|
infinity21
Canada6683 Posts
On December 04 2006 18:56 gLyo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2006 18:42 infinity21 wrote:On December 04 2006 18:28 gLyo wrote:
Last time I bought condoms at a convince store it was $3 for a pack of 3. Fucking obscene.
Also, I believe schools should not hand out the condoms themselves (to avoid folk like infinity21), but rather tell students in great length of a specific location where they can be had (i.e. Planned Parenthood).
Sex can be an embarrassing, or at the least very private, topic, and news that you're sexually active will spread like wildfire in a high school. Teens are shy about discussing sex, especially things like where they can get condoms, since it reveals they are sexually active. If schools straight up tell the students where condoms are available, many teens now know where they can get condoms for free (or very cheap) without the embarrassment associated with finding out themselves. Students that were having unsafe sex will be more likely to have safe sex (good) and students who weren't having sex due to lack of condoms will probably do it now (but who cares?). Well, are you saying $1 for a condom is too expensive? Because it really isn't...It's quite affordable as long as you don't have sex 10 times every day, which I hope you don't (at least not on a school night, man). Just like you bought your condoms, I'm sure if one had the slightest motivation to get a condom, he can go to a drug store, a convenience store, or wherever that sells them. Yes, the school can tell them where to buy condoms for a fair price. I just don't like the part where you ask "who cares?". The point of making condoms available was to help people who are going to have sex anyways protect themselves, not to get more people to have sex. Which I think is a bad by-product, and we might have to consider these consequences before actually doing this. Say I have sex five times a week. So, $5 a week. I am a poor teenage kid. $5 a week adds up to $20 a month to $240 a year. It's not cheap. Currently I buy my condoms at Planned Parenthood for like $2 per 50. The school did nothing to inform me of this, though apparently counselors will tell you if you ask them. I've never heard of anybody asking the counselors about this, though. The difference between you and everyone else here is that you believe teenage sex is wrong (correct me if I'm not right, but this seems to be the case). But why is it wrong? What's wrong is teenagers having sex and procuring a child from it. That is wrong. Informing students of places like Planned Parenthood, where condoms can be had dirt cheap contributes to safe sex, not sex. Safe sex is good. Sex is bad.
Well, I make $30 a week for 2 hours of tutoring. And people with a part time job at a grocery store can make $250 in two weeks. At least, I did when I worked at Sobeys, and I see my friends making that much money. I seriously doubt people would have sex 5 times a week on a regular basis too. I would assume it to be once or twice a month, maybe. The repetition of sex you're talking about is more along the lines of a couple who just got married.
That being said, yes, you got it right. I believe teenage sex is wrong. I honestly cannot say if teenagers are mentally ready to have sex, but I believe a good chunk of them aren't. Forgetting the age of consent POS which is completely subjective, teenagers' minds are still developing. They are still maturing at that time. To expose them to the real world that early on, in my opinion, is not good. Too early. It's really hard to draw the line, but I think you should at least be in university for most people, or maybe some senior high school students. I don't know, maybe when I'm in university, I'll think differently. And for gr. 9s, it's borderlining pedophilia, honestly.
|
On December 04 2006 16:59 5HITCOMBO wrote:
In response to your point:
Kids will have sex regardless of whether or not school promotes it. You know this.
By handing out condoms, the school is promoting safety, not sex. Lubricant and dildos would promote sex. Condoms are more on the safety side.
Schools promote a lot of things that kids don't listen to. But by providing condoms, safety only goes up, because people who are having sex now have free condoms, people who aren't for premarital sex are still not having sex, and those who can now have sex due to the availability of condoms are having safe sex with condoms.
If this is unclear, as my past 7 pages of posts have been, then please let me know where you're failing to understand my logic.
5 hit combo, does your penis feel bigger because you use caps and bash people like infinity? Chill out, dude. You don't have to bash him 2039480239483 times just because he wanted to conceal his moral viewpoint on the issue.
But anyways, I looked at your points above, and there are some problems.
1. Kids will have sex whether the school promotes it or not. Yes. However, more kids will have sex if the school promotes it. Uncontrollable makes a very good point. You remember the peer pressure in high school. People will start having sex simply because everyone else is doing so (hell, if the school's giving out condoms, everyone must be having sex).
2. By handing out condoms, the school not only promotes safe sex, but promotes sex in general. School is viewed to be lame. It's where teenagers are obligated to spend 7 hours every day listening to boring teachers talk about random crap they'll never use again in their lives. And then one day, they start handing out condoms? If they do this, they will be promoting sex. You don't have to hand out condoms to promote safety. You can educate kids about safe sex and tell kids where to go if they want condoms (planned parenthood).
3. Condoms have always been available, and from some sources, free. Those 5% of the kids who don't engage in premarital sex due to feer of STDs, or even the kids without a standing, just might, due to peer pressure.
You also say there are no consenquences to premarital sex. Well, I'll say this. Not all consequences have to be physical.
|
infinity21
Canada6683 Posts
On December 04 2006 19:18 LeoTheLion wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2006 16:59 5HITCOMBO wrote:
In response to your point:
Kids will have sex regardless of whether or not school promotes it. You know this.
By handing out condoms, the school is promoting safety, not sex. Lubricant and dildos would promote sex. Condoms are more on the safety side.
Schools promote a lot of things that kids don't listen to. But by providing condoms, safety only goes up, because people who are having sex now have free condoms, people who aren't for premarital sex are still not having sex, and those who can now have sex due to the availability of condoms are having safe sex with condoms.
