|
On December 04 2006 14:03 Excalibur_Z wrote:
Passing out condoms in high schools is ridiculous. Kids and teens are supposed to be educated in high schools, so why not stick with education? Talk about dangers and consequences of unprotected and protected sex, promiscuity, etc., and just leave it at that. There's no need to waste time and tax dollars distributing condoms. In my opinion that crosses the line between basic education and enablement.
It's better than wasting tax dollars supporting their baby. And it's pretty obvious that abstinence-only sex education doesn't work, just like the "just say no" program.
|
But they will have condoms...and then you will say that I am giving high school kids too much credit.
It´s good you have that view on premarital sex as is good the view on those who have premarital sex, but please don say those who have it obviously didn't learn anything in high school come on.
You make sound high school as place where they scare you and make you fear a natural thing part of our lives.
|
On December 04 2006 14:17 infinity21 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2006 13:47 MTF wrote:On December 04 2006 13:03 infinity21 wrote:
OverTheUnder, I think you're giving high school kids too much credit here... You're assuming that teenage kids who are about to have sex will actually care about STDs. They've already been educated on what happens when they have sex. Girls get pregnant. I think we all learned that in high school, or elementary school for that matter. Honestly, it's their choice to have sex and get HIV, AIDS, STDs, and get pregnant. Getting free condoms might reduce the risk of infection but will encourage premarital sex (in high school) as I mentioned in my post above.
Remember, high school kids that have premarital sex obviously didn't learn anything in high school (with all the education on how it's so bad, risks of getting STDs, etc). They still have sex regardless. So it's a pretty risky assumption when you say they'll learn to control their sexual desires. While I'm not exactly supportive of going around and screwing whoever, whenever (I've only had one sexual partner all of my life, whom I'm engaged to), I do not like your approach to "preventing disease". Preaching abstinence instead of birth control/safe sex methods is counter-productive. Yes, it gives some moral backing, but ultimately it is up to them what they want to do, not society. Just because they're teens doesn't mean they don't deserve the right to have protection. This is all like saying you tell younger kids never to cross the street, whether they look both ways or not, because they could get hit. You shouldn't inhibit them like that, but rather let them learn and hold their hand, give them that extra safety, when they do cross. But school does everything necessary for teenagers. By the way, I'm a teenager myself, being in Grade 12. But I don't think it should be done in a way that promotes premarital sex. They (i.e. the school) teach us about the consequences of having premarital sex, such as AIDS, STDs, etc. They teach us what happens to your 16 year old girlfriend if you have unprotected sex. They teach us everything we need to make rational decisions. It's these stupid idiots that decide to have unprotected sex at the age of 16, when you're most likely not ready to be a parent, emotionally and financially. If they want condoms, they can go buy them. Seriously, just go buy condoms. It can't exactly be that difficult. I never said people should never have premarital sex. It's society, not me, that says that. To counter your point, I'd like to say that, nobody would actually hold a teenagers' hands when crossing the street. That was done when they were innocent children, incapable of making rational decisions for themselves. What they do to teenagers is give them more freedom. That is, the parents tell their teenage son that crossing the street without looking is dangerous because you can be hit by a car. I'm against the view that teenagers should be overprotected like children. We're at a point where we can make some important decisions for ourselves. The point I'm trying to make is, the school tells us of every single consequence to having unprotected, premarital sex. They say: "these are the consequences. Do it at your own risk." I honestly think they've done quite enough for us to make an educated decision.
Abstinence only sex education DOES NOT WORK. Tax money spent on condoms > Tax money spent on welfare for 19 year old mothers.
Also, you're still in high school, and thus have no idea how life is outside of high school. You don't know enough about this issue to give an opinion, and it's obvious in your posts.
