Distributing Condoms in School

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
a386
Posts: 220
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 5:07 pm UTC
Location: sailing the seas
Contact:

Re: Distributing Condoms in School

Postby a386 » Wed Feb 06, 2008 4:32 am UTC

SPsnow02 wrote:Im also a High Schooler, currently taking health, and it's THE MOST USELESS CLASS EVER.


man absolutely. i just got done with my quarter-of-a-year of sex ed and it's a class that's there because the state requires it, with no interest coming from the students or the faculty, both are there just to get through it and move on with their lives.

ok so ill lay it down to start, free condoms in school would be great and im all for it. the trouble i guess is implementing it, like secondtalon said. people want the "righteous" path, they want sin eradicated and a white-horse-mounted knight to charge into their public offices and keep their kids pure and clean like youth should remain. the candidate who supports teenage sex is probably not going to do so well, which is frustrating but that's how it is, so how do you implement a program like this? according to a democratic system, this program shouldn't be, because the voting majority doesn't want it. i guess maybe i need to accept that things that seem like simple logic to me may seem a different way to someone else and that if more of those elses exist, then their view may not be right but it's the one that needs to be represented somewhere where they have a stake in. uh .. so ill go vote for the seedy sex-promoting school board candidate but if she doesn't win i won't bitch too hard about it?

User avatar
OmenPigeon
Peddler of Gossamer Lies
Posts: 673
Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2006 6:08 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Distributing Condoms in School

Postby OmenPigeon » Wed Feb 06, 2008 4:56 am UTC

This just hit notcot.org: "Visitors are greeted by a wall of 30 internally illuminated condoms."

Clearly, we need to start handing out condoms in school because it's art. By denying me free, colored prophylactics you are stifling my muse.
As long as I am alive and well I will continue to feel strongly about prose style, to love the surface of the earth, and to take pleasure in scraps of useless information.
~ George Orwell

User avatar
Freakish
Posts: 909
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 1:47 am UTC
Location: Northern Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Re: Distributing Condoms in School

Postby Freakish » Wed Feb 06, 2008 6:32 am UTC

All I really remember from sex-ed is talk about STDs; what they do, and which ones can't be cured. Anyways, at my High School we have some Health person come in twice a week that you can visit to get condoms or information. It seems to work, because I don't see any pregnant girls walking around, or even rumours of "random person here" is pregnant. My school is known for having a lot of stoners., but we don't really have any problems because the school isn't making a big deal out of sex and drugs. Pretty much, as long as you aren't disrupting the class the teachers will leave you alone.
Freakish Inc. We completely understand the public’s concern about futuristic robots feeding on the human population

BattleMoose
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:42 am UTC

Re: Distributing Condoms in School

Postby BattleMoose » Wed Feb 06, 2008 6:56 am UTC

I'm all for making condoms available in high school.

High school kids are going to have sex, period (sorry for pun), better they do it safely and know wtf its all about. So some proper sex-ed too. This being said, the school should probably make it clear that it does to condone any kind of sexual activities amongst its pupils. If it increases sexual activity so be it, as long as its safe I dont really have a huge problem with it, just a small one.:P The factor that is impeding most sexual activity in high school is lack of a sexual partner neway.

Also, the school shouldnt have the clout regarding its approval of sexual activity of its pupils. Why are schools given more credit for their opinions on the pupils than the pupils family and friends. If family and friends dont approve of the high schoolers having sex, how much credit can be given to the schools approval of increasing such behaviour. (Actually a serious question)

Or is it not a qusetion of approval but a purely practical one?

Oh, and the best places to distribute condoms, could be, i quite liked the one of the responsible pupil having a big box and walking around with that. Or you can put condom dispensars in the toilets/bathrooms, so you could wait for no one to be around take one and off you go. We dont have those at highscools, (tho we really should), down here in SA but at Univeristy.

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Distributing Condoms in School

Postby Malice » Wed Feb 06, 2008 7:07 am UTC

My RA last year in college kept a "candy/condom bucket", so that you could take a condom and pretend to be taking a delicious piece of candy. This minimized embarrassment and maximized awesome candy!

Note, though, that free condoms are generally cheap, crappy condoms, which might be more prone to breaking.
Image

User avatar
Freakish
Posts: 909
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 1:47 am UTC
Location: Northern Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Re: Distributing Condoms in School

Postby Freakish » Wed Feb 06, 2008 7:22 am UTC

Malice wrote:My RA last year in college kept a "candy/condom bucket", so that you could take a condom and pretend to be taking a delicious piece of candy. This minimized embarrassment and maximized awesome candy!

Note, though, that free condoms are generally cheap, crappy condoms, which might be more prone to breaking.


Unless of coarse you mix the two up... A machine dispensing condom might just result in some idiots clearing them out.
Freakish Inc. We completely understand the public’s concern about futuristic robots feeding on the human population

User avatar
superglucose
hermaj's new favourite
Posts: 2353
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 1:59 am UTC
Location: Domain of Azura
Contact:

Re: Distributing Condoms in School

Postby superglucose » Wed Feb 06, 2008 7:23 am UTC

While I do not have a problem with selling condoms in/around school campuses, I do take issue to free condoms. Just cause I don't want my tax dollar being spent on small pieces of rubber so someone else can have fun. You may think I'm kidding, I'm not. Here's exactly what I approve of:

Proper vending of condoms at schools.