If this is unclear, as my past 7 pages of posts have been, then please let me know where you're failing to understand my logic. 5 hit combo, does your penis feel bigger because you use caps and bash people like infinity? Chill out, dude. You don't have to bash him 2039480239483 times just because he wanted to conceal his moral viewpoint on the issue. But anyways, I looked at your points above, and there are some problems. 1. Kids will have sex whether the school promotes it or not. Yes. However, more kids will have sex if the school promotes it. Uncontrollable makes a very good point. You remember the peer pressure in high school. People will start having sex simply because everyone else is doing so (hell, if the school's giving out condoms, everyone must be having sex). 2. By handing out condoms, the school not only promotes safe sex, but promotes sex in general. School is viewed to be lame. It's where teenagers are obligated to spend 7 hours every day listening to boring teachers talk about random crap they'll never use again in their lives. And then one day, they start handing out condoms? If they do this, they will be promoting sex. You don't have to hand out condoms to promote safety. You can educate kids about safe sex and tell kids where to go if they want condoms (planned parenthood). 3. Condoms have always been available, and from some sources, free. Those 5% of the kids who don't engage in premarital sex due to feer of STDs, or even the kids without a standing, just might, due to peer pressure. You also say there are no consenquences to premarital sex. Well, I'll say this. Not all consequences have to be physical.
All in all, good post. It was what I was trying to tell them but they just ignored me. Anyways... conceal my moral viewpoints? lol I was doing anything but concealing
|
On December 04 2006 19:08 infinity21 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2006 18:56 gLyo wrote:On December 04 2006 18:42 infinity21 wrote:On December 04 2006 18:28 gLyo wrote:
Last time I bought condoms at a convince store it was $3 for a pack of 3. Fucking obscene.
Also, I believe schools should not hand out the condoms themselves (to avoid folk like infinity21), but rather tell students in great length of a specific location where they can be had (i.e. Planned Parenthood).
Sex can be an embarrassing, or at the least very private, topic, and news that you're sexually active will spread like wildfire in a high school. Teens are shy about discussing sex, especially things like where they can get condoms, since it reveals they are sexually active. If schools straight up tell the students where condoms are available, many teens now know where they can get condoms for free (or very cheap) without the embarrassment associated with finding out themselves. Students that were having unsafe sex will be more likely to have safe sex (good) and students who weren't having sex due to lack of condoms will probably do it now (but who cares?). Well, are you saying $1 for a condom is too expensive? Because it really isn't...It's quite affordable as long as you don't have sex 10 times every day, which I hope you don't (at least not on a school night, man). Just like you bought your condoms, I'm sure if one had the slightest motivation to get a condom, he can go to a drug store, a convenience store, or wherever that sells them. Yes, the school can tell them where to buy condoms for a fair price. I just don't like the part where you ask "who cares?". The point of making condoms available was to help people who are going to have sex anyways protect themselves, not to get more people to have sex. Which I think is a bad by-product, and we might have to consider these consequences before actually doing this. Say I have sex five times a week. So, $5 a week. I am a poor teenage kid. $5 a week adds up to $20 a month to $240 a year. It's not cheap. Currently I buy my condoms at Planned Parenthood for like $2 per 50. The school did nothing to inform me of this, though apparently counselors will tell you if you ask them. I've never heard of anybody asking the counselors about this, though. The difference between you and everyone else here is that you believe teenage sex is wrong (correct me if I'm not right, but this seems to be the case). But why is it wrong? What's wrong is teenagers having sex and procuring a child from it. That is wrong. Informing students of places like Planned Parenthood, where condoms can be had dirt cheap contributes to safe sex, not sex. Safe sex is good. Sex is bad. Well, I make $30 a week for 2 hours of tutoring. And people with a part time job at a grocery store can make $250 in two weeks. At least, I did when I worked at Sobeys, and I see my friends making that much money. I seriously doubt people would have sex 5 times a week on a regular basis too. I would assume it to be once or twice a month, maybe. The repetition of sex you're talking about is more along the lines of a couple who just got married. That being said, yes, you got it right. I believe teenage sex is wrong. I honestly cannot say if teenagers are mentally ready to have sex, but I believe a good chunk of them aren't. Forgetting the age of consent POS which is completely subjective, teenagers' minds are still developing. They are still maturing at that time. To expose them to the real world that early on, in my opinion, is not good. Too early. It's really hard to draw the line, but I think you should at least be in university for most people, or maybe some senior high school students. I don't know, maybe when I'm in university, I'll think differently. And for gr. 9s, it's borderlining pedophilia, honestly.
I remember hearing the "not ready for sex" line when I was younger, and once you have sex you realize that it makes very little sense. What aren't they ready for? There is no massive burden that comes from simply having sex that is to great for a teenage mind to handle. What teens aren't ready for is a child. They aren't ready for the responsibility that comes from that, and that is the only way in which teens are not ready for sex. One might say that if you are not ready for a child, you should not have sex at all, but if you use two methods of birth control you practically eliminate any chance that you will conceive a child. Personally, I am incredibly paranoid and my girlfriend is on the pill and I always wear a condom as well.
Sex is not the "real" world. It has very little to do with the "real" world. I don't know why you bring this up.
As for freshman being pedophiles if they have sex... a pedophile is an adult who is interested in children, not a teen who is interested in another teen.
|
infinity21
Canada6683 Posts
On December 04 2006 20:08 gLyo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2006 19:08 infinity21 wrote:On December 04 2006 18:56 gLyo wrote:On December 04 2006 18:42 infinity21 wrote:On December 04 2006 18:28 gLyo wrote:
Last time I bought condoms at a convince store it was $3 for a pack of 3. Fucking obscene.
