School in Maine gives out birth control pills.

[Mr Skeptic]

why the hell is sex always discussed with "risk of screwing up your life?" pregnancy as a frikin bad thing? (ok yes aids is a risk but from most texts i get impression that pregnancy is the evil thing. by most i mean artikle's about sex of teenages)

 

In some places, people are expected to devote much of their life to education, get a good stable job/income, and then have a child. Then they are expected to be responsible parents and spend some time with their kids. If you have your kid before you finished your education, or before you have a stable income, you're going to be in big trouble. And its far far worse for a single mom.

 

In any case, having a child when not ready for it can be disastrous both for the parent(s) and for the child.

 

Also, being pregnant and having a child is fairly obvious to everyone who sees you.

[Severian]

I saw a great quote a while back: Kids don’t have sex because they were given condoms, they have sex because they’re fleshy bags of hormones (source)

 

No, kids have sex (and unprotected sex) because they are not well enough educated/conditioned/trained. As I said before, they need to be taught the consequences of their actions.

[Mr Skeptic]

No, kids have sex (and unprotected sex) because they are not well enough educated/conditioned/trained. As I said before, they need to be taught the consequences of their actions.

 

Might I suggest you use the same methods to completely eliminate crime?

[SkepticLance]

Good point, Mr. Skeptic

 

Education has consistently failed to redirect people's behaviour when that behaviour is generated by more basic drives, such as the bag of hormones.

 

The best we can do is to try to teach the kids who are gonna have sex anyway, how to do it safely.

[swansont]

No, kids have sex (and unprotected sex) because they are not well enough educated/conditioned/trained. As I said before, they need to be taught the consequences of their actions.

 

No, I don't think this is the case. There was a study done recently that showed that kids do generally understand the consequences of their actions. It's just that their priorities are not the same as those of someone who is more mature — they value risk and reward differently — so their decision-making is different. Still, that's beside the point of whether giving them condoms induces them to have sex.

 

The quote might be better as 'Kids aren't driven to have sex because they were given condoms, they are driven to have sex because they’re fleshy bags of hormones.' Making condoms less available does nothing to quell that drive.

[Severian]

Might I suggest you use the same methods to completely eliminate crime?

 

To follow the analogy to its logical conclusion, maybe we should provide free automatic rifles to prospective bank robbers. That way we they could shoot their way out of bank robberies more effectively and wouldn't have to face the consequences of their actions.

 

But I must confess to not liking your analogy. I think you are being rather offensive in equating teenagers having sex to criminals. I think you should try and be a little more tolerant.

 

Making condoms less available does nothing to quell that drive.

 

"Quelling the drive" was not my intention. Forcing them to be responsible for their actions was.

[SkepticLance]

To severian

 

I think your bank robber analogy is wrong. A condom is a preventative - not an equivalent to a gun. A better analogy is giving bank tellers bullet proof jackets. Would that increase the incidence of bank robberies? I think not.

[ecoli]

No, I don't think this is the case. There was a study done recently that showed that kids do generally understand the consequences of their actions. It's just that their priorities are not the same as those of someone who is more mature — they value risk and reward differently — so their decision-making is different. Still, that's beside the point of whether giving them condoms induces them to have sex.

 

The quote might be better as 'Kids aren't driven to have sex because they were given condoms, they are driven to have sex because they’re fleshy bags of hormones.' Making condoms less available does nothing to quell that drive.

 

Which begs the question, are STDs/Pregnancies just a convenient of an excuse that parents use to justify telling teens not to have sex? While there is still risk when using a condom, it is something like 99% safe. And I think the number is closer to 100% for people who use them correctly.

 

If parents were just concerned with the STD/pregnancy risk, this should be a no-brainer. However, I think there is something else at work here.

 

Parents don't want kids to have sex. Maybe for some its a religious thing, for others it's a desire for children not to grow up, and others have a moral argument against it. There are even legal precedence against children having sex.

 

I think parents don't want to hand out condoms, because it would remove the convenient excuse that parents use to lie to themselves (it's too risky) so they don't necessarily have to admit the other stuff to their kids and to themselves.

[SkepticLance]

To ecoli

 

Attitudes to sex are deeply placed in the human psyche. Parents have been afraid of their children having sex for a long, long time. It is even possible that the fear may be genetically encoded. It is certainly well encoded within cultures.

 

The reason is simple enough. Contraception is recent, and until that happened, teenage sex resulted in pregnacies, which would totally destroy the life of the young woman involved, and in primitive societies result in actual death rather frequently. It may be that the fear is no longer valid (as long as the kids have condoms), but it takes a long time to change behaviours that are well engrained in a culture.