Your ideas that it's 'emberrasing' isn't fixed by distributing them at schools: now instead of the drugstore clerk, it's the school nurse. Iono bout you guys, but no one at my school went to the nurse for ANYTHING.

But if there were some, ya know, vending machines in the bathrooms, which are reasonably private, it would be almost impossible for the 'detection' to occur.

It really just goes down to this: sex is not an urgent need, like food, water, shelter, etc. People can and do get through high school mentally balanced and O.K. not having any sex. Thus, there is no need for the school system, as underfunded as it is, to assist people having sex by spending money. Now if your local banker (I dunno) is willing to contribute some money towards free distribution, by all means! But keep your condom budget out and away from my book budget.
Image

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Distributing Condoms in School

Postby Belial » Wed Feb 06, 2008 7:36 am UTC

While I do not have a problem with selling condoms in/around school campuses, I do take issue to free condoms. Just cause I don't want my tax dollar being spent on small pieces of rubber so someone else can have fun.


You would rather they be spent on feeding and educating the unprepared-for child?

You may wish to do a cost analysis.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Dream
WINNING
Posts: 4338
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:20 pm UTC
Location: The Hollow Scene Epic

Re: Distributing Condoms in School

Postby Dream » Wed Feb 06, 2008 7:43 am UTC

superglucose wrote:But if there were some, ya know, vending machines in the bathrooms, which are reasonably private, it would be almost impossible for the 'detection' to occur.

It really just goes down to this: sex is not an urgent need, like food, water, shelter, etc. People can and do get through high school mentally balanced and O.K. not having any sex. Thus, there is no need for the school system, as underfunded as it is, to assist people having sex by spending money. Now if your local banker (I dunno) is willing to contribute some money towards free distribution, by all means! But keep your condom budget out and away from my book budget.


And if you coudn't afford them? Unless the school sells a vending machine rental worth of condoms every month, the machine will have to be subsidised. Otherwise if there isn't that much sex going on, or if the machine has to be rented over holidays, the price of those condoms will go up. If it goes any higher than 100% disposable income, on the order of cents per condom, kids who aren't having sex right now won't bother with it. Then what's the point? Only kids who know they want them will buy them, and not the kids who might well need them this weekend, only they don't know it yet.

A large part of the appeal of condoms in schools is encouraging kids to keep condoms just in case. If they have to pay pub vending prices for them, they just won't do it.
I knew a woman once, but she died soon after.

User avatar
superglucose
hermaj's new favourite
Posts: 2353
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 1:59 am UTC
Location: Domain of Azura
Contact:

Re: Distributing Condoms in School

Postby superglucose » Wed Feb 06, 2008 8:00 am UTC

Dream wrote:
superglucose wrote:But if there were some, ya know, vending machines in the bathrooms, which are reasonably private, it would be almost impossible for the 'detection' to occur.

It really just goes down to this: sex is not an urgent need, like food, water, shelter, etc. People can and do get through high school mentally balanced and O.K. not having any sex. Thus, there is no need for the school system, as underfunded as it is, to assist people having sex by spending money. Now if your local banker (I dunno) is willing to contribute some money towards free distribution, by all means! But keep your condom budget out and away from my book budget.


And if you coudn't afford them? Unless the school sells a vending machine rental worth of condoms every month, the machine will have to be subsidised. Otherwise if there isn't that much sex going on, or if the machine has to be rented over holidays, the price of those condoms will go up. If it goes any higher than 100% disposable income, on the order of cents per condom, kids who aren't having sex right now won't bother with it. Then what's the point? Only kids who know they want them will buy them, and not the kids who might well need them this weekend, only they don't know it yet.

A large part of the appeal of condoms in schools is encouraging kids to keep condoms just in case. If they have to pay pub vending prices for them, they just won't do it.


Yeah, I dunno though, I have REAL problems with money from the limited budgets schools already have going towards something that is, strictly speaking, nice but not necessary.

Edit: @belial I'm really sorry if kids can't affoard $.25 for a condom. And there are other outlets in my town at least, and it's not a large town (though it is ridiculously liberal, like more than San Francisco, so that might help). If condoms are going to be distributed, let it be through health agencies. For everyone. Why not? Why does it have to be the already tapped school budgets? And again, how many kids can't afford condoms that are four for a dollar? A casual examination of the ground in the middle of one of the poorest, scariest sections of Sacramento, CA (which I ride through every morning) and I can usually find three or four condom's worth of quarters every day. It's not like they're really expensive, highly technical pieces of equipment we're asking them to buy.
Image

BattleMoose
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:42 am UTC

Re: Distributing Condoms in School

Postby BattleMoose » Wed Feb 06, 2008 8:13 am UTC

Making money, selling condoms to high school kids, privately in their bathrooms, for profit.....

I can see ALOT of people having problems with that. And as Belial was saying, your position is extremely short sighted if you think money spent on free condoms is going to be a net expense on society.

trickster721
Posts: 282
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 4:26 am UTC

Re: Distributing Condoms in School

Postby trickster721 » Wed Feb 06, 2008 8:25 am UTC

The main question here seems to be whether sex with a condom is a gateway drug that leads to crazed meth orgies. I'm voting no. But I can see how it would seem that way to somebody who had an awed, cartoonish perspective of all sexual activity.

