Condoms for teen agers

[Ozme52]

Endorphins rule!?!?!
Then there is no such thing as morality?
Morality is like bravery, making the hard choices.
Besides in times past copius means of birth control was not available and yet there was not as many unwed births as now. And that does not even consider the number of pregnancies terminated.

Morality, how it's defined, changes with time and place.

And in times past, birth control was in the hands of woman, who were far better versed in the use of herbals. The lack of unwed births (which I won't even argue... as shotgun weddings were prolific as were "premature" births, as compared to today...) was more due to the consumption of abortives than due to making the "hard choices".

Not to mention other options... meaning orifices, that are considered "improper" by those same moralists. And today... a teens are very willing to call themselves virgins and chaste because they don't have vaginal sex. Oral (nor anal) isn't even "sex".... they know because Bill Clinton said it wasn't.

[Ozme52]

Don't you think that the fact that there are no consequences for their actions has a large bearing on the choices they make.

In a large part your post also reads as if kids have always been engaging in sex at the first opportunity. Yes I know a percentage do but that is not how your post reads.

All kids are going to have sex. At first opportunity. So let's not teach them discipline, just let them do whatever they want whenever. We will find a way to fix it so it does not present adverse consequences.

I'd say it takes far more discipline to choose to use a condom than to just go do it. It takes preparation, consent, willingness to be responsible for ones actions...

Condoms, especially condoms as part of sex education, represent knowledge and responsibility. Without that, it's just kids being their natural irresponsible selves.

In large part that seems like teaching that there are no rules of any kind!!

Whereas I obviously think it's just the opposite.

[Ozme52]

"Even in this country, just a few centuries ago, most "children" were fully contributing adults, already out of school and working full time by their teens." (Ozme52)

Just a small little question.
Does anyone know why school is out for summer and returns in the fall?

So they could work in the fields on the family farms. From planting through harvest.

If I remember my history, it was because when the mandatory school laws were enacted it was understood that farm children were needed on the farm. There was far too much work to do to allow them to "fool around with education".

ooops, missed seeing your answer first time around.

[SadisticNature]

So they could work in the fields on the family farms. From planting through harvest.

This is also the reason why attempts to expand the school year in various states have failed. Note that the US has one of the shortest school years of Westernized Democracies, while all of the top education systems in the world have a longer school year than the US.

[Ozme52]

As two other contributors have pointed out, historically speaking, childhood is one of those meaningless divisions you mention. Obviously, younger people are physically unable to do some things, but up till the last few centuries the rule for everything was that when they're big enough they're old enough.

In the 10th Century "Njal's Saga" (which might be called the first recorded celebrity biography) the hero at age 12 asks his father to take him along to a feast, and is told that he can't come because he gets too violent when he's drunk. So he steals a cart-horse and comes anyway, gets into a fight and kills another boy. All this is reported as the story of a berserker who started young, but with no idea that there was anything intrinsically strange about such behaviour in a "child". Compare with a couple of recent cases of murders by preteens in the UK, where the media response has been not only a perfectly reasonable outrage at the details of the killings, but also an almost superstitious horror as if there were something monstrously unnatural about the perpetrators, purely on account of their age.

The reason for the invention of childhood, in the opinion of historians, was firstly the need for a higher level of general education in more technically advanced societies. It therefore became necessary to class people as schoolchildren who had previously been classed as young adults. This became complicated by the Victorian obsession with innocence, narrowly defined as ignorance of sex; moralists took the completely artificial redefinition of childhood as real, and equated teenage sex with child abuse. The resulting conventions were so hammered into Western society that when Europeans encountered cultures where sex still started at puberty, they took it as evidence of the savages' immorality and set out to save them by teaching their children shame.

There are areas where it is a genuine advance of civilisation to restrict young people's access to adult practices: young Njal's drunken brawls were the mark of a barbaric culture. But if we are going to debate the question of chidren's sexual behaviour, it must be on the basis of known realities of physical and mental health and the welfare of society, not an undiscussed assumption that some things are just wrong because it's always been so.

Right and absolutely right because in fact, it has NOT always been so.

[Ozme52]

Which shows another reason this distinction is arbitrary. Your "we" is the USA: here in the UK that limit is set as 18, and in other countries lower still. Similarly, there is no global agreement, even within the Western world, on the legal age for sex. In my and thir's countries sex is legal at 16, and sex between younger teens (as illustrated by the original article) is officially ignored unless older people are involved or there is evidence of coercion or bullying. So far, this has not led to the fall of civilisation.

