|
Braavos36402 Posts
On December 05 2006 15:43 infinity21 wrote:Thanks, corrected. I looked it up and apparently it's 16-18 everywhere in the US except for Colorado (15/17), Iowa (14/16), Missouri (14/17), South Carolina (14/14), (male/female). Any the average age of consent is 16.
so... you'd be OK with them handing the condoms out to juniors and seniors (16+)?
i think you are out of touch with reality. as chill said in his post and you failed to address in yours, kids have sex and the net gain from handing out condoms (preventing all those horrible things) will outweigh the negatives (minor increase in sexual activity in 16-) and the negatives aren't even proven
|
infinity21
Canada6683 Posts
On December 05 2006 15:55 Hot_Bid wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2006 15:43 infinity21 wrote:On December 05 2006 15:20 Dknight wrote:
The age of consent is 16 in the US. Thanks, corrected. I looked it up and apparently it's 16-18 everywhere in the US except for Colorado (15/17), Iowa (14/16), Missouri (14/17), South Carolina (14/14), (male/female). Any the average age of consent is 16. so... you'd be OK with them handing the condoms out to juniors and seniors (16+)? i think you are out of touch with reality. as chill said in his post and you failed to address in yours, kids have sex and the net gain from handing out condoms (preventing all those horrible things) will outweigh the negatives (minor increase in sexual activity in 16-) and the negatives aren't even proven
Yes. My only problem is with the schools being hypocritical, as I stated previously. Yes, yes, the positives outweigh the negatives. Just don't be hypocrites. That's all I'm saying. And chill is making up stuff. I didn't say half the things he said I did. He thinks I said "Handing out condoms is promoting sex, which I don't agree with; so I don't agree with handing out condoms." when I really said "Handing out condoms is promoting sex. School does not allow sex below the age of consent. The school is being hypocritical"
Just because I don't agree with a few things he said, it doesn't mean I disagree with every point he makes.
|
You are not allowed to have sex in school at any age.
Sex is not allowed in public.
Would you be able to iterate your thoughts a different way (without using analogies). Chill apparently missed the mark on what you had to say - but i thought his paraphrasing of what you had to say was accurate.
|
infinity21
Canada6683 Posts
On December 05 2006 16:08 Teroru wrote:
You are not allowed to have sex in school at any age.
Sex is not allowed in public.
Would you be able to iterate your thoughts a different way (without using analogies). Chill apparently missed the mark on what you had to say - but i thought his paraphrasing of what you had to say was accurate.
This is what I put up on the last page.
On December 05 2006 13:42 infinity21 wrote:
To summarize, I said:
Handing out condoms promotes sex.
Schools have taken a stance that doesn't allow sex before 16 (depending on the state)
Therefore, the school is contradicting itself, and it shouldn't hand out condoms while their AOC is above 14.
Please tell me if this isn't clear.
|
You are not allowed to have sex in school at any age.
Sex is not allowed in public whether it's school, the office, or the street.
i don't understand where you get the impression that schools do not allow their students to have sex outside of school. They teach sex-ed at the age of 13. (at least for me). They promote co-ed activities. They allow pg-rated movies that have sexual related material. It seems pretty commonplace. They don't stop teenagers from holding hands. They don't have seperate stalls for changing in the lockerroom.
Exploring ones sexuality seems fairly commonplace. It doesn't seem that schools take any measures to stop it.
My confusion is this: where do you get the idea that schools have taken a stance against sex during pre-teens.
And as far as my highschool went, it was only grades 10-12, so there were only 16+ students.
|
Calgary26004 Posts
Yea, I've reread your posts in this thread. I have plenty to say but I think we're just about done here...
|
infinity21
Canada6683 Posts
On December 05 2006 18:36 Teroru wrote:
i don't understand where you get the impression that schools do not allow their students to have sex outside of school. They teach sex-ed at the age of 13. (at least for me). They promote co-ed activities. They allow pg-rated movies that have sexual related material. It seems pretty commonplace. They don't stop teenagers from holding hands. They don't have seperate stalls for changing in the lockerroom.
Exploring ones sexuality seems fairly commonplace. It doesn't seem that schools take any measures to stop it.
My confusion is this: where do you get the idea that schools have taken a stance against sex during pre-teens.
And as far as my highschool went, it was only grades 10-12, so there were only 16+ students.
Wait, so you think school encourages students to have sex?
Regarding the school's stance against sex during pre-teens, it's against the law to have sex if you're under the age of consent. The school is a law-abiding system. Therefore, the school does not allow teens to have sex if they're under the age of consent.
In my highschool, there's grades 9-12, and that's 14 (for gr. 9s whose birthdays hasn't passed) to 18 year olds. And even if there's just 1 person below the age of consent, you shouldn't hand out condoms to students, because that's still going against the law.
|
Of course i think school encourages students to have sex. Sexuality is one of the most important aspects to life, and school is the easiest place for people to learn (especially before they are adults) and explore that sexuality. Sex-education is all about exploring that sexuality safely.