I can't imagine a school actually having to pay for condoms out of their general budget. There are a zillion organizations and funds and programs who are thrilled to provide them if a school is interested.

Can nobody else think of a way that teenagers could buy condoms privately at deep discounts?

User avatar
superglucose
hermaj's new favourite
Posts: 2353
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 1:59 am UTC
Location: Domain of Azura
Contact:

Re: Distributing Condoms in School

Postby superglucose » Wed Feb 06, 2008 8:42 am UTC

trickster721 wrote:The main question here seems to be whether sex with a condom is a gateway drug that leads to crazed meth orgies. I'm voting no. But I can see how it would seem that way to somebody who had an awed, cartoonish perspective of all sexual activity.


Or Victorian-era sex morals. Which are the real people we need to worry about.

BattleMoose wrote:Making money, selling condoms to high school kids, privately in their bathrooms, for profit.....

I can see ALOT of people having problems with that. And as Belial was saying, your position is extremely short sighted if you think money spent on free condoms is going to be a net expense on society.


The semantics on how it happens are honestly unimportant to me. I have a problem with schools handing out things that make life a little easier and nicer for everyone for free, when those things aren't hte school's purpose, and are very easy to obtain in the first place. Saying that I'm short sighted, saying that I think it's a net drain on society, these are just ways of telling me that my beliefes are wrong. Which they are not.

I believe that the arguments for condoms needing to be free are very specious at best, and don't agree with them. Thus, I put up my alternate solution. I see no good reason for condoms to need to be 'free' and see a couple (in my mind, due to my fears) good reasons to have them NOT be free. You may disagree if you wish, but calling me short sighted is a little uncalled for.
Image

User avatar
e946
Posts: 621
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 6:32 am UTC

Re: Distributing Condoms in School

Postby e946 » Wed Feb 06, 2008 9:13 am UTC

I like to think of it a different way: A company, wanting to increase security, debates buying antivirus software for all of it's computers.

They currently have mandatory meetings every few months to go over security measures like not opening attatchments, and all that other security goodness, but other than that they don't do anything to help protect people's computers. Several times per month, a computer will become infected because the user ignored all the "don't open attatchments" seminars and such.

If the company were to install antivirus software on every user's computer, would people begin to think "fuck it, i have the antivirus software, so i'm just going to open this attachment anyways"? Yes, they would. Would some people circumvent the antivirus software for whatever crazy reason? Yes. Is installing antivirus software in any way "condoning" the activities that get computers infected? hell no. I think it's fairly obvious that the total number of infections would dramatically decrease, thus saving the company money, data, and frustration.

Ultimately I think the company would benefit most by continuing to run the "don't open attatchment" sessions, but still install antivirus software and telling the users that the software there as a backup.

Feel free to replace various computer-related phrases with sex and school-related phrases where you feel is appropriate.

People need to get over this "teens will have sex if we give them protection" thing. They have sex whether you tell them it's bad or not, much in the same way that a user is going to open the attatchment regardless of how hard you try to stop them. Thus, the point should be to ensure that the people who do ignore your warnings are as safe as possible in doing so.

User avatar
lorenith
Posts: 1123
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 3:35 am UTC
Location: Transient
Contact:

Re: Distributing Condoms in School

Postby lorenith » Wed Feb 06, 2008 9:26 am UTC

superglucose wrote:calling me short sighted is a little uncalled for.


I don't know about you but I'd rather pay for someone to use a condom, it's a lot cheaper than paying for someones baby, and all the things associated with it down the line.

BattleMoose
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:42 am UTC

Re: Distributing Condoms in School

Postby BattleMoose » Wed Feb 06, 2008 9:52 am UTC

You were making an economic argument against providing free condoms. I believe your argument is incorrect/false, I thought Belial explained sufficiently why that would be so, but I shall clarify. Note I am calling your argument short sighted, as I believe it is, and not yourself. An important distinction.

There is a cost implication in providing condoms, for arguments sake, we can call that, x.

I think we can safely assume that high school teenagers are having sex, as well as unprotected sex, as can be shown by the amount of teenage prenancies.

Now, if an unintended pregnancy occurs, there are a few options, abortion, (high emotional trauma, cannot be equated in fiscal terms), one pair of the grandparents raises the child, possibly the most, "ideal" solution, or the happy couples leaves school and tries it on their own.

Not entirely sure how the welfare system works in the USA, I am South African, but I assume the State will help support the child? Or the child is given up for adoption and the State takes direct responsibility for the child. These are no small expenses.

And if we can be very cold, the State and parent have made considerable economic investment into their children, during school and high school and leaving school to work and not get tertiary education, as some of these young parents may have the potential to do, there is the loss of that economic potential which they may contribute to society.

So, in a time scale greater that 9 months, I argue from a purely economic perspective, its in the States best econimic interest to provide free condoms at schools, due to the cost savings that the state may have to bear in terms of unplanned children, welfare and orphanges.

Oh, and there are alot of reasons why teenagers dont want to buy condoms........ To be able to obtain them and maintain anonymity, is important.

User avatar
Alasseo
Posts: 526
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 4:25 pm UTC

Re: Distributing Condoms in School

Postby Alasseo » Wed Feb 06, 2008 1:29 pm UTC

trickster721 wrote:The main question here seems to be whether sex with a condom is a gateway drug that leads to crazed meth orgies. I'm voting no. But I can see how it would seem that way to somebody who had an awed, cartoonish perspective of all sexual activity.