Yep. Just the fall of puritan civilization... you bastards!!! You sent them here!!

LOL

[Ozme52]

This is also the reason why attempts to expand the school year in various states have failed. Note that the US has one of the shortest school years of Westernized Democracies, while all of the top education systems in the world have a longer school year than the US.

Perhaps... but my parents continued my education year round. Perhaps not formal classes, but I was expected to continue reading and learning (things that directly interested me) and took me places... and didn't just let me run around... I was taken to and educated within museums and such.

Perhaps the problem lies with the fact that our schools are expected by parents to be the sole arbiters and distributors of education.

Not enough parenting is done by parents.

[SadisticNature]

I'd say it takes far more discipline to choose to use a condom than to just go do it. It takes preparation, consent, willingness to be responsible for ones actions...

Condoms, especially condoms as part of sex education, represent knowledge and responsibility. Without that, it's just kids being their natural irresponsible selves.

Agree with this 100%.

Also regarding the early discussion about childhood. I disagree that the main factor is the modernization of society. I think a lot of it is our advanced knowledge of brain development compared to previous societies. I suspect that had previous societies had detailed knowledge about brain development that they could test and verify, a lot of their rules and ages would have been different. Perhaps not, they might have been forced into impractical roles by the times.

As for the whole sex before marriage question, I don't think any classroom instruction in a public secular school system should be based on religious values. I think if you personally have problems with how the school does things you should opt-out (your child needs a permission form for sex-ed if you don't like the curriculum don't sign it), and teach them it yourself (or through your church if its a religious values program). The fact is discussions about various forms of protection are far more difficult than discussions about abstinence for most parents.

[Ozme52]

I never said you couldn't teach them morality and ethics, thats not what the topic of the thread is even about anyway.

Again is simple logic that the knowledge of safe sexual practices should be available.

Not that I wish to defend Duncan in this, but please don't expect anyone to think that the question of sex education and the distribution of condoms has to do with anything other than the perception of what is and isn't moral.

That is the crux of the question. If not, it would be a no-brainer for everyone. "Of course you give out condoms and avoid teen pregnancy."

But for so many people, that's tantamount to abandoning ones morals.

One thing to remember, this all stems from the catholic church prohibitting both sex before marriage and birth control... because they want people to have children and have them born into families that are obedient to the church. The more there are, the more powerful its influence.

If anything we would be the imoral and unethical ones for making such things forbidden fruit.

And proving my point, you think, as I do, it is immoral to allow children to make life-changing mistakes for the sake of a conservative, fundamentalist, perspective.

So yes indeed, this thread is exactly all about what is or isn't moral.

[SadisticNature]

Perhaps... but my parents continued my education year round. Perhaps not formal classes, but I was expected to continue reading and learning (things that directly interested me) and took me places... and didn't just let me run around... I was taken to and educated within museums and such.

Perhaps the problem lies with the fact that our schools are expected by parents to be the sole arbiters and distributors of education.

Not enough parenting is done by parents.

If you place more of the onus on the parents however, you create a lot more problems in society. People from poor families either with a single parent who works, or with two parents working full time are much less successful at managing this burden.

Furthermore, blaming the parents for the failures of the school system ensures it continues to fail. It's not like the parents of kids doing poorly in school are going to be more successful as time progresses. Most of the kids who don't do well in school come from families that didn't do well in school, and saying that they should have the supports at home propagates this.

Ultimately the reason we have an education system at all is that parents are not the best qualified people to teach their children a lot of subjects, and if we want the chance of children able to do more and better than their parents did we need a system that enables students to learn skills their parents don't have. Ultimately relying on parents to do more in education fails at this.

[SadisticNature]

Sorry that the statement got interpreted as an attack, wasn't my intent.

I was trying to suggest the level of extremism involved in claiming that the following are equivalent:

(1) The government enforcing a certain moral code regarding sex.
(2) The government enforcing educational requirements for youths.

I personally believe (1) is rather heinous, while (2) is common sense.

Just when I thought it was safe to enter a thread where no one would try to make it personal,,,looks up and rolls my eyes.

I say YES they should have access to condoms and birth control, boy, girl, hermaphrodite it doesnt matter.

Teach them to not have sex at that age all you wish, if they want they will find a way to do it anyway. They may as well know how to be safe.

[DuncanONeil]

Entire argument apocraphal!