Also, I believe schools should not hand out the condoms themselves (to avoid folk like infinity21), but rather tell students in great length of a specific location where they can be had (i.e. Planned Parenthood).
Sex can be an embarrassing, or at the least very private, topic, and news that you're sexually active will spread like wildfire in a high school. Teens are shy about discussing sex, especially things like where they can get condoms, since it reveals they are sexually active. If schools straight up tell the students where condoms are available, many teens now know where they can get condoms for free (or very cheap) without the embarrassment associated with finding out themselves. Students that were having unsafe sex will be more likely to have safe sex (good) and students who weren't having sex due to lack of condoms will probably do it now (but who cares?). Well, are you saying $1 for a condom is too expensive? Because it really isn't...It's quite affordable as long as you don't have sex 10 times every day, which I hope you don't (at least not on a school night, man). Just like you bought your condoms, I'm sure if one had the slightest motivation to get a condom, he can go to a drug store, a convenience store, or wherever that sells them. Yes, the school can tell them where to buy condoms for a fair price. I just don't like the part where you ask "who cares?". The point of making condoms available was to help people who are going to have sex anyways protect themselves, not to get more people to have sex. Which I think is a bad by-product, and we might have to consider these consequences before actually doing this. Say I have sex five times a week. So, $5 a week. I am a poor teenage kid. $5 a week adds up to $20 a month to $240 a year. It's not cheap. Currently I buy my condoms at Planned Parenthood for like $2 per 50. The school did nothing to inform me of this, though apparently counselors will tell you if you ask them. I've never heard of anybody asking the counselors about this, though. The difference between you and everyone else here is that you believe teenage sex is wrong (correct me if I'm not right, but this seems to be the case). But why is it wrong? What's wrong is teenagers having sex and procuring a child from it. That is wrong. Informing students of places like Planned Parenthood, where condoms can be had dirt cheap contributes to safe sex, not sex. Safe sex is good. Sex is bad. Well, I make $30 a week for 2 hours of tutoring. And people with a part time job at a grocery store can make $250 in two weeks. At least, I did when I worked at Sobeys, and I see my friends making that much money. I seriously doubt people would have sex 5 times a week on a regular basis too. I would assume it to be once or twice a month, maybe. The repetition of sex you're talking about is more along the lines of a couple who just got married. That being said, yes, you got it right. I believe teenage sex is wrong. I honestly cannot say if teenagers are mentally ready to have sex, but I believe a good chunk of them aren't. Forgetting the age of consent POS which is completely subjective, teenagers' minds are still developing. They are still maturing at that time. To expose them to the real world that early on, in my opinion, is not good. Too early. It's really hard to draw the line, but I think you should at least be in university for most people, or maybe some senior high school students. I don't know, maybe when I'm in university, I'll think differently. And for gr. 9s, it's borderlining pedophilia, honestly. I remember hearing the "not ready for sex" line when I was younger, and once you have sex you realize that it makes very little sense. What aren't they ready for? There is no massive burden that comes from simply having sex that is to great for a teenage mind to handle. What teens aren't ready for is a child. They aren't ready for the responsibility that comes from that, and that is the only way in which teens are not ready for sex. One might say that if you are not ready for a child, you should not have sex at all, but if you use two methods of birth control you practically eliminate any chance that you will conceive a child. Personally, I am incredibly paranoid and my girlfriend is on the pill and I always wear a condom as well. Sex is not the "real" world. It has very little to do with the "real" world. I don't know why you bring this up. As for freshman being pedophiles if they have sex... a pedophile is an adult who is interested in children, not a teen who is interested in another teen.
I never said they were pedophiles. I'm saying "in that context". Meaning being sexually attracted to a child, (i.e. a human being who has not yet achieved complete maturity). I didn't mean it literally.
Sex is (or at least it ought to be, for now) something quite foreign to a student's world. Take in one step at a time, first there's relationships between opposite sexes, which start somewhere around gr. 6,7~ and for most people, they're just not emotionally ready to be in a serious relationship where they can honestly say they love each other. I don't look at sex as a tool of pleasure. Rather, I view it as an expression of love. Sure, you can call this all idealistic nonsense, but that's what I believe.
edit: by relationships, I meant going out on a date
|
On December 04 2006 20:18 infinity21 wrote:
I don't look at sex as a tool of pleasure. Rather, I view it as an expression of love. Sure, you can call this all idealistic nonsense, but that's what I believe.
That's what I meant about concealing your moral inclinations. =)
It's fine, there's no need to hide it. Morality isn't pointless.
|
On December 04 2006 11:14 BroOd wrote:
People shouldn't post statistics without sources unless they want to look like complete fools.
Which translates to "I'm lazy". Here's the link to the 2003 study I was referencing.
|
infinity21
Canada6683 Posts
On December 04 2006 20:24 LeoTheLion wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2006 20:18 infinity21 wrote:
I don't look at sex as a tool of pleasure. Rather, I view it as an expression of love. Sure, you can call this all idealistic nonsense, but that's what I believe. That's what I meant about concealing your moral inclinations. =) It's fine, there's no need to hide it. Morality isn't pointless.
What exactly do you mean by moral inclinations?
|
On December 04 2006 20:18 infinity21 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2006 20:08 gLyo wrote:On December 04 2006 19:08 infinity21 wrote:On December 04 2006 18:56 gLyo wrote:On December 04 2006 18:42 infinity21 wrote:On December 04 2006 18:28 gLyo wrote:
Last time I bought condoms at a convince store it was $3 for a pack of 3. Fucking obscene.