I can't imagine a school actually having to pay for condoms out of their general budget. There are a zillion organizations and funds and programs who are thrilled to provide them if a school is interested.

Can nobody else think of a way that teenagers could buy condoms privately at deep discounts?


Thanks for the backhanded insult, but I for one, don't have a cartoonish perspective, nor do I rely on porn for my sex ed. I'm not saying it's a gateway drug of any sort, I'm saying that, in all of the previous examples, when we have x number of people who don't have sex, but would with free condoms and the tacit endorsement of authority figures, and y number of people who have it anyways, the x is significant.

Furthermore, I stand by my claim that kids would forget, or decide to do without condoms at one time or another because, as Belail said, kids make shortsighted decisions. It'd be hard to convince me that anyone in America doesn't know the dangers of smoking, yet kids still go out back cause it's cool.

e946 wrote:-snip analogy-
People need to get over this "teens will have sex if we give them protection" thing. They have sex whether you tell them it's bad or not, much in the same way that a user is going to open the attatchment regardless of how hard you try to stop them. Thus, the point should be to ensure that the people who do ignore your warnings are as safe as possible in doing so.


Unfortunately virus protection/firewalls either scan your system or are always on sorts of things. If we were talking about hormonal therapy of some sort, that'd be a great analogy (cept hormonal doesn't prevent disease, unless I'm greatly mistaken...). If the virus software had to be loaded on from a disk you had to remember every time you browsed the internet, I'd agree.

Given the overwhelming response against me, I'm going to suggest this: there are many more kids not having sex than you think. Many, many more. I don't go to, but I know kids at and have been to the huge suburbian high schools, they're a dime a dozen around here. At one, you can damn near get high from walking around the halls -- but the number of kids who don't do pot at all is, in my (quite unscientific) estimation, easily over half. It's simply that those who do are very prominent about it. I would argue the same thing in regards to teen sex, but now this is getting all anecdotal and needs some citations. I'm out of arguments except that there are more kids than people think (yes, even kids who go to high school) not having sex, but that would if the atmosphere changed, or if there was approval given. I then fall back on my suggestion that kids are lazy, shortsighted hormonally-driven crazies (most of the time) and would promptly forget their condoms or disdain there use because "honey if you love me you won't use one, and it'll feel so good!".
Eruantale wrote:(I did... I've always wanted to get a Dudley Do-right out of a vending machine)

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Distributing Condoms in School

Postby Azrael » Wed Feb 06, 2008 1:52 pm UTC

superglucose wrote:Saying that I'm short sighted, saying that I think it's a net drain on society, these are just ways of telling me that my beliefes are wrong. Which they are not.

It is a way to tell you that your beliefs do not hold up to rational extension. That the position does not take into account longer-term or farther-reaching consequences.

Also, you seem to be suggesting that beliefs cannot be wrong -- that they are correct because you believe them. That is ... just ridiculous. You have the right to any belief or opinion you want until, in using those values, you imping on another's rights. But that right does make you logically correct.

Alasseo wrote:Given the overwhelming response against me, I'm going to suggest this: there are many more kids not having sex than you think. Many, many more.
Previous age polls here have suggested that roughly 85% of the posting populous is 15-25 years old, meaning that either they are currently in high school, or still recent enough of a graduate to be able to comment meaningfully on high school behavior.

So, give the overwhelming response that kids in high school have sex, I'm going to suggest this: There are many more kids having sex than you (specifically) think.

And you can stand by your claim as long and as hard as you wish, but without addressing any of the logical and/or legitimate refutations that have been brought up in the thread, you've turned your discussion into soap box. (Edit: rereading the first post, you wanted to hear opinions, not debate or discuss, so ... nevermind)

User avatar
Alasseo
Posts: 526
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 4:25 pm UTC

Re: Distributing Condoms in School

Postby Alasseo » Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:29 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:-snip-

Alasseo wrote:Given the overwhelming response against me, I'm going to suggest this: there are many more kids not having sex than you think. Many, many more.
Previous age polls here have suggested that roughly 85% of the posting populous is 15-25 years old, meaning that either they are currently in high school, or still recent enough of a graduate to be able to comment meaningfully on high school behavior.

So, give the overwhelming response that kids in high school have sex, I'm going to suggest this: There are many more kids having sex than you (specifically) think.

And you can stand by your claim as long and as hard as you wish, but without addressing any of the logical and/or legitimate refutations that have been brought up in the thread, you've turned your discussion into soap box. (Edit: rereading the first post, you wanted to hear opinions, not debate or discuss, so ... nevermind)


I have no more ethos than the rest of you (because I can't back this up or prove anything), but given my position as "peer counselor" to so many people, I'm in a unique position to see what kids are doing. That said, perhaps my sample group is a statistical anomaly overall, and the people that I come in contact with are for some reason or another more prone to tend to the "no sex" side of the line. I don't think so, given the large sample and the fact that many do..but I'll still grant the possibility.

That said, as far as I can tell, I have addressed the issues. It's an issue of numbers. Everyone but me claims that the increase in safe sex would far outweigh the increase in unsafe sex. I claim the reverse, and because, as has been noted, teens tend to lie about this sort of thing, I'll go on convinced I'm right and you all will go on convinced you're right.