Morality, how it's defined, changes with time and place.

And in times past, birth control was in the hands of woman, who were far better versed in the use of herbals. The lack of unwed births (which I won't even argue... as shotgun weddings were prolific as were "premature" births, as compared to today...) was more due to the consumption of abortives than due to making the "hard choices".

Not to mention other options... meaning orifices, that are considered "improper" by those same moralists. And today... a teens are very willing to call themselves virgins and chaste because they don't have vaginal sex. Oral (nor anal) isn't even "sex".... they know because Bill Clinton said it wasn't.

[DuncanONeil]

Oops! Wrong person.

I'd say it takes far more discipline to choose to use a condom than to just go do it. It takes preparation, consent, willingness to be responsible for ones actions...

Condoms, especially condoms as part of sex education, represent knowledge and responsibility. Without that, it's just kids being their natural irresponsible selves.
Whereas I obviously think it's just the opposite.

[DuncanONeil]

I think you have a misunderstanding of discipline.

I'd say it takes far more discipline to choose to use a condom than to just go do it. It takes preparation, consent, willingness to be responsible for ones actions...

Condoms, especially condoms as part of sex education, represent knowledge and responsibility. Without that, it's just kids being their natural irresponsible selves.
Whereas I obviously think it's just the opposite.

[DuncanONeil]

Knowledge and handing out condoms are two entirely different things!

I never said you couldn't teach them morality and ethics, thats not what the topic of the thread is even about anyway.

Again is simple logic that the knowledge of safe sexual practices should be available.


If anything we would be the imoral and unethical ones for making such things forbidden fruit.

[DuncanONeil]

Actually, it's only some morals that need to be taught. Watch children, very young children playing together. They experiment with each other, quite literally. One may strike the other, causing that other child some distress. If the parents immediately jump in and stop things, the first child learns that he can hurt his companions without any repercussions. If you leave them alone, however, the second child will probably retaliate. They have both learned a valuable lesson, without any intervention from "moral" adults. This is most likely they way in which our most basic moral attitudes were originally formed. People learned that there were prices to pay for certain actions. If the price is too high, they learn not to do them.

If in your example there are no repercussions then the parents are to be faulted for failure of parenting.
Perhaps this may be AN origin of communal behaviour. But what about the kid that does not retaliate? Morals are about making a concious choice.

Appropriate to whom? If the schools are doing their jobs, and we are doing ours, our children should be learning about the real world. And sexuality is a part of the real world. Like it or not, our children are going to be exposed to it for the rest of their lives. Far better to have them learn the truth young, when it can make a lasting impression, than later on when their minds are already too warped to understand the truth.

Schools are not doing their job. Based on their rate of success. How young? Is it not better to deal with the questions when the child seeks the answer than for somebody to simply decide now is the time for all children to learn about sex?

Parents relying solely on the schools is certainly a bad thing. But to some degree, the schools are teaching the values of the community and culture to which they belong. If they are not then it is up to the parents to change them. But remember, the schools are teaching to children of different races, different economic classes, different religions, and vastly diverse cultural backgrounds. They must concentrate on those things which are required by all for their future survival as adults. Trying to limit what is taught to those topics considered "safe" by a vocal minority, or even a silent majority, would be just as wrong as not teaching them at all.

Values are the province of school to teach. Merely reinforce. All of those differences really do not affect values.
As for what the schools do is to teach way more in cultural stuff than real education, ya know readin' writin' and rithmatic. And all that history and science stuff.

[DuncanONeil]

If I remember my history, it was because when the mandatory school laws were enacted it was understood that farm children were needed on the farm. There was far too much work to do to allow them to "fool around with education".

You get the prize!

[DuncanONeil]

Which shows another reason this distinction is arbitrary. Your "we" is the USA: here in the UK that limit is set as 18, and in other countries lower still. Similarly, there is no global agreement, even within the Western world, on the legal age for sex. In my and thir's countries sex is legal at 16, and sex between younger teens (as illustrated by the original article) is officially ignored unless older people are involved or there is evidence of coercion or bullying. So far, this has not led to the fall of civilisation.

We tried 18. But the Feds did not like the idea and blackmailed the states to change to 21!

[DuncanONeil]

Then make sure that your shool district, or church leaders, or political leaders, don't restrict the "technical stuff" that the teachers need to teach. It's only biology, after all.