Also, I believe schools should not hand out the condoms themselves (to avoid folk like infinity21), but rather tell students in great length of a specific location where they can be had (i.e. Planned Parenthood).
Sex can be an embarrassing, or at the least very private, topic, and news that you're sexually active will spread like wildfire in a high school. Teens are shy about discussing sex, especially things like where they can get condoms, since it reveals they are sexually active. If schools straight up tell the students where condoms are available, many teens now know where they can get condoms for free (or very cheap) without the embarrassment associated with finding out themselves. Students that were having unsafe sex will be more likely to have safe sex (good) and students who weren't having sex due to lack of condoms will probably do it now (but who cares?). Well, are you saying $1 for a condom is too expensive? Because it really isn't...It's quite affordable as long as you don't have sex 10 times every day, which I hope you don't (at least not on a school night, man). Just like you bought your condoms, I'm sure if one had the slightest motivation to get a condom, he can go to a drug store, a convenience store, or wherever that sells them. Yes, the school can tell them where to buy condoms for a fair price. I just don't like the part where you ask "who cares?". The point of making condoms available was to help people who are going to have sex anyways protect themselves, not to get more people to have sex. Which I think is a bad by-product, and we might have to consider these consequences before actually doing this. Say I have sex five times a week. So, $5 a week. I am a poor teenage kid. $5 a week adds up to $20 a month to $240 a year. It's not cheap. Currently I buy my condoms at Planned Parenthood for like $2 per 50. The school did nothing to inform me of this, though apparently counselors will tell you if you ask them. I've never heard of anybody asking the counselors about this, though. The difference between you and everyone else here is that you believe teenage sex is wrong (correct me if I'm not right, but this seems to be the case). But why is it wrong? What's wrong is teenagers having sex and procuring a child from it. That is wrong. Informing students of places like Planned Parenthood, where condoms can be had dirt cheap contributes to safe sex, not sex. Safe sex is good. Sex is bad. Well, I make $30 a week for 2 hours of tutoring. And people with a part time job at a grocery store can make $250 in two weeks. At least, I did when I worked at Sobeys, and I see my friends making that much money. I seriously doubt people would have sex 5 times a week on a regular basis too. I would assume it to be once or twice a month, maybe. The repetition of sex you're talking about is more along the lines of a couple who just got married. That being said, yes, you got it right. I believe teenage sex is wrong. I honestly cannot say if teenagers are mentally ready to have sex, but I believe a good chunk of them aren't. Forgetting the age of consent POS which is completely subjective, teenagers' minds are still developing. They are still maturing at that time. To expose them to the real world that early on, in my opinion, is not good. Too early. It's really hard to draw the line, but I think you should at least be in university for most people, or maybe some senior high school students. I don't know, maybe when I'm in university, I'll think differently. And for gr. 9s, it's borderlining pedophilia, honestly. I remember hearing the "not ready for sex" line when I was younger, and once you have sex you realize that it makes very little sense. What aren't they ready for? There is no massive burden that comes from simply having sex that is to great for a teenage mind to handle. What teens aren't ready for is a child. They aren't ready for the responsibility that comes from that, and that is the only way in which teens are not ready for sex. One might say that if you are not ready for a child, you should not have sex at all, but if you use two methods of birth control you practically eliminate any chance that you will conceive a child. Personally, I am incredibly paranoid and my girlfriend is on the pill and I always wear a condom as well. Sex is not the "real" world. It has very little to do with the "real" world. I don't know why you bring this up. As for freshman being pedophiles if they have sex... a pedophile is an adult who is interested in children, not a teen who is interested in another teen. I never said they were pedophiles. I'm saying "in that context". Meaning being sexually attracted to a child, (i.e. a human being who has not yet achieved complete maturity). I didn't mean it literally. Sex is (or at least it ought to be, for now) something quite foreign to a student's world. Take in one step at a time, first there's relationships between opposite sexes, which start somewhere around gr. 6,7~ and for most people, they're just not emotionally ready to be in a serious relationship where they can honestly say they love each other. I don't look at sex as a tool of pleasure. Rather, I view it as an expression of love. Sure, you can call this all idealistic nonsense, but that's what I believe. edit: by relationships, I meant going out on a date
To be honest, it sounds like the only person here who is not in the "real" world is you. You don't want to give students condoms in school because you believe they should only have sex if they are in love? Riiight. If that's the best reason you've got as to why they should not have sex...
Sex is not foreign to anybody. I don't know if you've watched TV or gone outside in the past, oh, twenty years or so, but sex is everywhere. It's permeated the entire Western world. To say that it should not be in a students life is ridiculous. Not even to mention the natural sexual urges one gets as a young adult.
|
infinity21
Canada6683 Posts
On December 04 2006 20:55 gLyo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2006 20:18 infinity21 wrote:On December 04 2006 20:08 gLyo wrote:On December 04 2006 19:08 infinity21 wrote:On December 04 2006 18:56 gLyo wrote:On December 04 2006 18:42 infinity21 wrote:On December 04 2006 18:28 gLyo wrote:
Last time I bought condoms at a convince store it was $3 for a pack of 3. Fucking obscene.
Also, I believe schools should not hand out the condoms themselves (to avoid folk like infinity21), but rather tell students in great length of a specific location where they can be had (i.e. Planned Parenthood).