Perhaps this would lead to more discussion: suppose you have n number of kids. Of them, z have safe sex, y have unsafe sex, x have none but would have safe sex (and continue to) given condoms, w do not have sex, but would eventually have unsafe sex given condoms, and v just won't have sex. If the increase in the number of kids who would have safe sex (x+some subset of y) is less than the number who wouldn't (the rest of y + w), would anyone still be for distributing condoms?

I'd also like to say that if you could prove to me otherwise (and I'm open to statistics showing this), I'd drop my opposition to the distribution. I'd not support it because of my (somewhat extensive) experiences with kids doing stupid things, and I'd suggest that it's still a less than wise decision, but I would not stand up against it. My only objections would be personal ones, and I've yet to meet someone who's got the same morals I do..
Eruantale wrote:(I did... I've always wanted to get a Dudley Do-right out of a vending machine)

User avatar
DurAlvar
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 8:03 am UTC

Re: Distributing Condoms in School

Postby DurAlvar » Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:38 pm UTC

Strilanc wrote:Maybe instead of putting them at the school, which will cause problems with some of the parents, the pharmacy should implement some sort of anonymous condom system. Hell, tape them to the tampons.


Not a bad idea, except that for your average teenager, school is much more convienient then any drug store.
They say hard work never hurt anyone, but why take the chance?

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Distributing Condoms in School

Postby Azrael » Wed Feb 06, 2008 3:09 pm UTC

Alasseo wrote:Everyone but me claims that the increase in safe sex would far outweigh the increase in unsafe sex. I claim the reverse.
No, not everyone. Some of us have taken issue with the logical base of your supposition:

Azrael wrote:
Alasseo wrote:I argue that, yes, there are kids who will be encouraged to have sex that would have not done so without the introduction of condoms. However, this will lead in turn to not using them after they try it and like it ...

Again, the logic of your position contradicts itself.

If more easily available condoms promotes sex, these new participants have already decided that they would not have sex without condoms.

The deciding factor in not having sex at all was the absence of condoms. The segment you've chosen has already demonstrated your supposition to be incorrect, in that they won't have sex without a condom.


Yay for narcissistic self quotes.

Alasseo wrote:I'd also like to say that if you could prove to me otherwise (and I'm open to statistics showing this), I'd drop my opposition to the distribution.

Finding online statistics is difficult, but I figure the New York Times & The American Journal of Public Health are reputable enough that I don't have to pay for a subscription to cite the full article. End result? Condoms distribution did not increase the level of sexual activity, but *did* increase the use of condoms.

Interestingly enough, take a look a the NYC and Chicago rates for sexual activity - ~60%.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Distributing Condoms in School

Postby Belial » Wed Feb 06, 2008 3:27 pm UTC

Alasseo wrote:Furthermore, I stand by my claim that kids would forget, or decide to do without condoms at one time or another because, as Belail said, kids make shortsighted decisions. It'd be hard to convince me that anyone in America doesn't know the dangers of smoking, yet kids still go out back cause it's cool.


It's interesting that you used my "shortsighted" comment to back your own point, since choosing to have sex without a condom in the first place is one of those shortsighted decisions that teenagers are known for making. My point, of course, is that highschoolers are probably going to have sex anyway. The more that can be done to protect them from that more-or-less inevitable decision, the better. The more you can make safe sex into a nearly-zero-effort proposition, the less likely they are to forgo it shortsightedly.

superglucose wrote:Edit: @belial I'm really sorry if kids can't affoard $.25 for a condom.


25 cents for a condom is hideously under *every* price I've ever seen. To achieve that price, you'd have to subsidize them anyway. And once you factor in the cost of the machine....

Or else you're using ridiculously substandard condoms, which is....suboptimal.

superglucose wrote:I have a problem with schools handing out things that make life a little easier and nicer for everyone for free, when those things aren't hte school's purpose, and are very easy to obtain in the first place.


They aren't things that make life easier and nicer for everyone. Those are side effects. Those are not the purpose. The purpose is to reduce the pregnancy rates and the spread of STDs in school. Unwanted children of financially unstable people are a drain on society. STDs are a public health issue. Stemming the tide of both of these things is a benefit that the school, and society as a whole, is hoping to gain, and so it is in their interest to pay for it.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Distributing Condoms in School

Postby Azrael » Wed Feb 06, 2008 3:39 pm UTC

Belial wrote:
superglucose wrote:I have a problem with schools handing out things that make life a little easier and nicer for everyone for free, when those things aren't hte school's purpose, and are very easy to obtain in the first place.
They aren't things that make life easier and nicer for everyone. Those are side effects. Those are not the purpose. The purpose is to reduce the pregnancy rates and the spread of STDs in school. Unwanted children of financially unstable people are a drain on society. STDs are a public health issue. Stemming the tide of both of these things is a benefit that the school, and society as a whole, is hoping to gain, and so it is in their interest to pay for it.
Don't forget, the school has already been charged with the task of reducing those incident rates through federally funded sex education programs. The precedent/purpose is already there.

