• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Kids n' Kondoms

What age?

  • 11 - 12

    Votes: 6 14.0%
  • 13 - 14

    Votes: 9 20.9%
  • 15 - 16

    Votes: 6 14.0%
  • 17 - 18

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 3 7.0%
  • Oh, hell no!

    Votes: 19 44.2%

  • Total voters
    43
  • Poll closed .
Anal sex has the highest rate of STDs transmission, oral sex the lowest.

That was internet sarcasm.

Until we figure out a way to get people of all ages to quit engaging in irresponsible sexual behavior we will have the debates and costs associated with abortions, unwanted pregnancies, STD's, and in some cases death. Any other so called solutions are just treating the symptoms of the actual disease of irresponsible behavior.
 
While you may find some schools that will distribute flu shots, that is not the status quo in the education system. More times than not, it is not offered.
I never said they shouldn't teach about condoms. I said they shouldn't distribute them. However, I also don't believe that condoms and the like should be the focus of the curriculum. I believe that abstinence should be the focus of the curriculum. The reason so many conservatives are against this is because it always leads into teachers overstepping bounds. Teachers should teach facts, stats, etc. When demonstrations start occurring, young minds race. When young minds race, you get idiotic teachers saying idiotic things.
Ideally abstinence "education" would be a simple, immediately effective solution to teen pregnancy, std's and other related problems, but it's prior track record demonstrates otherwise. Hormones and the availability of willing partners override most of what is taught children and teenagers by adult figures whether they be teachers or parents, as is the case in a wide array of other social areas.
 
Ideally abstinence "education" would be a simple, immediately effective solution to teen pregnancy, std's and other related problems, but it's prior track record demonstrates otherwise. Hormones and the availability of willing partners override most of what is taught children and teenagers by adult figures whether they be teachers or parents, as is the case in a wide array of other social areas.

Trust me, if anyone knows that things don't go according to plan, it's me. However, you don't jettison the right thing to do (or teach) because it's just too hard to do (no pun). To use a football analogy, it's like sticking with the run. If you keep going to it, it will break through eventually. The biggest mistake our education system makes is only teaching sex education once. I remember as a kid getting sex ed for one semester in 6th grade. MOST kids aren't even thinking about sex then (the avg age is 17). Some are, but, that's because of their homelife more than anything else. We should begin teaching it at age 11. Abstinence should be the focus until age 13 (or before going to high school). Then, we begin to teach about condoms, birth control, etc in addition to abstinence with them being a minor part of the curriculum. By minor I mean they are taught about, the stats of their effectiveness is given, kids are told to AT LEAST use one if they are going to do it, etc. Sex education should be continuous. Not a one shot and your done kinda thing.
 
That article makes NO mention of condom size.

I agree that badly fitting condoms can be a problem, which is why I agree with you that different sized condoms be handed out as well.

The horrifically wrong myth is that put on any condom and you're safe (or if the guy has one on the girl thinks she's safe.)

That is false.

And who is propogating this myth? So far as I can tell the only people claiming that this argument exists at all are those who are against condoms in general, for some reason, since I have never heard it from the CDC, school, PP, etc.

Condoms offer excellent protection against STDs / pregnancy. I was highly promiscuous prior to my married life with highly promiscuous and therefore high risk women. I had an absolute condom use rule. Never an exception (but then when married). Never a failure. BUT I absolutely used ONLY my condoms I selected and I kept total storage control of, and then followed the use them correctly rules too.

That's great, but that is no argument against them being handed out in school.

Acting up and presenting generic condoms as safe is a LIE. A huge lie. For schools to act towards parent's child with a "something is better than nothing" model is literally playing Russian roulette with the children as known, statistical HIGH risks to do something generically correct and factually wrong and stupid.

The schools do NOT do it correctly, so as done it is are horribly bad practice - even setting aside whether this is a job for schools.

Underaged sex is illegal. Lots of kids do. So is using drugs. Lots of kids do that too. Adulterated and badly made drugs kills kids. Under the "safety" theory, schools should give kids illegal drugs so kids that use illegal drugs are not using tainted or unpredictable quality and strength drugs. Same theory of protecting the kids - OTHER than with condoms they don't even bother to find out if they will do the particular kid any good at all.