Sex can be an embarrassing, or at the least very private, topic, and news that you're sexually active will spread like wildfire in a high school. Teens are shy about discussing sex, especially things like where they can get condoms, since it reveals they are sexually active. If schools straight up tell the students where condoms are available, many teens now know where they can get condoms for free (or very cheap) without the embarrassment associated with finding out themselves. Students that were having unsafe sex will be more likely to have safe sex (good) and students who weren't having sex due to lack of condoms will probably do it now (but who cares?). Well, are you saying $1 for a condom is too expensive? Because it really isn't...It's quite affordable as long as you don't have sex 10 times every day, which I hope you don't (at least not on a school night, man). Just like you bought your condoms, I'm sure if one had the slightest motivation to get a condom, he can go to a drug store, a convenience store, or wherever that sells them. Yes, the school can tell them where to buy condoms for a fair price. I just don't like the part where you ask "who cares?". The point of making condoms available was to help people who are going to have sex anyways protect themselves, not to get more people to have sex. Which I think is a bad by-product, and we might have to consider these consequences before actually doing this. Say I have sex five times a week. So, $5 a week. I am a poor teenage kid. $5 a week adds up to $20 a month to $240 a year. It's not cheap. Currently I buy my condoms at Planned Parenthood for like $2 per 50. The school did nothing to inform me of this, though apparently counselors will tell you if you ask them. I've never heard of anybody asking the counselors about this, though. The difference between you and everyone else here is that you believe teenage sex is wrong (correct me if I'm not right, but this seems to be the case). But why is it wrong? What's wrong is teenagers having sex and procuring a child from it. That is wrong. Informing students of places like Planned Parenthood, where condoms can be had dirt cheap contributes to safe sex, not sex. Safe sex is good. Sex is bad. Well, I make $30 a week for 2 hours of tutoring. And people with a part time job at a grocery store can make $250 in two weeks. At least, I did when I worked at Sobeys, and I see my friends making that much money. I seriously doubt people would have sex 5 times a week on a regular basis too. I would assume it to be once or twice a month, maybe. The repetition of sex you're talking about is more along the lines of a couple who just got married. That being said, yes, you got it right. I believe teenage sex is wrong. I honestly cannot say if teenagers are mentally ready to have sex, but I believe a good chunk of them aren't. Forgetting the age of consent POS which is completely subjective, teenagers' minds are still developing. They are still maturing at that time. To expose them to the real world that early on, in my opinion, is not good. Too early. It's really hard to draw the line, but I think you should at least be in university for most people, or maybe some senior high school students. I don't know, maybe when I'm in university, I'll think differently. And for gr. 9s, it's borderlining pedophilia, honestly. I remember hearing the "not ready for sex" line when I was younger, and once you have sex you realize that it makes very little sense. What aren't they ready for? There is no massive burden that comes from simply having sex that is to great for a teenage mind to handle. What teens aren't ready for is a child. They aren't ready for the responsibility that comes from that, and that is the only way in which teens are not ready for sex. One might say that if you are not ready for a child, you should not have sex at all, but if you use two methods of birth control you practically eliminate any chance that you will conceive a child. Personally, I am incredibly paranoid and my girlfriend is on the pill and I always wear a condom as well. Sex is not the "real" world. It has very little to do with the "real" world. I don't know why you bring this up. As for freshman being pedophiles if they have sex... a pedophile is an adult who is interested in children, not a teen who is interested in another teen. I never said they were pedophiles. I'm saying "in that context". Meaning being sexually attracted to a child, (i.e. a human being who has not yet achieved complete maturity). I didn't mean it literally. Sex is (or at least it ought to be, for now) something quite foreign to a student's world. Take in one step at a time, first there's relationships between opposite sexes, which start somewhere around gr. 6,7~ and for most people, they're just not emotionally ready to be in a serious relationship where they can honestly say they love each other. I don't look at sex as a tool of pleasure. Rather, I view it as an expression of love. Sure, you can call this all idealistic nonsense, but that's what I believe. edit: by relationships, I meant going out on a date To be honest, it sounds like the only person here who is not in the "real" world is you. You don't want to give students condoms in school because you believe they should only have sex if they are in love? Riiight. You're imposing your own moral code on others.
You should go a few pages back and read. I'm not IMPOSING my moral code on others. I'm just saying this as my OPINION and my REASONS for thinking that. I never said schools can't give out condoms. I said I don't think they should. Yes, I dream of idealistic worlds. I don't see a problem with that. Although that idealistic world will probably be never achieved, I strive to achieve that idealistic world.
I can say the same thing back to you by saying you're imposing YOUR moral codes on me, so your argument doesn't work.
|
On December 04 2006 21:01 infinity21 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2006 20:55 gLyo wrote:On December 04 2006 20:18 infinity21 wrote:On December 04 2006 20:08 gLyo wrote:On December 04 2006 19:08 infinity21 wrote:On December 04 2006 18:56 gLyo wrote:On December 04 2006 18:42 infinity21 wrote:On December 04 2006 18:28 gLyo wrote:
Last time I bought condoms at a convince store it was $3 for a pack of 3. Fucking obscene.
Also, I believe schools should not hand out the condoms themselves (to avoid folk like infinity21), but rather tell students in great length of a specific location where they can be had (i.e. Planned Parenthood).