And actually, only certain societies say that it's not right to have sex before marriage. There are actually cultures in the world where free sex is practiced, and most of the younger generation doesn't hold the view that premarital sex is a bad thing. Go to college, you'll see what I mean.
|
On December 04 2006 13:03 infinity21 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2006 12:50 OverTheUnder wrote:On December 04 2006 12:38 infinity21 wrote:Ah, let 'em do it. It's not like I'm going to have sex in high school anyways. Pro: the chances of people getting HIV and AIDS, etc decreases Con: people are more encouraged to have sex due to the increase in "safety" (or so they think  ) So I doubt it would do much good. ??? if anything, it would do good. Some kids may start having sex more, but the figure that matters is pregancies and stds. Both of them would reduce significantly. plus alot of kids have a hard time getting laid anyway^_^ OverTheUnder, I think you're giving high school kids too much credit here... You're assuming that teenage kids who are about to have sex will actually care about STDs. They've already been educated on what happens when they have sex. Girls get pregnant. I think we all learned that in high school, or elementary school for that matter. Honestly, it's their choice to have sex and get HIV, AIDS, STDs, and get pregnant. Getting free condoms might reduce the risk of infection but will encourage premarital sex (in high school) as I mentioned in my post above. Remember, high school kids that have premarital sex obviously didn't learn anything in high school (with all the education on how it's so bad, risks of getting STDs, etc). They still have sex regardless. So it's a pretty risky assumption when you say they'll learn to control their sexual desires.
What the fuck? You're a complete retard. And it's pretty obvious that you've never had sex before - not that being a virgin is a bad thing, but you don't understand what we're talking about because you've never done it. It's just like drugs. People who haven't done drugs don't know enough about them to even talk intelligently with someone who has. They simply don't understand what it's like.
You can't describe the ecstatic in terms of the static.
And dude, you don't get an STD if you practice safe sex. Do you understand that a condom prevents a majority of STDs? Where the fuck do you get this "remember" shit, like it's a fact?
Where do you draw the line? If someone is getting married the next day, and they have sex, is their risk any higher than if they waited that extra day? No. It's not. Look at it from a logical point of view - if you have sex with someone who does not carry an STD, you won't get an STD. Not everybody has STDs, you know.
|
is awesome32282 Posts
I dont think you can make comments about dying in a car crash. I mean, you never died in a car crash1!!!!!!1111
|
Context is everything, my friend.
And yeah, I wouldn't be able to tell you what dying is like, because I've never done it. What if dying felt really good and people started killing themselves all around the world, but there was a little $1 piece of rubber you could put around your arm that would let you feel good and experience death without actually dying? Would you educate people about safe use of this device - let's call it... a candam - or just tell people not to kill themselves, even when so many people were dying because they didn't have a candam and were too embarassed to buy one?
|
On December 04 2006 14:48 uNcontroLable wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2006 14:33 whatever wrote:there´s a similar controversy where I live (last 3 posts made reference to mexico wtf) , but instead of high school kids here is 6th grade elementary (11-12 year old) On December 04 2006 14:33 infinity21 wrote:On December 04 2006 14:29 uNcontroLable wrote:They gave them out at my high school, which usually resulted in them being unwrapped and placed on the andles of the combination locks of people's lockers. Aside from the obvious practical uses, though , I can honestly and from experience say that the fact that condoms were readily available, and the fact that that was so forcibly advertised to us, made a lot of kids feel like "everyone" was having sex so they should too, and they did. That's not good. Yeah, that's what I thought might happen. Distributing condoms may lead to more people having sex. So really, it promotes premarital sex by having them available, which is discouraged nowadays. But I must say, I didn't see all these "practical" uses..  since when is wrong to have sex or what´s the problem with more people having? The problem is a kid having sex merely because they think everyone else is doing it. That's not a good reason to become sexually active.
what you are asking for here is to reduce the influence of others in a high school kid, wich is basically impossible in most cases
|
Abstinence-only sex education has only given people bad views of sex, and thus, when they're drunk and ready to have sex, they won't have a condom, and then they'll be drunk and having a baby. Otherwise, if they never encounter a situation in which they want to have sex, they'll just wait until marriage and miss out on a very enjoyable act if they fail to get married. You can see it in that 12th grader's post.