Thinking that teenage hormones can be controlled just like that is wildly naive. There is no hormonal switch that says "time to do drugs!" whereas they are literally programmed to start making babies as soon as adolescence hits. This is why abstinence-only education results in the highest std and pregnancy rates (and is also evidence that schools don't do it incorrectly): teenagers, who are already pretty spooked about talking to adults about sex are now expected to seek out proper birth/std control methods all on their own. However, when condoms are handed out to students en masse, no judgement is being made on the students themselves because everyone is getting condoms. Proper use and selection of condoms will only help.
 
Trust me, if anyone knows that things don't go according to plan, it's me. However, you don't jettison the right thing to do (or teach) because it's just too hard to do (no pun). To use a football analogy, it's like sticking with the run. If you keep going to it, it will break through eventually. The biggest mistake our education system makes is only teaching sex education once. I remember as a kid getting sex ed for one semester in 6th grade. MOST kids aren't even thinking about sex then (the avg age is 17). Some are, but, that's because of their homelife more than anything else. We should begin teaching it at age 11. Abstinence should be the focus until age 13 (or before going to high school). Then, we begin to teach about condoms, birth control, etc in addition to abstinence with them being a minor part of the curriculum. By minor I mean they are taught about, the stats of their effectiveness is given, kids are told to AT LEAST use one if they are going to do it, etc. Sex education should be continuous. Not a one shot and your done kinda thing.

BTW, call me immature but there are so many unintended puns in post. Sorry lol.
 
Nothing in this article counters the argument that the correct use and education of condoms use is necessary in order for them to be effective. Neither is there anything in your link to substantiate your argument that claims of condom effectiveness are "completely safe."

Are you advocating that condoms of different sizes are handed out in schools as well? Because I could get behind that if that's your concern.

The article is not about effectiveness of correct condom use. I believe the correct condom used correctly is safe against all but genital herpes - which involves skin contact, no fluid exchange. However that is a different topic.

Personally, I oppose schools handing out condoms as it is a concession (circumstantially) to illegal conduct and it simplifies complex sexuality questions.

HOWEVER, IF the school is going to do so, yes then it would have to be done correctly, which would include handing out different size condoms - with it very problematical figuring out what that is without it just getting "weird" for lack of a better word. I suppose a possible means would make condoms available at the nurses station, but a mini-talk needed. It a bit more a problem if the girl is asking for it, because in a sense it requires asking "with who?" and that answer then might be knowledge of a felony sex crime against a student plus all the gossip dangers and other issues.

There is only ONE school I've heard of with what seems a GREAT sex education program, but it is a private school for very rich kids of parents all of a like mind on sexuality - which is fairly highly promiscuous but also within piles of rules of conduct. They not only teach all kids sex education in regards to disease and pregnancy, but literally classes on how to be very skillful sexually in terms of acts of sex in real, physical ways (almost like Karma Sutra classes for which that is one of the text books), but they also have classes on correct relationship behavior and even marriage choice method and behavior in marriage, married life and parenting - that the students go thru such classes for year after year after year. A remote, usual community and with some extreme requirements and sexuality practices. However also fairly gender-role oriented too.

A couple of curious practices they have is that the keep sort of a secret sex registry in which all sex must be reported - to maintain a way to track an STD risk - the record destroyed when someone married. It strictly forbidden to ever say otherwise to anyone who had sex with (to avoid later jealousies), and - oddly - the boy/man must always pay the woman a minimal "fee"- although she may require more - to teach that "woman are neither cheap nor free." That men should realize this from the start and a woman should never allow herself to be treated as cheap. They enforce rules by being removed from their social network and even economic penalties (big ones), for any violation of any rule. But they are almost like rabbits in terms of how much sex they have and with how many people. Not until 17, but then on that birthday the kid is basically in sex-heaven, with the parents blessings too.