[swansont]

The reason is simple enough. Contraception is recent, and until that happened, teenage sex resulted in pregnacies, which would totally destroy the life of the young woman involved, and in primitive societies result in actual death rather frequently. It may be that the fear is no longer valid (as long as the kids have condoms), but it takes a long time to change behaviours that are well engrained in a culture.

 

I don't think this is true. Teenage pregnancy "destroys" the life of someone who wants to go off to college and have a career, unfettered by attachments. That, too, is a recent thing.

[Phi for All]

The reason is simple enough. Contraception is recent, and until that happened, teenage sex resulted in pregnacies, which would totally destroy the life of the young woman involved, and in primitive societies result in actual death rather frequently.

Like swansont, I don't agree with this reason. In primitive societies it was normal for teens to have children. I'd venture to say *most* first-time pregnancies in those cultures happened well before the age of seventeen or eighteen (a benchmark in the US culture for maturity and consent).

 

I think part of the reason parents are leery of their children having even protected sex is a moral one stemming from the weird dichotomy we've formed around reputations. Males who have lots of sex are considered studs, while females who do the same are sluts. No parent wants a slut for a daughter, neither do they want their sons to be involved with a slut. They also don't want a stud to turn their daughters into sluts so the whole teenage sex debate is tainted with this warped view of how healthy such sex is, based on some strange gender-specific quantity vs quality parameters.

 

How much sex can a girl have before she's a slut? Is it more than a guy can have before becoming a stud? Is a girl a slut if she has sex only a couple of times but really really enjoys it? It's probably a remnant of some Puritanical moral judgment we can't seem to shake in the US. And it's doubly weird because parents are basically teaching their kids that contraception isn't a better choice than having the child of someone you were just experimenting with.

[Roger]

IMHO this is far better, and more effective than solely abstinence training.

 

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/86051.php

 

King School children will need permission from a parent to attend the health centre. However, under state law, the health centre is required to keep the treatment confidential, which means parents will not know whether their children are getting contraceptive pills.

[swansont]

Like swansont, I don't agree with this reason. In primitive societies it was normal for teens to have children. I'd venture to say *most* first-time pregnancies in those cultures happened well before the age of seventeen or eighteen (a benchmark in the US culture for maturity and consent).

 

I think part of the reason parents are leery of their children having even protected sex is a moral one stemming from the weird dichotomy we've formed around reputations. Males who have lots of sex are considered studs, while females who do the same are sluts. No parent wants a slut for a daughter, neither do they want their sons to be involved with a slut. They also don't want a stud to turn their daughters into sluts so the whole teenage sex debate is tainted with this warped view of how healthy such sex is, based on some strange gender-specific quantity vs quality parameters.

 

How much sex can a girl have before she's a slut? Is it more than a guy can have before becoming a stud? Is a girl a slut if she has sex only a couple of times but really really enjoys it? It's probably a remnant of some Puritanical moral judgment we can't seem to shake in the US. And it's doubly weird because parents are basically teaching their kids that contraception isn't a better choice than having the child of someone you were just experimenting with.

 

Remember that in a lot of cultures, women are viewed as a sort of negative baggage, and the father needs to bribe a potential husband (dowry, paying for the wedding). Not protecting her status as a virgin means the goods are damaged. If she can't get married, she stays with the family, and that's seen as a burden.

[SkepticLance]

To swansont and phi for all

 

Ok I was careless in my wording. It is not teenage pregnancy alone that destroys a girls life. It is that pregrancy combined with a lack of a husband or equivalent. Remember that in primitive societies, a pregnant woman and a woman with a young baby or toddler are very vulnerable in terms of getting a living, unless they have a husband to assist.

 

Phi for all talks about a girl becoming a 'slut' and the lousy reputation that accompanies the title. There has to be a reason for that lousy rep. Similarly swansont with his virgins. Why is virginity seen as desirable? Again, there has to be a reason.

 

My idea is that the girl's reputation is related to her loyalty to her husband to be. If she is a 'slut' or has lost her virginity, it is an indication that she may not be sexually faithful when married. There is a serious reason for male sexual jealousy with strong evolutionary pressure. That is : women who are married or the equivalent of marriage do, in fact, play around sexually occasionally - but only some women. Any man who ends up married to such a woman may, without knowing it, raise another man's child as his own. That is counter-adaptive in the evolutionary sense.

 

It is avoiding this situation that makes a man wary of marrying a girl who has shown sexual interest in other men.

