Condoms for teen agers

[Thorne]

While it's true that 12-14 is far too young for kids to be having sex, it's undeniable that they are anyway. Trying to hold them back, keeping them uneducated, only hurts them in the long run. If they're going to have sex anyway, better by far that they're prepared and knowledgeable. So yes, provide condoms to kids (boys AND girls) and allow doctors to prescribe birth control medications to sexually active girls.

And most important of all, GOOD, intelligent sex education classes, for all kids. Take away some of the mystery and excitement, and you take away some of the causes of early sex in the first place. Keeping kids ignorant and unable to obtain birth control only makes for more teenage pregnancies and transmission of STD's.

[DuncanONeil]

I think there is something more to it than just "mystery & excitement"
No matter how you think about it the species has divisions. Some are meaningless. But perhaps the greatest division is, although somewhat arbitrary, child and adult. Activities routine and normal for the adult are restricted from the child. Unless one wishes to say that no human activity is to be denied the child. Which would include sex, drugs, war, work, or any other number of things. Carried to that extreme, and many today bemoan the loss of childhood, means we will not have children. Merely little adults, which is how some actually refer to children already!

Just a few thoughts!

While it's true that 12-14 is far too young for kids to be having sex, it's undeniable that they are anyway. Trying to hold them back, keeping them uneducated, only hurts them in the long run. If they're going to have sex anyway, better by far that they're prepared and knowledgeable. So yes, provide condoms to kids (boys AND girls) and allow doctors to prescribe birth control medications to sexually active girls.

And most important of all, GOOD, intelligent sex education classes, for all kids. Take away some of the mystery and excitement, and you take away some of the causes of early sex in the first place. Keeping kids ignorant and unable to obtain birth control only makes for more teenage pregnancies and transmission of STD's.

[Thorne]

I think there is something more to it than just "mystery & excitement"
No matter how you think about it the species has divisions. Some are meaningless. But perhaps the greatest division is, although somewhat arbitrary, child and adult. Activities routine and normal for the adult are restricted from the child. Unless one wishes to say that no human activity is to be denied the child. Which would include sex, drugs, war, work, or any other number of things. Carried to that extreme, and many today bemoan the loss of childhood, means we will not have children. Merely little adults, which is how some actually refer to children already!

Just a few thoughts!

I think you're reading too much into my statement, Duncan. I'm not saying we should unilaterally permit rampant sexual orgies among teenagers. I'm saying educate them, responsibly not with fairy tales, to insure they know the problems and responsibilities of their actions. And if they DO become active, make sure they have access to condoms and birth control, where necessary, to insure they violently thrust into the world of adulthood by becoming parents while they are still, by our culture's standards, children.

As for when children should be treated as adults, this can vary from person to person and from activity to activity. Obviously nature turns children into fully functioning adults, sexually, at puberty. Emotionally they may not be ready, but this is a product of culture more than nature. If they were taught from early childhood that they would become adults at a certain age they would be more emotionally able to handle it.

As for drugs and alcohol, obviously no one is adult enough to handle putting toxins into their system, but it has been shown that most people under the age of about 19 or 20 are unable to properly deal with the effects of alcohol, biologically speaking, than older people can. Younger children can be seriously damaged by even small amounts of alcohol in their systems. So our culture has decided that it's better to restrict alcohol to those who are old enough to metabolize it more readily, which we have defined legally as 21 years old.

As for war, well, children have been going to war almost as long as men have. Again, puberty seemed to be the point at which a boy became a man, with all the responsibilities that implied, including going to war. Our culture has assigned the age of 18 to determine if a man is able to be sent to war, but it is arbitrary at best. Some might be mature enough to handle it at a younger age, some might never be mature enough. (Aside, sort of: I was intrigued, and pleased, when watching "Master and Commander" by their somewhat historically accurate portrayal of what we would consider children as crew members of a ship of war. This was quite common throughout most of our history. Not surprisingly, though, they chose to ignore the sexual side of this in the movie.)