By the time married, almost all in that age group have had sex with everyone else - but can't say so - and they highly encourage women to be bisexual (not required) but are strongly anti-gay men being in the network. If gay then strictly limited to other gay men - an STDs control. Men are not allowed to be bisexual and remain in the network as an STDs barrier. Prostitution is an acceptable career choice within their social networking too, but only within the network. In a sense, all the girls/women are quasi so since all have to be paid for sex. Even after marriage. Sexuality within marriage rules is out of norms too, but strictly within sets of rules. They are extremely "proper behavior and conduct" sophisticated people yet also very promiscuous.

And they have done this all for well over a century.

Strange, huh?

They claim they have never had an STD in their community, straight, gay or bisexual, never an unwanted pregnancy and never a divorce. Extreme levels of sex, sexuality, sensuality and relationship school across their entire educational lives. BUT there is no differences of opinions of the parents, all who came thru the same educations themselves, with rare exceptions of outsiders allowed in - not easy to accomplish. We know a woman who did make it in.

The relevancy is that I think handing out condoms in an otherwise vacumn of sex, sexuality, sensuality and relationship education is a bad idea as all that are necessary to each other.

Back to the issue, if it could be done in the RIGHT way, sure. I just can't see realistic ways to do it given how schools function in which all students are just a number among a mass of numbers.
 
Last edited:
This brings back childhood memories - when I was 10 or 11 the schools in the Maryland Area had a condom walkout to protest and demand they be put in.

I thought then - and think now - that it's the stupidest ****ing thing. School is for education - not for suiting up. Providing it condones it . . . so I prefer we keep school without it.

Even though I had sex a lot in my highschool - still. . . I oppose it.
 
The article is not about effectiveness of correct condom use. I believe the correct condom used correctly is safe against all but genital herpes - which involves skin contact, no fluid exchange. However that is a different topic.

Personally, I oppose schools handing out condoms as it is a concession (circumstantially) to illegal conduct and it simplifies complex sexuality questions.

Is the goal is to reduce stds and pregnancy (sex education), or is it to condemn teenage sex (abstinence education)? Because one education program works, the other does not. Numerous studies have already been done on this.

HOWEVER, IF the school is going to do so, yes then it would have to be done correctly, which would include handing out different size condoms - with it very problematical figuring out what that is without it just getting "weird" for lack of a better word. I suppose a possible means would make condoms available at the nurses station, but a mini-talk needed. It a bit more a problem if the girl is asking for it, because in a sense it requires asking "with who?" and that answer then might be knowledge of a felony sex crime against a student plus all the gossip dangers and other issues.

These all sound like good points for sex ed programs to address. Birth control without proper education is significantly less effective, I will agree.

There is only ONE school I've heard of with what seems a GREAT sex education program, but it is a private school for very rich kids of parents all of a like mind on sexuality - which is fairly highly promiscuous but also within piles of rules of conduct. They not only teach all kids sex education in regards to disease and pregnancy, but literally classes on how to be very skillful sexually in terms of acts of sex (almost like Karma Sutra classes for which that is one of the text books), but they also have classes on correct relationship behavior and even marriage choice method and behavior in marriage, married life and parenting - that the students go thru such classes for year after year after year. A remote, usual community and with some extreme requirements and sexuality practices. However also fairly gender-role oriented too.

A couple of curious practices they have is that the keep sort of a secret sex registry in which all sex must be reported - to maintain a way to track an STD risk - the record destroyed when someone married. Strictly forbidden to every say otherwise to anyone who had sex with (to avoid later jealousies), and - oddly - the boy/man must always pay the woman a minimal "fee"- although she may require more - to teach that "woman are neither cheap nor free." That men should realize this from the start and a woman should never allow herself to be treated as cheap. Strange, huh?

They claim they have never had an STD in their community, never an unwanted pregnancy and never a divorce.

C'mon, you can't say all that and not provide a link. I've got to see this for myself.

Back to the issue, if it could be done in the RIGHT way, sure. I just can't see realistic ways to do it given how schools function in which all students are just a number among a mass of numbers.

These are problems of overcoming logistics, not arguments against handing out condoms.
 
You're just against government providing it. Right. :roll:

I am against the government and public schools handing them out.