[visceral]

Saying you shouldn't give kids condoms in case it encourages them to have sex is like saying you shouldn't tell your kid to wear a helmet when he/she rides a motorbike in case it encourages them to be reckless.

 

In any case, why the assumption that a teenager should not be having sex at all?

 

If it's safe sex then it's their business.

[antimatter]

To be honest, I'm at a loss for ideas. It seems to promote the idea of safe sex, without the consequences that teenagers are more familiar with, specifically; pregnancy.

I'm not entirely sure that it's the right idea to say that if you have sex there won't be consequences, because there sometimes are, but I also don't like the idea that virginity should be held as something sacred. It truly IS a morally neutral topic, at least for me.

It seems that I'm entrenched in the middle ground.

[CaptainPanic]

Giving such pills would also give a message: sex can cause children

Silly as it may sound, some people just don't realize that.

 

And remotely on topic, but really funny:

[chitrangda]

Did I say there was something wrong with it?

 

I'm just saying that 'having sex' is not the same in all countries (in a metaphorical way of course), due to different traditions countries have. Think of having sex just for fun in islamic countries!!!

 

I agree, "having Sex" is not same in all countries, especially in east. In my country its not at all acceptable to have sex before marriage but teens do have it!( and govt. is taking efforts to to encourage condoms and birth control pills). But i think some religions demand Virginity. At least Muslims and Hindu religions do.

[Lan(r)12]

I think it would promote sex to an extent.

 

Kind of like if you told me I couldn't die and feel no pain, and shot me to prove it, I would look for the highest building and start jumping off of it repeatedly...

 

Teens (we're ALL alike) are stupid and we need to be saved from ourselves.

We think in short term when it comes to situations like this, and we act without rationale of any kind.

 

That my take anyways.

[iNow]

Contraception availability promotes safer sex, not sex itself.

Sex itself is promoted by millions of years of evolution and surging hormones.

 

Why is that so hard for so many people to understand? Young people are going to do it. Every biological urge in their body demands it. What's the point in burying our heads in the sand and pretending otherwise when we could instead be educating them on how to protect themselves and their futures?

[Psycho]

Contraception availability promotes safer sex, not sex itself.

Sex itself is promoted by millions of years of evolution and surging hormones.

 

Why is that so hard for so many people to understand? Young people are going to do it. Every biological urge in their body demands it. What's the point in burying our heads in the sand and pretending otherwise when we could instead be educating them on how to protect themselves and their futures?

 

Where as I completely agree with your statement, I don't think birth control pills should be given out at a school, at a chemist yes, but at a school condoms should be given out as that is promoting safe sex given people the pill isn't as it does stop STDs it is more likely promoting unsafe sex but you don't end up with a kid after it.

[YT2095]

I think there will be a small percentage whereby it Will be seen as a green light to go ahead and have sex whereas before there was doubt and trepidation, but it sure beats the alternative of kids having kids!

[A Childs Mind]

First you must ask yourself on whether or not sex is actually a bad thing....

 

 

lol. well it all depends. if your doing it for love and with the person your trully want to be with then no i do see it as wroung. but as for puting yourself on the street and having sex with every person you meet. ya its a bad thing

[Moontanman]

I see no reason young people should be restricted from sex, it's unnatural not to have sex. The more you suppress the urge the more you want it, especially when you are young. While I doubt that Birth control pills are exactly being given out like M&Ms condoms should be given out and we need to cut the guilt trip associated with sex. Sex is fun sex is natural, and as long as you take precautions to prevent unwanted pregnancy it's a good thing. It's our own religious and societal guilt trips we need to get past. Humans should stop trying to control others for reasons of simply arbitrary control. If nothing else young people should be taught to masturbate when sexual urges become very strong. Every one should be in control of their own sexual pleasure and desire from the beginning. Get past the goofy guilt trips and give people control of their sexuality! The worst thing about sex is how others guilt you when you get caught! At one time sex outside marriage(for women) was "the fate worse than death" How long will it take us to get the the point that we see no problem with anyone having sex when and with, when ever and with who ever they can talk into consenting to having sex with them. Humans should grow up in control of their own selves not worrying about what others think.

[antimatter]

How long will it take us to get the the point that we see no problem with anyone having sex when and with, when ever and with who ever they can talk into consenting to having sex with them. Humans should grow up in control of their own selves not worrying about what others think.

 

It isn't the actual sex that bothers people, but rather, it's the ramifications.

The people you hear complaining about sex in my school are most likely worried that the majority of the kids who are or will be having sex are irresponsible and are just giving in to their primal desires without a thought of anyone else. The other people you hear complaining are those religious stiffs who think it's wrong to hold hands with someone.