Sex can be an embarrassing, or at the least very private, topic, and news that you're sexually active will spread like wildfire in a high school. Teens are shy about discussing sex, especially things like where they can get condoms, since it reveals they are sexually active. If schools straight up tell the students where condoms are available, many teens now know where they can get condoms for free (or very cheap) without the embarrassment associated with finding out themselves. Students that were having unsafe sex will be more likely to have safe sex (good) and students who weren't having sex due to lack of condoms will probably do it now (but who cares?). Well, are you saying $1 for a condom is too expensive? Because it really isn't...It's quite affordable as long as you don't have sex 10 times every day, which I hope you don't (at least not on a school night, man). Just like you bought your condoms, I'm sure if one had the slightest motivation to get a condom, he can go to a drug store, a convenience store, or wherever that sells them. Yes, the school can tell them where to buy condoms for a fair price. I just don't like the part where you ask "who cares?". The point of making condoms available was to help people who are going to have sex anyways protect themselves, not to get more people to have sex. Which I think is a bad by-product, and we might have to consider these consequences before actually doing this. Say I have sex five times a week. So, $5 a week. I am a poor teenage kid. $5 a week adds up to $20 a month to $240 a year. It's not cheap. Currently I buy my condoms at Planned Parenthood for like $2 per 50. The school did nothing to inform me of this, though apparently counselors will tell you if you ask them. I've never heard of anybody asking the counselors about this, though. The difference between you and everyone else here is that you believe teenage sex is wrong (correct me if I'm not right, but this seems to be the case). But why is it wrong? What's wrong is teenagers having sex and procuring a child from it. That is wrong. Informing students of places like Planned Parenthood, where condoms can be had dirt cheap contributes to safe sex, not sex. Safe sex is good. Sex is bad. Well, I make $30 a week for 2 hours of tutoring. And people with a part time job at a grocery store can make $250 in two weeks. At least, I did when I worked at Sobeys, and I see my friends making that much money. I seriously doubt people would have sex 5 times a week on a regular basis too. I would assume it to be once or twice a month, maybe. The repetition of sex you're talking about is more along the lines of a couple who just got married. That being said, yes, you got it right. I believe teenage sex is wrong. I honestly cannot say if teenagers are mentally ready to have sex, but I believe a good chunk of them aren't. Forgetting the age of consent POS which is completely subjective, teenagers' minds are still developing. They are still maturing at that time. To expose them to the real world that early on, in my opinion, is not good. Too early. It's really hard to draw the line, but I think you should at least be in university for most people, or maybe some senior high school students. I don't know, maybe when I'm in university, I'll think differently. And for gr. 9s, it's borderlining pedophilia, honestly. I remember hearing the "not ready for sex" line when I was younger, and once you have sex you realize that it makes very little sense. What aren't they ready for? There is no massive burden that comes from simply having sex that is to great for a teenage mind to handle. What teens aren't ready for is a child. They aren't ready for the responsibility that comes from that, and that is the only way in which teens are not ready for sex. One might say that if you are not ready for a child, you should not have sex at all, but if you use two methods of birth control you practically eliminate any chance that you will conceive a child. Personally, I am incredibly paranoid and my girlfriend is on the pill and I always wear a condom as well. Sex is not the "real" world. It has very little to do with the "real" world. I don't know why you bring this up. As for freshman being pedophiles if they have sex... a pedophile is an adult who is interested in children, not a teen who is interested in another teen. I never said they were pedophiles. I'm saying "in that context". Meaning being sexually attracted to a child, (i.e. a human being who has not yet achieved complete maturity). I didn't mean it literally. Sex is (or at least it ought to be, for now) something quite foreign to a student's world. Take in one step at a time, first there's relationships between opposite sexes, which start somewhere around gr. 6,7~ and for most people, they're just not emotionally ready to be in a serious relationship where they can honestly say they love each other. I don't look at sex as a tool of pleasure. Rather, I view it as an expression of love. Sure, you can call this all idealistic nonsense, but that's what I believe. edit: by relationships, I meant going out on a date To be honest, it sounds like the only person here who is not in the "real" world is you. You don't want to give students condoms in school because you believe they should only have sex if they are in love? Riiight. You're imposing your own moral code on others. You should go a few pages back and read. I'm not IMPOSING my moral code on others. I'm just saying this as my OPINION and my REASONS for thinking that. I never said schools can't give out condoms. I said I don't think they should. Yes, I dream of idealistic worlds. I don't see a problem with that. Although that idealistic world will probably be never achieved, I strive to achieve that idealistic world. I can say the same thing back to you by saying you're imposing YOUR moral codes on me, so your argument doesn't work.
I decided that was the wrong thing to say, actually, so you may notice I edited my post.
|
infinity21
Canada6683 Posts
On December 04 2006 21:18 gLyo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2006 21:01 infinity21 wrote:On December 04 2006 20:55 gLyo wrote:On December 04 2006 20:18 infinity21 wrote:On December 04 2006 20:08 gLyo wrote:On December 04 2006 19:08 infinity21 wrote:On December 04 2006 18:56 gLyo wrote:On December 04 2006 18:42 infinity21 wrote:On December 04 2006 18:28 gLyo wrote:
Last time I bought condoms at a convince store it was $3 for a pack of 3. Fucking obscene.
Also, I believe schools should not hand out the condoms themselves (to avoid folk like infinity21), but rather tell students in great length of a specific location where they can be had (i.e. Planned Parenthood).