If you are truly against abortion and/or "handouts" for people with unwanted kids, then isn't providing them with free condoms a small price worth paying to reduce those more serious evils? You could provide a hell of a lot of condoms for the cost of government assistance for one unwanted child.

All the safe sex classes and free condoms are not going to stop people from engaging in unprotected sex.Many people use all kinds of excuses for not using birth control like it doesn't feel good, you can pull out in time, if you do it a certain way then you can't get pregnant, my religion bans me from using birth control even though that same religion also bans per-maritial sex and so on.
 
I understand the concept of providing condoms to promote safe sex, but I think it's more important to focus on abstaining from sex. Kids should be focusing on more important things in life instead of worrying about that itch in their pants.
 
All the safe sex classes and free condoms are not going to stop people from engaging in unprotected sex.Many people use all kinds of excuses for not using birth control like it doesn't feel good, you can pull out in time, if you do it a certain way then you can't get pregnant, my religion bans me from using birth control even though that same religion also bans per-maritial sex and so on.

You do realize that there is empirical evidence (as opposed to idle speculation) that shows that this is simply not true? All the evidence indicates that the availability of condoms does indeed reduce pregnancy rates and STD rates. As for the people who don't want to use condoms (for whatever reason), they simply won't use them anyway. They won't be any worse off than if the condoms were not available for the students who *do* want them.
 
Handing out condoms educates students that it's a positive thing to use protection before having sex. This decreases the chances of them being sidetracked from their education by stds or pregnancy

Not it doesn't.

Do you have a problem with the fact that this is related to sex or is there some other larger umbrella issue that concerns you?
I have a problem with this because stuff like this is none of the school's business.
 
Put free condom dispensers in the bathrooms of middle schools and high schools. If they have to ask for them they likely won't.
 
I understand the concept of providing condoms to promote safe sex, but I think it's more important to focus on abstaining from sex. Kids should be focusing on more important things in life instead of worrying about that itch in their pants.

Yes like: you don't HAVE to have sex just because he/she WANT you to give in . . . and 'wait' - because a condom might break, be ineffective . . .and you'll be added to teh teen statistics of those who get knocked up or diseased anyway.

People don't realize that condoms are not some magical implement that will seriously prevent these things - it's a risk even with bc pills and condoms you can still somehow end up pregnant or with a disease.


What's the school going to do if they provide the condom - for free - that's flawed - and she gets pregnant?

Hmm?

Are they honestly willing to accept the consequences?
 
People don't realize that condoms are not some magical implement that will seriously prevent these things

Condoms reduce pregnancy by 86% for typical use and 95% for perfect use. They reduce syphilis by 29% for typical use and 50-71% for perfect use. They reduce gonnorhea and chlamydia by 50% each. They reduce genital herpes by 40%, and HIV by 85%. No, they are not perfect. But yes, they seriously *do* prevent these things.

http://www.americanpregnancy.org/preventingpregnancy/malecondom.html

- it's a risk even with bc pills and condoms you can still somehow end up pregnant or with a disease.

They are much better than the alternative - which isn't abstinence, but unprotected sex.

What's the school going to do if they provide the condom - for free - that's flawed - and she gets pregnant?

Why would the school be held responsible? You can't sue CVS or Walgreens if a condom doesn't work, so why would the school be any different?
 
Condoms reduce pregnancy by 86% for typical use and 95% for perfect use. They reduce syphilis by 29% for typical use and 50-71% for perfect use. They reduce gonnorhea and chlamydia by 50% each. They reduce genital herpes by 40%, and HIV by 85%. No, they are not perfect. But yes, they seriously *do* prevent these things.

Male Condom : American Pregnancy Association



They are much better than the alternative - which isn't abstinence, but unprotected sex.



Why would the school be held responsible? You can't sue CVS or Walgreens if a condom doesn't work, so why would the school be any different?

Yeah - wow - that 14% fail rate (which is what you'd expect from crusty condoms out of a wall hung dispenser in the boy's locker room after it's been in his wallet - and got knows where else).

Yes - they reduce your risks, no duh, of course they do. . . but is the school going to accept any responsibility for when they DON'T? They are not 100%.