I have a lot of problems with the things being taught in these places. Mostly with the political leaders and the school district. The school district seems to be way more socialist that even the current Administration.

[DuncanONeil]

This is also the reason why attempts to expand the school year in various states have failed. Note that the US has one of the shortest school years of Westernized Democracies, while all of the top education systems in the world have a longer school year than the US.

You have to bring that up NOW!?!?!
I threw that chart out about two days ago!!!!!

[DuncanONeil]

Why must values that are also values within a religious setting to be excluded from a school setting?

Agree with this 100%.

Also regarding the early discussion about childhood. I disagree that the main factor is the modernization of society. I think a lot of it is our advanced knowledge of brain development compared to previous societies. I suspect that had previous societies had detailed knowledge about brain development that they could test and verify, a lot of their rules and ages would have been different. Perhaps not, they might have been forced into impractical roles by the times.

As for the whole sex before marriage question, I don't think any classroom instruction in a public secular school system should be based on religious values. I think if you personally have problems with how the school does things you should opt-out (your child needs a permission form for sex-ed if you don't like the curriculum don't sign it), and teach them it yourself (or through your church if its a religious values program). The fact is discussions about various forms of protection are far more difficult than discussions about abstinence for most parents.

[DuncanONeil]

Interesting! And well put. I do have some minor difficulty with some of the ideas within, but as I said well put!

Not that I wish to defend Duncan in this, but please don't expect anyone to think that the question of sex education and the distribution of condoms has to do with anything other than the perception of what is and isn't moral.

That is the crux of the question. If not, it would be a no-brainer for everyone. "Of course you give out condoms and avoid teen pregnancy."

But for so many people, that's tantamount to abandoning ones morals.

One thing to remember, this all stems from the catholic church prohibitting both sex before marriage and birth control... because they want people to have children and have them born into families that are obedient to the church. The more there are, the more powerful its influence.

And proving my point, you think, as I do, it is immoral to allow children to make life-changing mistakes for the sake of a conservative, fundamentalist, perspective.

So yes indeed, this thread is exactly all about what is or isn't moral.

[DuncanONeil]

There is a serious problem endemic to schools when high schools have to have classes in remedial reading and math. Colleges are even having to institute remedial classes.
Progress through school is supposed to indicate an ever higher level of knowledge. However, skill falls off precipitously between the universal test in grade four and the one in grade eight. If these are not evidence that schools are failing, what would it take?

If you place more of the onus on the parents however, you create a lot more problems in society. People from poor families either with a single parent who works, or with two parents working full time are much less successful at managing this burden.

Furthermore, blaming the parents for the failures of the school system ensures it continues to fail. It's not like the parents of kids doing poorly in school are going to be more successful as time progresses. Most of the kids who don't do well in school come from families that didn't do well in school, and saying that they should have the supports at home propagates this.

Ultimately the reason we have an education system at all is that parents are not the best qualified people to teach their children a lot of subjects, and if we want the chance of children able to do more and better than their parents did we need a system that enables students to learn skills their parents don't have. Ultimately relying on parents to do more in education fails at this.

[DuncanONeil]

Which government?

Sorry that the statement got interpreted as an attack, wasn't my intent.

I was trying to suggest the level of extremism involved in claiming that the following are equivalent:

(1) The government enforcing a certain moral code regarding sex.
(2) The government enforcing educational requirements for youths.

I personally believe (1) is rather heinous, while (2) is common sense.

[Thorne]

If in your example there are no repercussions then the parents are to be faulted for failure of parenting.
Perhaps this may be AN origin of communal behaviour. But what about the kid that does not retaliate? Morals are about making a concious choice.

Depends on the repercussions. Telling the child he's been a bad boy and never to do that again is not punishment, it's giving the child the attention he wants. Parents don't really punish their kids anymore. And yes, morality is a learned behavior which allows one to make a conscious, hopefully informed, choice. And that's the point of this topic. Should young teens be allowed to make that choice for themselves? And if so, should they have the tools and information necessary to make that choice? I think they are making those choices, despite what their parents may want, which makes the first question moot. And makes the answer to the second question a resounding "YES"! The parents must provide the "tools", the moral background needed to make the choice. The schools must provide the information, the real-world biological information which they need to know. Then, if the young adults decide to engage in sexual activities, they should have the ability to obtain the condoms and birth control systems needed to keep them safe from disease and unwanted pregnancy.

