A group discussion came up this afternoon with some pals and I after we were talking about the education system in general (here in Canada BTW). Thought it would be interesting to see the debate here:
Should high schools have machines that dispense condoms, diaphragms and other contraceptives around the school (probably in the restrooms)? Would this actually “promote” sex in teens as some people say? Or would it just be better to make sure high school students are having safer sex and lowering the amount of STD’s going around today (because so many high school teens are already active in their sex-lives these days)?
We tried to argue both sides of the debate, and see what is good and bad on both sides, but it seemed for the most part that we should leave these machines out of high schools. Hopefully someone on this forum will stick up for the idea of having them there; I’m a student myself, and as of right now, do not have any kids to worry about, so I am trying to ask any parents out there what they think as well!
Not sure about Canada, but having sex with a minor in the US is a pretty serious crime, even if you’re a minor yourself, and even if it’s not prosecuted very often.
I’d like to see the schools stay neutral on this and leave it up to parents.
Besides, every teenage guy should have to face the check out person when he buys his condoms. It’s, like, a rite of passage.
I have a good method to prevent kids from having sex. Have all the fat hairy fathers parade in school campuses just in speedos. That would take the sex drive out of anyone. Oh and make sure they get to bend over in front of the promiscuous kids. Crack kills.
I have a teeanage daughter. I rely on her upbringing and good sense to trust her not to have casual sex. …that and I keep a close eye on her. I wish they invent LoJack for kids.
Gievn my extreme objection to casual teenage sex, I would much rather I find a condom, that she got from the school, in her purse than I hear these horrifying words,
“…dad. I think I’m pregnant…”
of course the second best contraceptive would be I slice the balls off her boyfriend… >:]
Is there any evidence, or even any logical reason, for believing that the availability of contraceptives makes people more inclined to have sex. I just can’t imagine a 13 yo girl saying “Oh well, I have a condom, I might as well have sex now” when she wasn’t prepared to do so 5 minutes earlier. I know that people will refrain from having sex if contraceptives aren’t available, but that is usually, but these are people who are already willing to go through with the act and find the packet is full of empty wrappers, not people deciding whether they are going to have sex at all.
It seems to me like refusing to teach kids how to handle a mugger so that they won’t ever get mugged.
I think your analogy is a bit off. I think its more accurate to say that the school will hand out bats to ward off muggers. I think there would be a number of kids that would go, “hey I have a bat now, lets go find a mugger!” or “Does this bat really work? lets find out!” or even worse “Oh nothing can happen to me now, i have a bat.”
I used the analogy “how to handle a mugger” for a reason. The school isn’t advocating attacking muggers or any other means of dealing with the situation. It is simply giving instructions on what options are avaialble and what work should the situation arise. Nor is it advocating having casual sex, sex in a commited relationship, homosexual sex or any sexual realtions at all. It is simply providing options and coupled with sex-ed, instructions on what options are avaialble and what the consequences are.
Do you really think that any kid who wasn’t prepared to have sex the day before would think “hey I have a condom now, lets go have sex!” or “Does this condom really work? lets find out!”? I think I was a pretty typical teenager, and I would probabaly have had sex more often than opprotunities provided, but the absence of contraception would simply have made the act slightly less frequent and more dangerous. I can’t imagine it stopping me on several occasions. Given the nmber of teen pregnancies obviously an absence of contraception =/= an absence of intercourse.
As for the attitude “Oh nothing can happen to me now, i have a condom.” if any child belives that then he is being failed horribly by the education system and his parents. Anyone with that belief is so cocksure or ignorant of the facts that I doubt they would have felt at risk without a condom. Teenagers tend to think bad things don’t really happen to them anyway, but when they do think of it I don’t believe that they are less aware because they have protection. If anything I suspect exactly the opposite is true, having a condom encourages awareness of the risks, not a denial of them.