LackOfGrace
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 12:32 pm UTC

Re: Distributing Condoms in School

Postby LackOfGrace » Wed Feb 06, 2008 4:00 pm UTC

i just dont understand what the fuzz is about?
here in sweden students get free condoms after the age of 15.
they are given out in class so that curios boys will test them at home.
they are free to pickup at the school clinic and counselor.

sure, the kids have sex.
but it isnt a problem since in sweden they are considered to be of age when they hit 15.
and the result.

when i went there where zero babies ( technical education ).
everyone had condoms, so diseases didnt spread well either.

sure, there where some educations that had a high birth rate. namely nurse/childcare eductations (but in those groups these babies where planned)

i dont know when you are allowed to have sex in the US.
but personaly i think that setting an limit over 15 is begging for trouble.
teens will have sex either way, its our natural behavior as humans....

User avatar
chaosspawn
Posts: 560
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 6:38 pm UTC
Location: Waltham, MA

Re: Distributing Condoms in School

Postby chaosspawn » Wed Feb 06, 2008 4:07 pm UTC

re: number of teens having sex. Allow me to make a slightly wider statistical backing: http://www.kff.org/youthhivstds/upload/ ... -Sheet.pdf The graph indicates roughly 50% of high schoolers have sex. Of course disclaimers apply, people may lie, and the latest data was 2003.

Though it also includes some data to indicate that distribution of condoms may not be the most effective use of resources:
The Article wrote:Among teens aged 15-17 who have never had sexual intercourse,
• 94 percent said that concern about pregnancy influenced their
decision to wait. Similar numbers said that concern about HIV/AIDS
(92%), other STDs (92%) and feeling ‘too young’ (91%)
contributed to their choice.
• Nearly all (98%) teens 15-19 who have had sex report using at least
one method of birth control. The most common methods were
condoms (94%) and birth control pills (61%).
• Nearly one fifth (17%) of sexually active females 15-19 and 9
percent of males the same age said they used no method of
contraception the last time they had sex.
A quick, and perhaps incorrect interpretation of the numbers means that I think about 3-9% (non sexually active) teens would have sex if condoms were magic-ed into their hands (limited to those that don't feel 'too young' to be a factor). At most 6% (of sexually active) teens would be protected from both diseases and pregnancies (only 2% for pregnancies alone).
Also I calculate condom usage at ~88% (100-(avg(male+female non contraceptive last time use)*%using condoms)). Which may itself be increased by more availability.

Overall I think that economically it makes the most sense to put dollars towards general sex healthcare for teens rather than just condoms. I think the bigger push should be towards planned parenthood centers and other health care providers which can offer free condoms, but can also do much more like give screening tests and other contraceptives. Though that's just my idealistic solution, and I don't see making information or condoms more readily available to teens as a bad thing.

Also I think schools do need to take a responsibility in children beyond merely their education. And schools, specifically teachers do have a big influence on children. Simply given the amount of time a kid is in school mean that they are around their teachers perhaps even more than their parents.
Last edited by chaosspawn on Wed Feb 06, 2008 4:12 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
This space intentionally left blank.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Distributing Condoms in School

Postby Azrael » Wed Feb 06, 2008 4:10 pm UTC

LackOfGrace wrote:i dont know when you are allowed to have sex in the US.
Age of consent in the vast majority of states is 16, with a few spread anywhere from 13 to 18. There are also lots of quirks about how close in age you have to be if either one of the pair is under 18.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Distributing Condoms in School

Postby Belial » Wed Feb 06, 2008 4:13 pm UTC

chaosspawn wrote:A quick, and perhaps incorrect interpretation of the numbers means that I think about 3-9% (non sexually active) teens would have sex if condoms were magic-ed into their hands (limited to those that don't feel 'too young' to be a factor).


Perhaps incorrect, as you admitted. Presumably, some percentage of those who are afraid of pregnancy and STDs would continue to be afraid of those things even with condoms. They do have failure ratings, after all.

Overall I think that economically it makes the most sense to put dollars towards general sex healthcare for teens rather than just condoms. I think the bigger push should be towards planned parenthood centers and other health care providers which can offer free condoms, but can also do much more like give screening tests and other contraceptives. Though that's just my idealistic solution, and I don't see making information or condoms more readily available to teens as a bad thing.


Definitely. But there's no reason not to do all of the above.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Distributing Condoms in School

Postby Azrael » Wed Feb 06, 2008 4:31 pm UTC

Just playing with numbers, lets assume that 50% participation rate:

Taking 200 kids, 100 have sex, 50 of them are men and 0.5 (9%) of them did not use a condom that last time they had sex.

At the most, 4.5% (50% non active, 9% of those were not-"too young") would start having sex if condoms were provided, assuming their pregnancy/disease fears were completely alleviated (and I agree with Belial, those concerns won't be). Anyhow, let's round to whole number percentages:

So that 200, now splits to 110 active, 55 men, and .55 didn't use a condom. End result: a 5% increase in unsafe sex, right?

WRONG.

That 5% increase consists entirely, at first, of people who are using condoms. So what can we say about their continued use? Probably that 9-17% of those might stop, based on the Used-Last-Time numbers. That'd be an overall (worst case) .0085% (.05*.17) increase in unsafe sex.

Less than 1%.

I doubt the statisitcs are accurate enough that a projected <1% difference can be considered statistically/scientifically valid.

User avatar
Alasseo
Posts: 526
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 4:25 pm UTC

Re: Distributing Condoms in School

Postby Alasseo » Wed Feb 06, 2008 4:45 pm UTC

Belial wrote:
Alasseo wrote:Furthermore, I stand by my claim that kids would forget, or decide to do without condoms at one time or another because, as Belail said, kids make shortsighted decisions. It'd be hard to convince me that anyone in America doesn't know the dangers of smoking, yet kids still go out back cause it's cool.