Sex feels good, by the way, and sex for pleasure is a sign of intelligent life. That's why dolphins are considered to be the second smartest animal, because they engage in sex for pleasure, among other important things (like having a language).
|
infinity, if pregnancy and STDs are the consequences of having premarital sex, i can't see why you're against the distribution of condoms. yes, it might encourage some kids to have sex more, but they'll have easier access to safe sex, which would prevent pregnancy and STDs, no? you're contradicting yourself, "dont pass out condoms cuz premarital sex causes pregnancy and STDs!!!11". ?????????????
|
On December 04 2006 14:38 infinity21 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2006 14:33 whatever wrote:there´s a similar controversy where I live (last 3 posts made reference to mexico wtf) , but instead of high school kids here is 6th grade elementary (11-12 year old) On December 04 2006 14:33 infinity21 wrote:On December 04 2006 14:29 uNcontroLable wrote:They gave them out at my high school, which usually resulted in them being unwrapped and placed on the andles of the combination locks of people's lockers. Aside from the obvious practical uses, though , I can honestly and from experience say that the fact that condoms were readily available, and the fact that that was so forcibly advertised to us, made a lot of kids feel like "everyone" was having sex so they should too, and they did. That's not good. Yeah, that's what I thought might happen. Distributing condoms may lead to more people having sex. So really, it promotes premarital sex by having them available, which is discouraged nowadays. But I must say, I didn't see all these "practical" uses.. since when is wrong to have sex or what´s the problem with more people having? Problem? Oh, nothing. Just some people infected with AIDS, HIVs, STDs, etc. no biggie. And notice how I say "premarital sex". Which IS, I repeat, IS discouraged by society because it leads to so many complications. edit: yes, we are talking about high school students. Not adults.
btw its not premartial sex that leads to all these problems, its unsafe sex.
|
Being 17 and going to high school in my senior year, I can definitely say that:
Free condoms or no free condoms, the likelyhood of me getting laid is still > 0%.
So what the hell does it matter if we'd get them for free. The kids that shag can keep on shagging, and it won't be so obvious to the rest of the school (which usually shuns them around here), and the kids that don't shag will be "using them practically."
I don't see a problem with that.
|
Infinity is in 12th grade, hasn't had sex, and is against premarital sex. Also, he's been through the abstinence-only brainwashing, and for once, it worked, saving him from the dangers of unprotected premarital sex. But the problem with that is he's now got a skewed view of the world due to scare tactics and false information, and probably won't have sex until he's married, at which point he'll probably want to kill himself for not realizing that he'd been an idiot about sex for all of his life.
What's the difference between marital sex and premarital sex? Would it be safe to have sex with someone that you're GOING to marry, but aren't married to? Does the risk of having an STD decrease if you get married? What if you marry, have sex, then divorce and have sex again? What if the other person has never had sex or an STD (you know this due to blood donating at your school, say), and neither have you - do you still run the risk of an STD?
|
infinity21
Canada6683 Posts
On December 04 2006 14:57 5HITCOMBO wrote:
What the fuck? You're a complete retard. And it's pretty obvious that you've never had sex before - not that being a virgin is a bad thing, but you don't understand what we're talking about because you've never done it. It's just like drugs. People who haven't done drugs don't know enough about them to even talk intelligently with someone who has. They simply don't understand what it's like.
You can't describe the ecstatic in terms of the static.
And dude, you don't get an STD if you practice safe sex. Do you understand that a condom prevents a majority of STDs? Where the fuck do you get this "remember" shit, like it's a fact?