Sex can be an embarrassing, or at the least very private, topic, and news that you're sexually active will spread like wildfire in a high school. Teens are shy about discussing sex, especially things like where they can get condoms, since it reveals they are sexually active. If schools straight up tell the students where condoms are available, many teens now know where they can get condoms for free (or very cheap) without the embarrassment associated with finding out themselves. Students that were having unsafe sex will be more likely to have safe sex (good) and students who weren't having sex due to lack of condoms will probably do it now (but who cares?). Well, are you saying $1 for a condom is too expensive? Because it really isn't...It's quite affordable as long as you don't have sex 10 times every day, which I hope you don't (at least not on a school night, man). Just like you bought your condoms, I'm sure if one had the slightest motivation to get a condom, he can go to a drug store, a convenience store, or wherever that sells them. Yes, the school can tell them where to buy condoms for a fair price. I just don't like the part where you ask "who cares?". The point of making condoms available was to help people who are going to have sex anyways protect themselves, not to get more people to have sex. Which I think is a bad by-product, and we might have to consider these consequences before actually doing this. Say I have sex five times a week. So, $5 a week. I am a poor teenage kid. $5 a week adds up to $20 a month to $240 a year. It's not cheap. Currently I buy my condoms at Planned Parenthood for like $2 per 50. The school did nothing to inform me of this, though apparently counselors will tell you if you ask them. I've never heard of anybody asking the counselors about this, though. The difference between you and everyone else here is that you believe teenage sex is wrong (correct me if I'm not right, but this seems to be the case). But why is it wrong? What's wrong is teenagers having sex and procuring a child from it. That is wrong. Informing students of places like Planned Parenthood, where condoms can be had dirt cheap contributes to safe sex, not sex. Safe sex is good. Sex is bad. Well, I make $30 a week for 2 hours of tutoring. And people with a part time job at a grocery store can make $250 in two weeks. At least, I did when I worked at Sobeys, and I see my friends making that much money. I seriously doubt people would have sex 5 times a week on a regular basis too. I would assume it to be once or twice a month, maybe. The repetition of sex you're talking about is more along the lines of a couple who just got married. That being said, yes, you got it right. I believe teenage sex is wrong. I honestly cannot say if teenagers are mentally ready to have sex, but I believe a good chunk of them aren't. Forgetting the age of consent POS which is completely subjective, teenagers' minds are still developing. They are still maturing at that time. To expose them to the real world that early on, in my opinion, is not good. Too early. It's really hard to draw the line, but I think you should at least be in university for most people, or maybe some senior high school students. I don't know, maybe when I'm in university, I'll think differently. And for gr. 9s, it's borderlining pedophilia, honestly. I remember hearing the "not ready for sex" line when I was younger, and once you have sex you realize that it makes very little sense. What aren't they ready for? There is no massive burden that comes from simply having sex that is to great for a teenage mind to handle. What teens aren't ready for is a child. They aren't ready for the responsibility that comes from that, and that is the only way in which teens are not ready for sex. One might say that if you are not ready for a child, you should not have sex at all, but if you use two methods of birth control you practically eliminate any chance that you will conceive a child. Personally, I am incredibly paranoid and my girlfriend is on the pill and I always wear a condom as well. Sex is not the "real" world. It has very little to do with the "real" world. I don't know why you bring this up. As for freshman being pedophiles if they have sex... a pedophile is an adult who is interested in children, not a teen who is interested in another teen. I never said they were pedophiles. I'm saying "in that context". Meaning being sexually attracted to a child, (i.e. a human being who has not yet achieved complete maturity). I didn't mean it literally. Sex is (or at least it ought to be, for now) something quite foreign to a student's world. Take in one step at a time, first there's relationships between opposite sexes, which start somewhere around gr. 6,7~ and for most people, they're just not emotionally ready to be in a serious relationship where they can honestly say they love each other. I don't look at sex as a tool of pleasure. Rather, I view it as an expression of love. Sure, you can call this all idealistic nonsense, but that's what I believe. edit: by relationships, I meant going out on a date To be honest, it sounds like the only person here who is not in the "real" world is you. You don't want to give students condoms in school because you believe they should only have sex if they are in love? Riiight. You're imposing your own moral code on others. You should go a few pages back and read. I'm not IMPOSING my moral code on others. I'm just saying this as my OPINION and my REASONS for thinking that. I never said schools can't give out condoms. I said I don't think they should. Yes, I dream of idealistic worlds. I don't see a problem with that. Although that idealistic world will probably be never achieved, I strive to achieve that idealistic world. I can say the same thing back to you by saying you're imposing YOUR moral codes on me, so your argument doesn't work. I decided that was the wrong thing to say, actually, so you may notice I edited my post.
Ok, I reread it. But I stand by my idealistic world. People are exposed to the physical act of having sex, but kids don't know what sex really is about. (yes, I'm getting very idealistic here) At that point in life, most teenagers do not fully value sex as an expression of love, but rather just the physical act of "in and out" to put it crudely. Really, promoting sex (protected or not) at that age is not a good idea in my opinion. Unless you can convince me that it IS a good idea, that is..
well, I'm done for the night, so PM me your opinions, if you wish.
|
Teens mentally ready for sex? What the fuck does that mean? If they're physically ready then let the fun begin!
Back in the day you only lived to 30 if you were lucky, so you were pumping out babies by the age of 13.
|
On December 04 2006 21:38 EAGER-beaver wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Teens mentally ready for sex? What the fuck does that mean? If they're physically ready then let the fun begin! Back in the day you only lived to 30 if you were lucky, so you were pumping out babies by the age of 13.
by ''back in the days'' you mean the era when we were jumping from tree to tree like monkeys and hiding in caverns when there was thunder? :p
|
On December 04 2006 19:18 LeoTheLion wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2006 16:59 5HITCOMBO wrote:
In response to your point:
Kids will have sex regardless of whether or not school promotes it. You know this.
By handing out condoms, the school is promoting safety, not sex. Lubricant and dildos would promote sex. Condoms are more on the safety side.
Schools promote a lot of things that kids don't listen to. But by providing condoms, safety only goes up, because people who are having sex now have free condoms, people who aren't for premarital sex are still not having sex, and those who can now have sex due to the availability of condoms are having safe sex with condoms.