It's interesting that you used my "shortsighted" comment to back your own point, since choosing to have sex without a condom in the first place is one of those shortsighted decisions that teenagers are known for making. My point, of course, is that highschoolers are probably going to have sex anyway. The more that can be done to protect them from that more-or-less inevitable decision, the better. The more you can make safe sex into a nearly-zero-effort proposition, the less likely they are to forgo it shortsightedly.
-snip-


Azrael wrote:
Alasseo wrote:Everyone but me claims that the increase in safe sex would far outweigh the increase in unsafe sex. I claim the reverse.
No, not everyone. Some of us have taken issue with the logical base of your supposition:

Azrael wrote:
Alasseo wrote:I argue that, yes, there are kids who will be encouraged to have sex that would have not done so without the introduction of condoms. However, this will lead in turn to not using them after they try it and like it ...

Again, the logic of your position contradicts itself.

If more easily available condoms promotes sex, these new participants have already decided that they would not have sex without condoms.

The deciding factor in not having sex at all was the absence of condoms. The segment you've chosen has already demonstrated your supposition to be incorrect, in that they won't have sex without a condom.


Yay for narcissistic self quotes.

Look! I can quote myself too:
Alasseo wrote:I argue that, yes, there are kids who will be encouraged to have sex that would have not done so without the introduction of condoms. However, this will lead in turn to not using them after they try it and like it -- or kids who would have had sex and/or used condoms anyways, it can be fairly reliably shown (given there are teen pregnancies where condoms are readily available, plus anecdotal evidence (which you can feel free to discount..)), "forget" or disdain them entirely.

I argue that people will have sex, like it, and drop the condom. When you first get the car you swear you'll buckle up every time, but it's just a quick(ie) ride down to the store, nothing could happen. You'll just drive safe, right?

Azreal wrote:
Alasseo wrote:I'd also like to say that if you could prove to me otherwise (and I'm open to statistics showing this), I'd drop my opposition to the distribution.

Finding online statistics is difficult, but I figure the New York Times & The American Journal of Public Health are reputable enough that I don't have to pay for a subscription to cite the full article. End result? Condoms distribution did not increase the level of sexual activity, but *did* increase the use of condoms.

Interestingly enough, take a look a the NYC and Chicago rates for sexual activity - ~60%.


I'll take a look at that link and others later when I can browse them fully.

FAKE EDIT: I just saw your new post and (assuming those statistics are reliable, teens lie about this), and there you go. We have shown that my projection of the result of introducing easily available condoms was incorrect, and I drop my objection on those grounds. I'd never suggest or support the introduction because of my experiences so far, but I will readily admit that my age limits that significantly..

I now feel slightly less manly/nerdy for losing an interweb argument.. :(
Eruantale wrote:(I did... I've always wanted to get a Dudley Do-right out of a vending machine)

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Distributing Condoms in School

Postby Belial » Wed Feb 06, 2008 4:50 pm UTC

Alasseo wrote:I argue that people will have sex, like it, and drop the condom. When you first get the car you swear you'll buckle up every time, but it's just a quick(ie) ride down to the store, nothing could happen. You'll just drive safe, right?


I feel odd arguing this point further since you appear to have given up, but...

I would argue that among people who were too scared to have sex without a condom, relatively few would later eschew them, because the type of person who holds back from sex due to those type of fears is the type of person who actually thinks ahead and appraises risks.

However, many more shortsighted people for whom acquiring condoms was too much effort/expense/embarassment would start using them when they were free and easy to acquire.

Alasseo wrote:I'd never suggest or support the introduction because of my experiences so far, but I will readily admit that my age limits that significantly..


Can you clarify what you mean by this? Which introduction? What experiences?
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

trickster721
Posts: 282
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 4:26 am UTC

Re: Distributing Condoms in School

Postby trickster721 » Wed Feb 06, 2008 5:10 pm UTC

Alasseo wrote:
trickster721 wrote:The main question here seems to be whether sex with a condom is a gateway drug that leads to crazed meth orgies. I'm voting no.
I'm not saying it's a gateway drug of any sort, I'm saying that, in all of the previous examples, when we have x number of people who don't have sex, but would with free condoms and the tacit endorsement of authority figures, and y number of people who have it anyways, the x is significant.

So you are suggesting that teenagers enjoying consensual sex with each other is inherently bad, probably on some sort of religious grounds, since that's the only ground there is. Why should we waste time arguing with you when you're being deliberately irrational? I could be using this time for sex.

Goplat
Posts: 490
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 11:41 pm UTC

Re: Distributing Condoms in School

Postby Goplat » Wed Feb 06, 2008 5:13 pm UTC

So basically this proposal means that government money will be spent to make sure that people can commit a crime (statutory rape) and get away with no repercussions.

Why don't we just abolish the police? That'll let tons of people get away with crime (apparently a good thing according to most posters here) and it'll save money too!

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26531
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: Distributing Condoms in School

Postby SecondTalon » Wed Feb 06, 2008 5:14 pm UTC

Eh, there's logical ground to it. Teenagers fucking = increased chance of teen pregnancy = drain on society vs Teenagers not fucking = more time to study and get at least somewhat of a respectable job = plenty of fucking to be had once you've hit the real world.