So yes, Duncan, sometimes we need to treat our children as little adults. Make them aware of the problems which can occur when engaging in sexual activities, emotional and physical. Teach them the reasons they are feeling what they are feeling, and how to control those feelings. Let them know that masturbation, far from being the dirty, filthy habit that some would procaim, is actually a healthy activity, albeit one which should be practiced in private and discretely (kinks aside, of course). Teach them that they should feel free to say no if they don't think they are ready, and that they shouldn't allow themselves to be pressured into sex. But sooner or later some kids are going to experiment. It's what kids do. It's how they learn how to be adults. Regardless of what morality you try to teach them, some kids are going to want to make their own rules. All you can do then is try to steer them in the way you think is right and hope they don't fuck up their lives while doing it.

[leo9]

So our culture has decided that it's better to restrict alcohol to those who are old enough to metabolize it more readily, which we have defined legally as 21 years old.

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.

[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

[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!

[leo9]

No matter how you think about it the species has divisions. Some are meaningless. But perhaps the greatest division is, although somewhat arbitrary, child and adult. Activities routine and normal for the adult are restricted from the child. Unless one wishes to say that no human activity is to be denied the child. Which would include sex, drugs, war, work, or any other number of things. Carried to that extreme, and many today bemoan the loss of childhood, means we will not have children. Merely little adults, which is how some actually refer to children already!

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.

[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.

[thir]

Activities routine and normal for the adult are restricted from the child. Unless one wishes to say that no human activity is to be denied the child. Which would include sex, drugs, war, work, or any other number of things. Carried to that extreme, and many today bemoan the loss of childhood, means we will not have children. Merely little adults, which is how some actually refer to children already!

Just a few thoughts!

The sad and bad reality is that in very many places in the world, this is exactly what happens. Children soldiers, children addicts, children prostitutes, children workers.

Now, I think most would agree that that is not what we want for our children, or any children, and that the protection from working exploitation and so on is a good thing indeed. But there is such a thing as going overboard with it, and seeing children as sort 'cut out of' the world we all live in, as little blank slates just waiting for us to write on, and nothing to do with the 'real' world.

Children are personalities with opinions, and they share our world for better or worse. We cannot protect them from it, nor in some cases should we, meaning they must learn the world, in as protected ways as can be managed, but they must not be kept apart from it or be seen as apart from it.

[DuncanONeil]

The sad and bad reality is that in very many places in the world, this is exactly what happens. Children soldiers, children addicts, children prostitutes, children workers.

Now, I think most would agree that that is not what we want for our children, or any children, and that the protection from working exploitation and so on is a good thing indeed. But there is such a thing as going overboard with it, and seeing children as sort 'cut out of' the world we all live in, as little blank slates just waiting for us to write on, and nothing to do with the 'real' world.

In a manner of speaking they are blank slates. Else why would they need to be taught values or morals?
Never intended to suggest they be " 'cut out of' the world". But they do need to be taught about the world.
As far as "waiting to write on". That is exactly what the schools are doing. Unfortunately much of what they are writing is not appropriate!

Children are personalities with opinions, and they share our world for better or worse. We cannot protect them from it, nor in some cases should we, meaning they must learn the world, in as protected ways as can be managed, but they must not be kept apart from it or be seen as apart from it.

Personalities, yes! But their "opinions require development. Learning the world is a dual task job, that of their parents and the schools. Many parents abdicate to the schools and that is a bad thing. And much of schooling is misdirected.

[Thorne]

In a manner of speaking they are blank slates. Else why would they need to be taught values or morals?

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.

As far as "waiting to write on". That is exactly what the schools are doing. Unfortunately much of what they are writing is not appropriate!

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.

Many parents abdicate to the schools and that is a bad thing. And much of schooling is misdirected.

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.

[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.

[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.