If this is unclear, as my past 7 pages of posts have been, then please let me know where you're failing to understand my logic. 5 hit combo, does your penis feel bigger because you use caps and bash people like infinity? Chill out, dude. You don't have to bash him 2039480239483 times just because he wanted to conceal his moral viewpoint on the issue. But anyways, I looked at your points above, and there are some problems. 1. Kids will have sex whether the school promotes it or not. Yes. However, more kids will have sex if the school promotes it. Uncontrollable makes a very good point. You remember the peer pressure in high school. People will start having sex simply because everyone else is doing so (hell, if the school's giving out condoms, everyone must be having sex). 2. By handing out condoms, the school not only promotes safe sex, but promotes sex in general. School is viewed to be lame. It's where teenagers are obligated to spend 7 hours every day listening to boring teachers talk about random crap they'll never use again in their lives. And then one day, they start handing out condoms? If they do this, they will be promoting sex. You don't have to hand out condoms to promote safety. You can educate kids about safe sex and tell kids where to go if they want condoms (planned parenthood). 3. Condoms have always been available, and from some sources, free. Those 5% of the kids who don't engage in premarital sex due to feer of STDs, or even the kids without a standing, just might, due to peer pressure. You also say there are no consenquences to premarital sex. Well, I'll say this. Not all consequences have to be physical.
Will you please stop bringing up the points that I've already addressed? And did you not notice that for a good 4 pages I debated cordially and rationally?
I already said that the schools should provide the condoms PASSIVELY. Like, in a bowl. And I even added abstinence flyers attatched to them to satisfy conservative viewpoints like yours.
Please read pages 4-12 if anything I've said is unclear. Maybe at least one of those posts will make sense to you. It's not a bad thing to promote safe sex, even if you have to promote sex (which, again, is not a bad thing, even if you are in high school). It's better than not promoting safety or sex and having kids know nothing about it while engaging in risky sexual behavior, which, like you said, happens regardless of anything anyone does. How can I make this more clear?
|
Braavos36402 Posts
On December 04 2006 20:18 infinity21 wrote:
Sex is (or at least it ought to be, for now) something quite foreign to a student's world. Take in one step at a time, first there's relationships between opposite sexes, which start somewhere around gr. 6,7~ and for most people, they're just not emotionally ready to be in a serious relationship where they can honestly say they love each other. I don't look at sex as a tool of pleasure. Rather, I view it as an expression of love. Sure, you can call this all idealistic nonsense, but that's what I believe.
edit: by relationships, I meant going out on a date
lots of people have the same view you do... people who have not had sex.
the whole "wow we must be in a serious relationship and sex is an expression of love" belief goes right out the window once you have sex with a few girls.
you said that you are a virgin. what i don't understand is how can you have such concrete and strong beliefs about sex without ever actually experiencing it first hand?
kind of ridiculous don't you think?
|
And let me clarify my statement:
There are no serious consequences to healthy sexual behavior, even if it is premarital.
Oh yeah, and I brought that not having the experience thing up as one of my first statements. I believe that you can grasp the idea, but you have to feel what it's like to fully understand it. Same with drugs. You can't describe the ecstatic in terms of the static.
|
Braavos36402 Posts
also, all the things infinity is saying about the negative effects of high school sex (in his opinion) like teens not being mentally ready, etc, are all quite subjective and not proven at all.
yes you are entitled to your opinion. but overwhelming evidence is presented that:
1. teens do have sex regardless of all the abstinence teaching, and they will continue to have sex, even in greater frequency than previous generations.
2. there are VERY REAL consequences to unsafe sex, pregnancy, STDs, etc.
you are willing to risk all the horrible, PROVEN consequences for a belief that is completely subjective, not proven, and about something that you haven't even experienced first hand?
come the fuck on.
|
I was just addressing that specific post. You were trying so hard to make infinity sound illogical (and he was a little), so I wanted to bash you a little. You made bold statements. I proposed counterexamples.
A little reorganization for your convenience:
1. "Kids will have sex regardless of whether or not school promotes it. You know this."
Kids will have sex whether the school promotes it or not. Yes. However, more kids will have sex if the school promotes it. Uncontrollable makes a very good point. You remember the peer pressure in high school. People will start having sex simply because everyone else is doing so (hell, if the school's giving out condoms, everyone must be having sex).
2. "By handing out condoms, the school is promoting safety, not sex. Lubricant and dildos would promote sex. Condoms are more on the safety side."
By handing out condoms, the school not only promotes safe sex, but promotes sex in general. School is viewed to be lame. It's where teenagers are obligated to spend 7 hours every day listening to boring teachers talk about random crap they'll never use again in their lives. And then one day, they start handing out condoms? If they do this, they will be promoting sex. You don't have to hand out condoms to promote safety. You can educate kids about safe sex and tell kids where to go if they want condoms (planned parenthood).
3. "Schools promote a lot of things that kids don't listen to. But by providing condoms, safety only goes up, because people who are having sex now have free condoms, people who aren't for premarital sex are still not having sex, and those who can now have sex due to the availability of condoms are having safe sex with condoms."
Condoms have always been available, and from some sources, free. Those 5% of the kids who don't engage in premarital sex due to feer of STDs, or even the kids without a standing, just might, due to peer pressure.
And "There are no serious consequences to healthy sexual behavior, even if it is premarital." is debatable.
|
So...
A babies genitals must pass through the STD infested teen mother.
Does the baby get STD's too?
Think of the children. T_T
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/1696/jailbaitms7.jpg)