Except worded a bit better. Probably without the use of the word fucking.

So basically this proposal means that government money will be spent to make sure that people can commit a crime (statutory rape) and get away with no repercussions.


Depends on your local laws on whether or not it counts as statutory rape.

Why don't we just abolish the police? That'll let tons of people get away with crime (apparently a good thing according to most posters here) and it'll save money too!


Is this a strawman or an ad hominem fallacy? I get those mixed up...
Last edited by SecondTalon on Wed Feb 06, 2008 5:18 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Distributing Condoms in School

Postby Belial » Wed Feb 06, 2008 5:17 pm UTC

goplat wrote:So basically this proposal means that government money will be spent to make sure that people can commit a crime (statutory rape) and get away with no repercussions.


Are you being intentionally ridiculous?

If not, it should be noted that while it might technically be statutory rape, the crime is pretty much never prosecuted when *both* partners are under the age of consent. So, speaking in a de facto sense only, it's not a crime.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

Goplat
Posts: 490
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 11:41 pm UTC

Re: Distributing Condoms in School

Postby Goplat » Wed Feb 06, 2008 5:26 pm UTC

Belial wrote:Are you being intentionally ridiculous?
I'm not the one who's saying it's OK to break the law, here.

If not, it should be noted that while it might technically be statutory rape, the crime is pretty much never prosecuted when *both* partners are under the age of consent.
That the justice system is too lazy to do its job is a shame, but not really relevant to this discussion.

So, speaking in a de facto sense only, it's not a crime.
And I guess the lynching of blacks by the KKK in the post-civil war South, in a de facto sense only, wasn't a crime either, since the police often turned a blind eye to that as well.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Distributing Condoms in School

Postby Azrael » Wed Feb 06, 2008 5:28 pm UTC

Goplat wrote:So basically this proposal means that government money will be spent to make sure that people can commit a crime (statutory rape) and get away with no repercussions.

Why don't we just abolish the police? That'll let tons of people get away with crime (apparently a good thing according to most posters here) and it'll save money too!
Pregnancy or disease are not the legal repercussion of statutory rape. Condom distribution aims to prevent a public health issue without any bearing on the legality or legal repercussions of the act itself.

The extension that supporting condom distribution means that you support letting people get away with a crime is logically flawed.

And pretty damn stupid, too.


EDIT: Talon - Straw man. Misrepresenting a position to more easily attack it - and in the process, failing to deal with the actual arguments that have been made.
Last edited by Azrael on Wed Feb 06, 2008 5:46 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Distributing Condoms in School

Postby Belial » Wed Feb 06, 2008 5:33 pm UTC

I'm not the one who's saying it's OK to break the law, here.


Oh. So you actually think the things you're saying? I didn't think there were
people like you.

That the justice system is too lazy to do its job is a shame, but not really relevant to this discussion.


Actually, it is. Those crimes aren't prosecuted because they aren't seen as a problem. In order to prosecute a pair of underaged "statutory rapists" you'd have to prosecute each one for raping the other. It's legally ridiculous, and would basically be thrown out of court. But since it's never enforced, it's not worth writing a ridiculously complicated "when is it okay for underaged folk to fuck each other" clause into a law whose clear intent is to protect underaged folk from being fucked by older folk.

And I guess the lynching of blacks by the KKK in the post-civil war South, in a de facto sense only, wasn't a crime either, since the police often turned a blind eye to that as well.


I see you went for the most controversial and overblown thing you could short of godwinning the thread. Classy.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Distributing Condoms in School

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Feb 06, 2008 5:36 pm UTC

Nono, I think Gop's right! Kids having sex should be illegal! We should put chips in their genitalia, and whenever they get excited they get electrocuted!
Because hey, we all know that teenagers who don't listen to the "Don't have sex!" guideline turn out to be brigands and thieves! Bush was right! Abstinence makes right!

Or we could separate sex education from our national schooling policies, and the backwater fundamentalists who don't, you know, want their kids to learn, can rest assured that they aren't, and the rest of parents who care about their children's education can send them to a program or whatever where they can learn about all the AWESOME things the body develops.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

trickster721
Posts: 282
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 4:26 am UTC

Re: Distributing Condoms in School

Postby trickster721 » Wed Feb 06, 2008 5:46 pm UTC

Goplat wrote:So basically this proposal means that government money will be spent to make sure that people can commit a crime (statutory rape) and get away with no repercussions.

First I've heard of it. Where do you live that it's illegal for teenagers under the age of consent to have sex with each other?

And what about masterbation? Are teenagers allowed to do that?

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Distributing Condoms in School

Postby Azrael » Wed Feb 06, 2008 5:54 pm UTC

trickster721 wrote:Where do you live that it's illegal for teenagers under the age of consent to have sex with each other?
There are states like Idaho where it is illegal. And things get quite murky between close in age exceptions and defenses at court in many other states.

But the legality of the sex *still* doesn't affect the logic behind condom distribution, nor vice-versa.

Giving out condoms does not force the individual to break the law, nor does being given condoms exempt the individual from the law. It *is* helping to keep people who might (age dependent) be breaking the law away from non-legal consequences.

Like seat belts, air bags, crumple zones etc -- federally mandated safety features that will positively effect those who aren't breaking the law just as fairly as those who are (by speeding or driving recklessly etc).
Last edited by Azrael on Wed Feb 06, 2008 6:02 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests