We get that. We get that 100 percent.Originally Posted by Chairtime
However, there is too much of a wide gap that something needs to fill it in. You have to understand that.
We get that. We get that 100 percent.
However, there is too much of a wide gap that something needs to fill it in. You have to understand that.
Agreed, kids do it anyway, far better they don't ruin their lives by having kids while they themselves are still kids. I also personally know several girls who had kids at 15/16 and it's not done them any favours.
Sure there is. Abstinence didn't work for you, yet you unrealistically think it should work for others. How do you reconcile such a discrepancy? And don't you wish there had been condoms available at your school? Answer honestly, from the perspective of the teen aged Chairtime.
I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that the STD and pregnancy didn't happen the times that you used a condom. BTW/FWI birth control pills aren't protection against STDs.
If having sex can result in damage to your sense of self-worth and dignity, imagine what sex reulting in an STD or pregnancy can do to your self-worth and dignity, not to mention your health, etc, etc, etc.
Who is promoting teenage sex? Some of us merely have our heads out of the sand and acknowledge the reality that it's going to happen, and want to take steps to minimize it's impact on those kids who don't resist temptation. You can endorse abstinence all you want, and withhold condoms from kids, and then you can react and deal with the resulting STD and pregnancies. I'd rather prevent.
That's like saying a condom didn't work when you didn't use one.There were condoms available at every corner store. How could school condoms be more effective?Neither did it happen when I abstained.You are, if you give a condom to a teen.Do you really think NOT DISTRIBUTING is the same as WITHHOLDING?The only thing you are preventing is abstinence.
Alternative to abstinence: masturbation! Maybe they should pass out free porn to highschool students instead of condoms?
A few idiot congress people have actually suggested teaching this in public schools.
Chip
I think I have to say I agree. Acessibility would be fine, I just wouldn't want to pay for it.
edit - reasoning:
Personal life choices sauch as birth control aren't, in my opinion, to be funded publicly
Last edited by Alvaro Cordova; 10-14-2005 at 06:35 PM.
Opticiansfriend.com guy.
Do you really think PROMOTING THE USE OF CONDOMS is the same the same as PREVENTING ABSTINENCE?
We're going to pay, either way.
You can pay for condoms
OR
you can pay for the healthcare of an infected teen, abortion, delivery of baby, raising said child, daycare for said child, etc.
Whether by government programs or charity, these things get paid for.
Or you could let them die.
I think the best return on your invested dollar would be condoms.
To paraphrase rbaker -
Trojan...
Duuhhh!!
how many of you don't like sealed packed virgin wife:bbg:
I knew about condoms without having them handed to me. Sex ed. (not the absitinance program they teach now) is where condom use should be taught. They should also be taught that at first it is preferable to buy a four pack as three of them will probably be put on wrong initially :D . If the little punk wants Sally to play with his weiner, then he should work up the nerve and buy the condoms himself. It really is a right of passage. Accessibility and knowledge should be out there for the students. To actually buy it for them seems intrusive to me.
Opticiansfriend.com guy.
I cannot concieve of anyone stupid enough (male or female) to need instructions on how to put a condom on. Do you really think there are such people?
yes
these type of people are the number one reason why condoms are made and safer sex is taught within the school system too.
Yes they are out there.
Opticiansfriend.com guy.
And they continue to breed thereby perpetuating stupidity.
For-Life
No, we are handing out condoms for the sigs. We are not handing out naked boys and girls[/QUOTE]
Pretty poor anology.
Jedi
Maybe we should handout skin mags and tissues, promote masturbation. A more logical approach than pretending abstainence is the only solution.[/QUOTE]
Re-read my post never said it was the only approach. More logical then two kids
having sex that have no idea what there doing just doing what there hormones
happen to be telling them. Had one person tell me one time " Always listen to the big head because the little head will always get you in trouble" not bad advise.Just my 2 cents
Yes, your analogy was poor. I will tell you. To find someone to have sex with is a lot harder than getting a condom.
You used the idea of cigarettes. Well what do you need to have a smoke? A cigarette and a match (or lighter, or dragon). Well with a condom you need someone to have sex with you.
Also, I doubt anyone says "yes, I got a condom, I can now have sex." I bet it is more like "hey, lets have sex. Gotta a condom?"
Spexvet
Only if they use them.[/QUOTE]
You never answered Chips questions. But then again you only answer a question
with another question neat way to escape answering the questions but again that has been your modus operandi.
For-Life
Yes, your analogy was poor. I will tell you. To find someone to have sex with is a lot harder than getting a condom.
You used the idea of cigarettes. Well what do you need to have a smoke? A cigarette and a match (or lighter, or dragon). Well with a condom you need someone to have sex with you.
Also, I doubt anyone says "yes, I got a condom, I can now have sex." I bet it is more like "hey, lets have sex. Gotta a condom?"[/QUOTE]
Nice try For-Life.
1." Finding someone to have sex" Not really
2." To have a smoke " Usually you need a person to light up.
3." hey, lets have sex" Some do
:hammer:
So you are saying that it is easy to find a random person to have sex with (that you also want to have sex with)?
Like I said, to have a smoke does not a light, but it is not that hard to find it.
Also, people do not have sex, because they have condoms. Like I said, and you did not cover in your numbering, when people want to have sex they look for a condom.
Condoms do not encourage sex. Sex is enough to encourage sex.
Re-read my post never said it was the only approach. More logical then two kidsMy comment wasn't directed to your post. When I see the red font I tend to scroll right by it.having sex that have no idea what there doing just doing what there hormones
happen to be telling them. Had one person tell me one time " Always listen to the big head because the little head will always get you in trouble" not bad advise.
If teenagers ARE going to make love / have sex then condoms is a bloody good idea. In the absense of any constructive methods for stopping under-age sex, then offering something that eliminates many of the consequences would seem to be very sensible. It would be an interesting Poll in the forum to find out "who didnt have a sexual relationship" as a teenager. I would immagine it is a small percentage
As adults we like to lord our opinions on the young - and in one respect so we should. But a little humility, a pinch of common sense and some honest recolection of our own youth might go a long way
We live in a society where:
That list could go on for ever. Sex seems to be in the fabric of advertising... with children constantly bombarded with mixed moral messages, how on earth can it be wrong to give them protection incase they decide to get a bit giggy with it
- Cosmetic surgery is ok, but children in the third world die of simple illnesses
- Sex between youngsters is frowned upon, but the cover of most fashion magazines are showing a teenager supposedly on drugs, with her skirt worn like a belt
- We idolise musisians posteriors, without caring a hoot if they can sing
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks