Author Topic: High schools providing condoms (Read 2169 times)

Dowding (Work) · « **Reply #75 on:** December 04, 2002, 06:15:56 AM »

What's the point? You've already reached a conclusion regardless of the outcome of the excercise.

I can only speak for the UK, not the US.

In the 1950s, if you didn't pass an exam at the age of 11 y/o (called the '11+') you had zero chance of an academic career of any kind. You were effectively pigeonholed as a 'worker' and were sent to one kind of school. You'd receive half-hearted teaching until the age of 15 and then would start work. If you lived near a mine, you worked down the mine. If you lived near a steelworks, you worked in the steelworks.

Luckily, they had lots of mines and steelworks around where I was born, so they had some choice.

If you passed the exam, you were sent to 'Grammar' schools which were much better funded and supported scholarships for sending pupils to university.

Sounds like a fair system? Basing a child's entire future on the results of a single exam taken at a time when many children have not reached their full potential?

That was the 1950s for you, and that's just for starters.

Toad · « **Reply #76 on:** December 04, 2002, 06:59:22 AM »

Maybe each school could clean out a supply closet or two and put in a nice bed, some wallpaper and mood lighting?

You know how tough it can be in the back seat of a Civic, right?

Toad · « **Reply #77 on:** December 04, 2002, 07:00:59 AM »

Wait! Don't hit that Reply button yet!

I actually can see both sides of this argument. I'd have to give it some thought before I "pronounced" on it.

I just couldn't resist that opportunity......

Dowding (Work) · « **Reply #78 on:** December 04, 2002, 07:36:16 AM »

Everybody takes a cheap shot, with a glib inane answer once in a while.

Eagler · « **Reply #79 on:** December 04, 2002, 07:55:27 AM »

do you think the object of the rubber distribution is birth control or to prevent STD's?

why worry about getting preg, just a little visit to your local clinic and they suck out that problem...

STD's on the other hand, the wrong one of those can KILL YA!

Dowding (Work) · « **Reply #80 on:** December 04, 2002, 08:27:03 AM »

Why not both?

Claemydia (spelling lol

) is almost at epidemic level in US teenagers I hear. Similar situation over here. Most of the time it has no symptoms, but can render both sexes infertile.

I was reading the other day that the number of new HIV cases in Britain for 2000 was 3600. Compared to just 600 in the previous year.

That's what complacency gets you.

Ethnic minorities in the US have a much higher HIV rate compared to the rest of the population. Perhaps evidence of the AIDS epidemic present in Asia and Africa spreading to higher income countries.

Eagler · « **Reply #81 on:** December 04, 2002, 08:40:17 AM »

don't you see the distribution of condoms as condoning the act if not encouraging it?

why have the school get in the middle, leave it to the teens and the parents to handle the issue - sex ed can be part of health class - it should stop there as far as the school is concerned.

Nifty · « **Reply #82 on:** December 04, 2002, 09:17:47 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Eagler
leave it to the teens and the parents to handle the issue - sex ed can be part of health class - it should stop there as far as the school is concerned.

Exactly. However, the issue that most are bringing up is that parents and teens are not doing a very good job at handling it. The schools are asked (hell, demanded) by the parents to help. Abstinence programs work somewhat, but not as well as the parents want. So the schools want to distribute condoms in addition to abstinence programs.

I can see the points of saying it condones it. In principle, maybe it does. But what about reality? Does having condoms available in a school encourage kids who are on the fence to fall off on the sexually active side? I can't honestly answer that question.

I wish that parents and kids could do this one on their own, but it's obvious they can't. I feel that the ones that would have sex solely because condoms are available in school (which I have no idea what percentage this would be) are "acceptable losses" if teen pregnancy and teen STDs were significantly reduced. Yup, I'd rather "condone the behavior" if it saves kids.

Eagler · « **Reply #83 on:** December 04, 2002, 09:46:49 AM »

but it ain't a school problem

but they (school board) want it to be, they want to be an arm of the government which invades the rights and responsibilites of the parents.

if jr knocks up missy, what is it to the school? helps the over crowded classroom situation when missy becomes mommy and jr becomes daddy - unless of course they run down to the clinic for an hour and get her "detailed"

I don't think its about birth control, its about STD - they don't want half the student body squirming around scratching their crotch in class - can't concentrate on their studies then ya know

miko2d · « **Reply #84 on:** December 04, 2002, 10:46:46 AM »

Dowding (Work): Ethnic minorities in the US have a much higher HIV rate compared to the rest of the population.

Which ones? Koreans? Chinese? Jews? Russians? Cubans? Hindus? Pushtuns? Bengalis?

If out of dozens of ethnic minorities in the US exactly two has much higher HIV rate compared to the rest of the population, your statement is not really informative to put it mildly. Here is more precise data:
In 2000, the incidence of adult and adolescent AIDS cases per 100,000 population was 74.2 for blacks, 30.4 for Hispanics, and 7.9 for whites. (CDC. HIV/AIDS surveillance report.)

In statistical studies (NLSY) done on US whites only with socioeconomic status held equal, the degree of sexual promiscuity, teenage/extramarital pregnancy, tendency to commit crime and experience other "social ills" was very strongly correlated with a person's intelligence.
Same studies showed that if intelligence is held equal, there is only small corellation with socio-economic status.

Which is not a big surprise since higher intelligence includes better ability to understand consequences, evaluate risks, appreciation of delayed gratification, being able to derive entertainment from pursuits other than sex - like reading books, conversation, reduced likelihood to fall for irrational influence and myths (using condoms is 'unmanly'), etc.
Personal intelligence often comes bundled with intelligent parent(s) from whom it was genetically inherited.

Now, the smart children may be able to understand the difference between providing condoms and encouraging sex - and if fallen to temptation, to actually use those condoms. But the smart children are not the significant part of the problem here anyway.
It seems likely to me that the less smart children will understand the message as "sex is OK" but they will be less likely to actually use those condoms for intended purpose.

So you may well get a total increase in sex and sex-related problems like pregnancies and STD - especially among groups already most suffering from it.

miko

Eagler · « **Reply #85 on:** December 04, 2002, 11:01:29 AM »

not to mention the fact the rubbers are probably the cheapest ones money can buy while charging the tax payer a premium

imagine the lawsuit?
"the school provided condom broke during intercourse causing the the transmission of the forementioned STD ..."

If birth control is the real issue, I say knock off the lads nads in shop class instead.

texace · « **Reply #86 on:** December 04, 2002, 12:21:03 PM »

The schools don't see it as a way to promote sex...they're simply bending to the will of the parents.

Let's face it...most parents simply do not want to teach their children about sex...they always claim that they or the child are uncomfortable. So when the child gets to teenage and starts banging his girlfriend in the front seats of a Miata, he goes on waht he knows. SHe gets pregnant, and the parents freak...trying to blame the schools for not educationg their children.

You think that's strange? Before our school started issuing condoms, there was a major influx of pregnacies and STDs all over the district. Parents were complaining during board meetings, saying the school wasn't doing their job, and how they wanted their son or daughter to recieve any credit they mised while having the kid or recovering from the disease. The school bent, and now taxpayers are peying to allow some shmuck of a female to have her kids, all without any acedemic responsabilities.

The condoms here were simply used as a card to tell parents that the school is trying. I mean honestly, they're the cheapest and smallest the school could find, and probably wouldn't fit anyone but Mustang and Firebird drivers. They can't be promoting sex, cause they aren't being used at all.

If a student wants to have sex, he's going to whether the school gives them condoms or not. It's not the responsability of the school to educate its students about sex, so they don't. They play their "We're trying!" card to show parents they're doing something so the parents won't sue 'em. The real problem is the assinine parents who want their daughters to recieve credit even though she was an idiot.

Our valedictorian is pregnant, and she'll probably graduate with the highest honors cause her parents squeaked. Her boyfriend, ironically, recieved a condom from the school during health class only the day before he banged her.

Leslie · « **Reply #87 on:** December 04, 2002, 12:29:13 PM »

On a microscopic level, condoms are porous enough to allow the AIDS virus to pass through...comparable to a basketball (AIDS virus) passing through a four foot diameter hole. So condoms are useless as protection against HIV.

Condoms are not infallible as a birth control method, due to breakage, which happens more often than you think.

Imo, it would be more responsible for schools' Sex Ed classes to teach absinence as the only way to avoid these problems...maybe even bring in people whose lives have been wrecked to speak to the class.

Some students won't be impressed, it's true. But at least it would be better than passing out misinformation that could lead some students into a false sense of security. 'Condoms' is definitely not the answer when dealing with the AIDS virus.

Les

Sandman · « **Reply #88 on:** December 04, 2002, 03:46:49 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Leslie
On a microscopic level, condoms are porous enough to allow the AIDS virus to pass through...comparable to a basketball (AIDS virus) passing through a four foot diameter hole. So condoms are useless as protection against HIV.

Hey Doc, the experts disagree:

Quote

If you choose to have vaginal intercourse, use a latex condom to help protect both you and your partner from the risk of HIV and other STDs. Studies have shown that latex condoms are very effective, though not perfect, in preventing HIV transmission when used correctly and consistently. If either partner is allergic to latex, plastic (polyurethane) condoms for either the male or female can be used. - webMD

Saurdaukar · « **Reply #89 on:** December 04, 2002, 04:07:52 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Hey Doc, the experts disagree:

Not only that - but sexual fluid to sexual fluid transmission is NOT an easy way to transmit HIV. HIV LOVES blood, but isnt so fond of semen or "girly juice."

A male has a 1 in 200 chance of contracting HIV through unprotected vaginal sex with a female. A female has a 1 in 100 chance during the same encounter - however anal sex with an infected person is almost a garaunteed transmission because of the rips and tears that cause bleeding. This is presumably why HIV was a "gay disease" years ago.

Dont ask me for sources - this was taught to me freshman year in college by my Human Sexuality prof - most of his work was HIV/AIDS related - really opened up our eyes on many "scare tactics" tought to us in HS.