The risk is too great for me to ever suggest someone RELY on such a thing that's been stored and purchased in such a manor. They have expiration dates and so forth . . come on. I wouldn't trust a dispensed condom to save my life.

Actually - I DID and Child #1 and #2 are here because of condoms and spermicide. Ok - I didn't bareback EVER until I married my now-husband and I went on the pill. . . but yet I had 2 kids with my ex.
 
Not it doesn't.

This flies in the face of numerous studies on sex education vs abstinence education.

I have a problem with this because stuff like this is none of the school's business.

This is simply a reiteration of your position (and your opinion, at that).
 
Condoms reduce pregnancy by 86% for typical use and 95% for perfect use. They reduce syphilis by 29% for typical use and 50-71% for perfect use. They reduce gonnorhea and chlamydia by 50% each. They reduce genital herpes by 40%, and HIV by 85%. No, they are not perfect. But yes, they seriously *do* prevent these things.

Male Condom : American Pregnancy Association




They are much better than the alternative - which isn't abstinence, but unprotected sex.



Why would the school be held responsible? You can't sue CVS or Walgreens if a condom doesn't work, so why would the school be any different?

Because Walgreens/CVS isn't giving them away to children, nor does either of them make any representations about their effectiveness or risks. Schools are handing them out as 'safe" sex tools. HUGE different of liability as one is passive and the other pro-active. Walgreens/CVS aren't telling kids coming into the store, "here, have these for free. They are for safe sex practice."

On top of that, parents can forbid their children going to drug stores nor have to take them to one every day. Attendance in school and compliance is required.
 
Yeah - wow - that 14% fail rate (which is what you'd expect from crusty condoms out of a wall hung dispenser in the boy's locker room after it's been in his wallet - and got knows where else).

Yes - they reduce your risks, no duh, of course they do. . . but is the school going to accept any responsibility for when they DON'T? They are not 100%.

Again, why would the school accept responsibility for when they don't? Condoms are not marketed to be 100% effective. You don't sue any OTHER distributor of condoms, so what makes the school any different? How is it their fault?

The risk is too great for me to ever suggest someone RELY on such a thing that's been stored and purchased in such a manor. They have expiration dates and so forth . . come on. I wouldn't trust a dispensed condom to save my life.

1. It need not be a dispensed condom then; schools could offer GOOD condoms too.
2. What exactly is the alternative you suggest?

Actually - I DID and Child #1 and #2 are here because of condoms and spermicide. Ok - I didn't bareback EVER until I married my now-husband and I went on the pill. . . but yet I had 2 kids with my ex.

I'm still confused as to how your bad luck means that distributing condoms is a bad idea (especially when you acknowledge that they do reduce the risks). The alternative is unprotected sex, which offers no protection at all.
 
This flies in the face of numerous studies on sex education vs abstinence education.



This is simply a reiteration of your position (and your opinion, at that).

Abstinence education by who?

NOT ALL PARENTS agree that "safe" promiscuous sex is superior to "risky sex" when it comes to disease and pregnancy. There are parents who would prefer their child get pregnant or have a baby even if not ready and possibly a premature marriage or relationship - that then might end in divorce or not - than to become promiscuous "semi-safely." Not everyone agrees that teen pregnancy is evil or wrong. Some do believe that sex SHOULD risk pregnancy - thus reducing promiscuity and all the dangers they see that as bringing. Some would rather their kid have sex once and get pregnant or have a baby, then have lots of sex, no kid, but then still risk being pregnancy from someone she had no relationship with at all and HIV positive too to her believing there is such a thing as "safe sex" with others who believe the same thing.

Who gets to gamble with their kid's whole life, future and values? The parents? Or the school?

In addition, the parents might not LIKE the condoms the school is giving out. For size. Quality. Whether or not has spermicide. Don't know how old they are. How they were stored etc.

The school handing out condoms is the school making a statement about sex - sex that may well be felony illegal to have - and that statement may exactly contradict the parents.
 
Yeah - wow - that 14% fail rate (which is what you'd expect from crusty condoms out of a wall hung dispenser in the boy's locker room after it's been in his wallet - and got knows where else).