I don't see condoms much differently.
However, if your beef is specifically with the school contradicting the law, then i am in agreement, that's no good: the law is in need of changes.
|
We were given condoms in 7th/8th grade
|
We need condoms in highschool. Free and available to everyone. Why?
Because its cheaper then abortion.
|
infinity21
Canada6683 Posts
On December 05 2006 23:03 Teroru wrote:
Of course i think school encourages students to have sex. Sexuality is one of the most important aspects to life, and school is the easiest place for people to learn (especially before they are adults) and explore that sexuality. Sex-education is all about exploring that sexuality safely.
I don't see condoms much differently.
However, if your beef is specifically with the school contradicting the law, then i am in agreement, that's no good: the law is in need of changes.
Yeah, the only problem I have is the school being hypocrites. Either the law (AoC) changes or they don't hand out condoms. As simple as that.
|
I'd say more than a third of kids under 16 are sexually experienced. Probably closer to half, if not more.
|
infinity21
Canada6683 Posts
On December 06 2006 12:02 Dknight wrote:
I'd say more than a third of kids under 16 are sexually experienced. Probably closer to half, if not more.
Probably. iirc, about half of high school students have experienced sexual intercourse. Or so they say...
|
On December 06 2006 12:02 Dknight wrote:
I'd say more than a third of kids under 16 are sexually experienced. Probably closer to half, if not more.
Whats the legal age for sex in US? Over here its 16 which would mean that your fraction of 1/3+ is how many teenagers that are breaking the law 
|
On December 05 2006 15:55 Hot_Bid wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2006 15:43 infinity21 wrote:On December 05 2006 15:20 Dknight wrote:
The age of consent is 16 in the US. Thanks, corrected. I looked it up and apparently it's 16-18 everywhere in the US except for Colorado (15/17), Iowa (14/16), Missouri (14/17), South Carolina (14/14), (male/female). Any the average age of consent is 16. so... you'd be OK with them handing the condoms out to juniors and seniors (16+)? i think you are out of touch with reality. as chill said in his post and you failed to address in yours, kids have sex and the net gain from handing out condoms (preventing all those horrible things) will outweigh the negatives (minor increase in sexual activity in 16-) and the negatives aren't even proven
Why is teenagers (<16) having sex with a condom something negative?
|
On December 06 2006 12:26 skyglow1 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2006 12:02 Dknight wrote:
I'd say more than a third of kids under 16 are sexually experienced. Probably closer to half, if not more. Whats the legal age for sex in US? Over here its 16 which would mean that your fraction of 1/3+ is how many teenagers that are breaking the law
18
|
I think schools should give out condoms. theres both pros and cons that people need to look at when asking this question. I mean people who dont want to use a condom, they simply wont use a condom, but the idea of having access to a condom is better for most kids who decide they do want to have sex. Will kids b.s their way around with condoms... yeah. of course, some idiots will joke around and be dumb, but other kids wont and they will use them. And we simply just need to knwo that some people just dont and wont use a condom.
however, i feel it should be an option in schools.
just because their there for learning DOESNT mean they dont learn about sex sometime along the way, yeah were taught sex-ed.... not very good, and come on, lets face it, most high school kids dont give a rats ass about school, and some just want to get laid. 
|
oh, not saying im the one who just wants to get laid. I just really liked that smiley, so i had to put it. im sorry!
|
On December 06 2006 12:26 skyglow1 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2006 12:02 Dknight wrote:
I'd say more than a third of kids under 16 are sexually experienced. Probably closer to half, if not more. Whats the legal age for sex in US? Over here its 16 which would mean that your fraction of 1/3+ is how many teenagers that are breaking the law
Its not breaking the law really. They put the age at which you count as an "adult" whether you are one or not. Here its 18. That means that there is like a line between 17- and 18+. its like seperating them in two different gene pools type things. I don't think there is a law on the books saying that if you have sex under the age of 18 you break the law.
|
On December 06 2006 11:59 infinity21 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2006 23:03 Teroru wrote:
Of course i think school encourages students to have sex. Sexuality is one of the most important aspects to life, and school is the easiest place for people to learn (especially before they are adults) and explore that sexuality. Sex-education is all about exploring that sexuality safely.
I don't see condoms much differently.
However, if your beef is specifically with the school contradicting the law, then i am in agreement, that's no good: the law is in need of changes. Yeah, the only problem I have is the school being hypocrites. Either the law (AoC) changes or they don't hand out condoms. As simple as that.
This, ultimately, begs a question of morality. If schools should be handing out condoms because it is right and important - which is why the law would need changing - should they follow the law just for the sake of following the law? Law without reason is tyranny.
The idea that we should not save the lives of thousands of individuals to avoid schools being 'hypocrtical' is shallow and unjust. These people do not deserve to have pain and misery inflicted upon them because our system has been too slow to accomodate them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