Schools are not doing their job. Based on their rate of success. How young? Is it not better to deal with the questions when the child seeks the answer than for somebody to simply decide now is the time for all children to learn about sex?
As for what the schools do is to teach way more in cultural stuff than real education, ya know readin' writin' and rithmatic. And all that history and science stuff.

Ask yourself, Why are the schools not doing their jobs? Could it be because parents won't allow them to teach their kids about "dirty, nasty" sex? Could it be because parents won't allow the schools to discipline children for misbehavior? Is it because the parents don't want their kids learning that "science stuff" that says the Earth is more than 6000 years old and that "man evolved from monkeys?"
In short, perhaps the schools are failing because parents are forcing them to teach only those things which they, the parents, consider "moral" instead of teaching what is right.

[Thorne]

Why must values that are also values within a religious setting to be excluded from a school setting?

Some values obviously apply in both religious and non-religious contexts: proscriptions against murder, theft, child abuse, etc. Other values apply only within a religious context: prayer, bible study, etc.

The problem occurs when people try to extend those values which only apply in their religious setting into public schools, where people with other religious values are sending their kids. Which sets of values should be taught?

[Thorne]

I have a lot of problems with the things being taught in these places. Mostly with the political leaders and the school district. The school district seems to be way more socialist that even the current Administration.

Well, if nothing else you could try moving to Texas. They seem quite ready and willing to drag the rest of the country's school systems down into the muck and mire. They don't want their kids being taught that the Earth is 5 billion years old, or that "evil"ution stuff.

[denuseri]

Looks up and giggles. Now I know why I was home schooled for allmost all of my education. lmao

Oh and BTW, both of my parents were pretty much as conservative as one can get big time right wing republicans, as well as being staunch Lutherans. (though momma did convert from judism)

I and all my brothers and sisters still had access to birth control and knew all about condoms and where to get them by the time we were 12; my Mother and Father made dam sure of it.

Why...well becuase it was common freaking sence to educate your child properly and provide for their saftey, regardless of ones political or religious afiliation.

Did I have need of condoms and birth control when I was living in their home?

NO... I didn't need eaither until I was out and living on my own.

But I could have gotten access to both without a problem and knew how to use them if needed.

Though I would have been freaking insane to try anything too crazy with my gunney sgt father scaring all my potential boyfriends half to death, and big brothers helping, along with my moms witheringly hawkish gaze watching over me. Anything nuaghty wasnt going on in their home or elswehere if they could help it, but they also didnt live in some fantasy world where they thought little denu was going to stay chaste until married eaither. (Probabely explains why mom had me put on birth control once I turned 15 anyway, just in case I was lieing and having sex behind their backs, or in the event that somthing happened beyound my control, the condoms were something she kept in a big paper bag in the hall closet and we all knew where to get them, she made sure of it.)

But like knowing where and how all the guns in the house worked and how to safely opperate them (I was a crack shot at a very early age) I still had the nessesary common sence knowledge imparted to me all the same...just in case I had real need of it and somehow managed to never shoot anyone while growing up or since then.

[DuncanONeil]

Ask yourself, Why are the schools not doing their jobs? Could it be because parents won't allow them to teach their kids about "dirty, nasty" sex? Could it be because parents won't allow the schools to discipline children for misbehavior? Is it because the parents don't want their kids learning that "science stuff" that says the Earth is more than 6000 years old and that "man evolved from monkeys?"
In short, perhaps the schools are failing because parents are forcing them to teach only those things which they, the parents, consider "moral" instead of teaching what is right.

I was not being that specific. Schools are failing in general. By the evidence stated.
Schools also do not hold their students accountable for the work assigned. Kids are free to "choose" to do or not do the assignment. No one is permitted to be less successful than any of the others. Yes that is a bad thing! At least in the manner prosecuted by the schools.
"Science Stuff" is much larger than just biology. It includes; Chemistry, Math, Geography, Physics, and History. Unfortunately both Geography and History have turned into mere treatises on culture.
I would also like to see a return of Civics into the classroom!
I think the concept of a creation 6,000 years ago is a misinterpretation of something. And that monkey thing that is Darwin's fault!

[DuncanONeil]

Some values obviously apply in both religious and non-religious contexts: proscriptions against murder, theft, child abuse, etc. Other values apply only within a religious context: prayer, bible study, etc.

The problem occurs when people try to extend those values which only apply in their religious setting into public schools, where people with other religious values are sending their kids. Which sets of values should be taught?

Neither prayer nor Bible study are values.