Yes - they reduce your risks, no duh, of course they do. . . but is the school going to accept any responsibility for when they DON'T? They are not 100%.

The risk is too great for me to ever suggest someone RELY on such a thing that's been stored and purchased in such a manor. They have expiration dates and so forth . . come on. I wouldn't trust a dispensed condom to save my life.

Actually - I DID and Child #1 and #2 are here because of condoms and spermicide. Ok - I didn't bareback EVER until I married my now-husband and I went on the pill. . . but yet I had 2 kids with my ex.

This argument is a pretty good example of the Nirvana Fallacy, whereby (in this discussion) you're comparing the effectiveness of condoms with unrealistic, idealized alternatives (none or vaguely specified low quantities of teen pregnancy/stds). Yet somehow the high standards condoms are judged by are conveniently missing when applied to the high failure rate of abstinence education.
 
Because Walgreens/CVS isn't giving them away to children,

They will sell them to whomever wants to buy them. They are not an age-restricted item like cigarettes.

nor does either of them make any representations about their effectiveness or risks.

As long as schools are not falsely claiming that they are 100% reliable, this objection does not make much sense to me.

Schools are handing them out as 'safe" sex tools. HUGE different of liability as one is passive and the other pro-active. Walgreens/CVS aren't telling kids coming into the store, "here, have these for free. They are for safe sex practice."

The free-vs-sale aspect has no bearing on liability; if anything, marketing claims are scrutinized MORE closely when money is involved. And those stores *do* sell them for safe sex...that is how condoms are marketed and is their entire reason for existence.

On top of that, parents can forbid their children going to drug stores nor have to take them to one every day. Attendance in school and compliance is required.

Sorry but I don't think that ensuring children don't have to be in the same vicinity as a condom (which they aren't even required to take) is as important as protecting students from pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.
 
Last edited:
This brings back childhood memories - when I was 10 or 11 the schools in the Maryland Area had a condom walkout to protest and demand they be put in.

I thought then - and think now - that it's the stupidest ****ing thing. School is for education - not for suiting up. Providing it condones it . . . so I prefer we keep school without it.

Even though I had sex a lot in my highschool - still. . . I oppose it.

So, how is this logical? Did you want to get pregnant whilst at school? I know for a fact, that almost nobody ever will bother to go anywhere to get a condom, so very few use it, but if you didn't have to actually go out of your way to get it, because it is there, then you will use it. I was told to use it always, by everyone, and I am absolutely surprised, that here is the 1st adult in the universe, you, who argues against it. Maybe, can you clarify?
 
This argument is a pretty good example of the Nirvana Fallacy, whereby (in this discussion) you're comparing the effectiveness of condoms with unrealistic, idealized alternatives (none or vaguely specified low quantities of teen pregnancy/stds). Yet somehow the high standards condoms are judged by are conveniently missing when applied to the high failure rate of abstinence education.

Again, "abstinence education" by who? The school?

What is obvious is that those advocating handing out condoms talk about students as if talking about a herd of cattle. To a parent, it isn't about "students," it is about "MY CHILD."

I can't count how many times my wife got into it with school personnel over their standard of all-the-students and her standard of "my daughter."

Yet, nearly all, came to quickly respect her for it, because they also saw the results of intense parental focus on her all across the board - one effect of which was EVERY teacher REALLY wanted her in their classes. So did the school. She in a way became their show-student. We taught her not only great study habits, the importance of education etc, but also interpersonal interactions, including how to work with (and if necessary manipulate) teachers. They all LOVED her! We OFTEN strategized about each teacher. Which ones want challenges, which ones want submission/agreement etc... But I won't go on.

When it comes to MY children, I DO NOT CARE what is best for MOST students. I care what is best for MY CHILD. I do NOT want the school contradicting that and for anything outside EDUCATION I don't think they have any right - moral or legal - to do so. I do NOT want a school teaching my child about "safe sex" on some generic greatest-good-for-greatest-number = for which the factor from the lowest denomination/intelligent and reckless kids - and it devoid of relationship matters and 85% right and 15% or even 1% slow disease death.
 
Back
Top Bottom