6 for the highest number of teen pregnancies.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Quill said:

Having them available does not equate to their use. 

Also, we are ignoring that there are reasons some people do not use condoms beyond not having the money or the ability to get them. A lot of young women even want to have babies and do not care if there is no dad. I remember once, in a college class when the professor asked a young black man why he thinks the incidence of fatherless children in the poor black communities was such a problem, he indicated that if he were to meet an attractive young black woman in her twenties who did not yet have a baby, he would wonder what was the matter with her. 

ETA: changed the wording because someone was concerned I was mocking a black man

 

Of course not, but the same objection could be made to a million government programs.

Cultural traditions that encourage irresponsible behavior are one of the reasons we have free basic universal education.  Having the education available doesn't mean people will become educated. At this point it's pretty obvious people can have great educations on paper, amazing advisors, and still say and do really stupid things (not getting political here, there have recently been stunning examples on both sides of the aisle).

At this point I think the most successful program has been Colorado's, which started a program to end teen pregnancy by providing free long term birth control to teen girls. I think it's either the implant or an IUD.  It's been astoundingly effective. Teen pregnancy rates have plummeted. I'd be thrilled if that was universal. I'd even be thrilled if it was also offered in every doctors visit to every teen girl, so even the ones in super sheltered home school environments could have a discussion about what REALLY IS NORMAL and how they should make responsible decisions with their sexual needs rather than refuse to make any plans because planning would be a sin.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Katy said:

 

Of course not, but the same objection could be made to a million government programs.

Cultural traditions that encourage irresponsible behavior are one of the reasons we have free basic universal education.  Having the education available doesn't mean people will become educated. At this point it's pretty obvious people can have great educations on paper, amazing advisors, and still say and do really stupid things (not getting political here, there have recently been stunning examples on both sides of the aisle).

At this point I think the most successful program has been Colorado's, which started a program to end teen pregnancy by providing free long term birth control to teen girls. I think it's either the implant or an IUD.  It's been astoundingly effective. Teen pregnancy rates have plummeted. I'd be thrilled if that was universal. I'd even be thrilled if it was also offered in every doctors visit to every teen girl, so even the ones in super sheltered home school environments could have a discussion about what REALLY IS NORMAL and how they should make responsible decisions with their sexual needs rather than refuse to make any plans because planning would be a sin.

 

That Colorado study absolutely rocked! Long term birth control was also made available to low-income women and the results were equally good. I believe Colorado figured out that the program would have paid for itself (it was a private donation)and then some.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Katy said:

 

Of course not, but the same objection could be made to a million government programs.

Cultural traditions that encourage irresponsible behavior are one of the reasons we have free basic universal education.  Having the education available doesn't mean people will become educated. At this point it's pretty obvious people can have great educations on paper, amazing advisors, and still say and do really stupid things (not getting political here, there have recently been stunning examples on both sides of the aisle).

At this point I think the most successful program has been Colorado's, which started a program to end teen pregnancy by providing free long term birth control to teen girls. I think it's either the implant or an IUD.  It's been astoundingly effective. Teen pregnancy rates have plummeted. I'd be thrilled if that was universal. I'd even be thrilled if it was also offered in every doctors visit to every teen girl, so even the ones in super sheltered home school environments could have a discussion about what REALLY IS NORMAL and how they should make responsible decisions with their sexual needs rather than refuse to make any plans because planning would be a sin.

I am in favor of the availability of free long term birth control for girls, but I would not ever be in favor of doctors giving it to/implanting it in minors without parental consent. There’s a whole lotta not-okay about that to me. 

AFAIK, doctors for regular physicals of teen girls do ask about sexual activity (also boys) during the time when the parents are out of the room. Well, they do here, anyway. They also ask about a lot of other stuff that I think is invasive, but I guess I can see where it’s meant to red-flag for abuse or suicidal ideation. 🤷🏻‍♀️ I’m not sure every teen is honest about anyof these things, including sexual activity, even if mom is not in the room. 

Here’s a funny side note: when I was a teen, I was super-sick for several months and the doctor was going to prescribe antibiotics. He asked me, with my mom present, if I was on birth control pills. I truthfully answered no. But my mom was very aggitated and in the car on the way home she said in a fit of temper, “The reason he asked if you are on birth control is because the antibiotics can interfere with it and you can GET PREGNANT!” I was like, “GEEZ, mom! I’m not on birth control pills!” That was the kind of loving, helpful conversations we had about sex. Heh. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...