Yeah, I'm a 17 year old virgin. Does it look like I care that I haven't had sex at this age? You're saying I'm too unintelligent to have a discussion about premarital sex? Who are you to judge my intelligence based on my virginity? "You can't describe the ecstatic in terms of the static"? You're pulling shit out of your ass. So HAVE to have experienced it to be able to talk about it? That's bullshit. I can understand what would happen if a high school couple was to have unprotected sex. The results are not that complicated.
Case 1: No pregnant girl, everyone lives on happily
Case 2: Pregnant girl, dumbfounded boyfriend, distressed parents, girl/boy unable to support the baby financially or emotionally, mental trauma, and most likely, abortion.
Saying you need to experience to understand is a ridiculous claim, as you haven't experienced everything you understand.
Obviously using a condom can prevent a majority of STDs. But if you've read my previous posts, you would have known that I said handing out condoms to everyone would increase the number of people having premarital sex so it would balance out the numbers. It's not like having protected anal sex can prevent STDs if you also have oral sex, which most people probably do if they're already having anal sex.
And yes, it's obvious to me that people who have unprotected premarital sex haven't learned jack shit in high school. My original argument, which you've twisted in such an evil manner, was that schools shouldn't hand out condoms to everyone because it increases the number of premarital sex.
|
You're talking about two different things. If you're against unsafe sex, then you should be for distribution of condoms. People will have sex regardless of whether or not the condoms are there. Where do you get this idea that handing out condoms will increase the amount of people having premarital sex? If people don't want to have premarital sex, they won't. What really increases is ratio of people having safe sex to those having unsafe sex.
You're against premarital sex. The issue is unprotected sex. The people who are romantic or suave or whatever enough to get laid are already having sex. If they're not, it's their choice, and props to them - if this is the case, the availability of condoms will not change anything except for the spread of STDs.
You should read The Tipping Point by Malcom Gladwell. You might understand our views better if you had some statistical evidence that's true.
|
marriage doesn't magically make STDs disappear infinity. you can have premarital sex and be safe about it.
|
That's what I mean, he doesn't understand that - or he's just bad at logic.
|
On December 04 2006 15:28 5HITCOMBO wrote:
You're talking about two different things. If you're against unsafe sex, then you should be for distribution of condoms.
yea thats exactly what i said earlier too. i think hes just far too brainwashed into thinking premarital sex and unsafe sex are one and the same.
|
Are condom companies evil for promoting premarital sex?
I would suggest that they're a great service to the human race. They stop the spread of disease, prevent unintentional pregnancies, and allow humans to have their pleasure at a lower risk. So what if more people do it? If the danger isn't present, then what is wrong with it?
|
infinity21
Canada6683 Posts
On December 04 2006 15:25 5HITCOMBO wrote:
Infinity is in 12th grade, hasn't had sex, and is against premarital sex. Also, he's been through the abstinence-only brainwashing, and for once, it worked, saving him from the dangers of unprotected premarital sex. But the problem with that is he's now got a skewed view of the world due to scare tactics and false information, and probably won't have sex until he's married, at which point he'll probably want to kill himself for not realizing that he'd been an idiot about sex for all of his life.
What's the difference between marital sex and premarital sex? Would it be safe to have sex with someone that you're GOING to marry, but aren't married to? Does the risk of having an STD decrease if you get married? What if you marry, have sex, then divorce and have sex again? What if the other person has never had sex or an STD (you know this due to blood donating at your school, say), and neither have you - do you still run the risk of an STD?
You call it brain washing, I call it education. What's the difference between marital sex and premarital sex? One, you're ready to have children, and the other you're not. IF YOU'VE READ THE ORIGINAL POST you will realize that we're talking about high school students who are not ready to take on the role of a parent, emotionally and financially.
The unavailability of condoms will discourage rational, educated people from having unsafe premarital sex, but it won't discourage uneducated people.
By the way, and I'm against unsafe premarital sex. I'm saying the system's fine the way it is. Smart people know better than to have unsafe premarital sex.
|
So... what if you're married, and don't want children?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