Just wanted to point out that putting diaphragms in dispensers wouldn’t be a good idea simply because they need to be fitted to the wearer. They’re not a one-size-fits-all deal. Depending on what you include under “other contraceptives”, this can apply to other birth control devices as well.
Of course we could make the assumption that, for example, say a diaphragm dispenser was installed in a girls washroom. Surely the machine could have more than one “size” of the contraceptive device available. Good point though; if schools were to put a condom machine in a mens restroom, and they were offered in different sizes, how often do you think you’d see a guy walk in and take one of the smaller sized condoms for himself?
I’m a high school student in the U.S. and I’d support selling condoms in school. I don’t agree that it would promote having sex, but I do think it would promote using the condom. I think Blake was right: just because you have them doesn’t mean you’ll seek out a way to use them. I don’t normally trust the judgment of my generation, but the ones who will have sex will have sex and the ones who won’t won’t. By giving the condom option to those who will, I think it would significantly curb teen pregnancy and the spread of STD’s.
Besides, I don’t want to have to endure the “rite of passage” of staring the checker in the face while handing him/her a box of condoms. Argh…
I remember reading one report sometime ago (can’t find the cite, sorry) which followed the sexual habits of a sample of students for a while before and after the introduction of free condom dispensing by the health service nurse (note: NOT by a machine). they didn’t find a significant difference in behaviour. However, I think this had a lot to do with the fact that the students actually needed to go to the nurse and ask for contraception.
Putting condoms in a dispenser is not just about promoting safe sex. It also makes the implicit statement that “we, the authorities, think it is okay for you to have sex.”…that is, it legitimises the sex act itself. The way I see it, it will lead to an increase in sexual behaviour, especially among those students who might be facing peer pressure, who might themselves be undecided, or who are just impressionable.
That said, I see nothing wrong with sexual experimentation. It is the sociocultural stigmatisation of the sex act that has led to surreptious and unprotected intercourse happening, that has led to thousands of teenage pregnancies, that has led to a plethora of STDs being spread among adolescents. On balance, I would much rather prevent these babies being conceived and prevent those diseases from being spread, than know that teenagers are virgins. (Will I change my POV when I have a kid someday? I’ll try my best not to.)
Fact of life: Most teenagers think they are invulnerable. “Nothing can happen to me”, as Blake put it. Given this, using barrier contraception actually brings home the message that Bad Things Happen Sometime.
And then, kids today are getting very mixed messages. The media says sex is fun and okay and mom and pop say ‘woe betide you’. If society wants to ensure that the sex act stays confined to the bounds of formal relationships, TV is going to have to give. You can’t feed an impressionable, hormone-ravaged kid an attractively-packaged liberal message with boobs, and then expect him to turn his back on it. Sex is going to happen. We, as a society, have ensured it will.
It’s my understanding that in Alberta, sex ed is complete and mandatory. The mechanics are covered about pregnancy and STDs, and contraception information is thoroughly covered. And pregnancy and STD rates are among the lowest in North America. I read this in the Calgary Herald a few years ago, and it’s a good source - can’t offer a cite, though. In a nutshell, more information seems to mean better choices (abstinence or birth control/STD prevention).
I think you’re mistakenly assuming that kids respect the opinions of high school administration and authority figures. I’m disrespectful by nature, but I think I’ll never respect anyone less than those people. When kids get horny, none are going to wonder “oh, what would the school board president say?” Peer pressure and normal hormonal curiosity are all the incentive kids - or indeed anybody - ever need to have sex. You don’t need to legitimize something that 99% of all people want. Given that everyone ever born is here because of sex (in some form), it’s strange for me to think that sex needs legitimacy from the school board. All of nature is geared toward it.
Hmm. I don’t think that any society could keep teenagers from having sex. I also am of the opinion that teenagers, as a group, screw like rabbits, and will do so with or without available birth control.
Kids are going to have sex whether or not their teachers/parents want them to, whether or not they’ve been educated about contraception, and whether or not they can get contraception. Dispensing contraception in schools can only make it safer.
