Condoms for teen agers

[Thorne]

One, non-parent, opinion. I'd like to think, as my parents did, that I would have this opinion regardless.

I am a parent, Oz. Two boys, both grown now. I still get a chuckle remembering the time my wife found a condom in my oldest son's pocket while doing his laundry. She was furious! Wanted to wring his neck. I asked her, "Would you be happier if he was screwing around without condoms?" That quieted her down. A little!

Don't know how I would have reacted if I'd had daughters, though. <shudder>

[DuncanONeil]

I have one of each! Made every effort to deal with them as thinking entities. My daughter heard a lot of the traditional daddy threats about how their boyfriends would be treated. My favorite being a spiked baseball bat. But in reality her friendships were treated as just that. With attendant curfews and analysis as needed, same for my son.
After having made a multi-year attempt to teach values, responsibility, and yes, morals (which involve more than sex) the only option left when those come into play is to provide guidance, when required.
Being a parent is one of the hardest jobs in the world. Even so one can not just abdicate, or allow others to substitute for you. Remember if you want a job done correct ....

I am a parent, Oz. Two boys, both grown now. I still get a chuckle remembering the time my wife found a condom in my oldest son's pocket while doing his laundry. She was furious! Wanted to wring his neck. I asked her, "Would you be happier if he was screwing around without condoms?" That quieted her down. A little!

Don't know how I would have reacted if I'd had daughters, though. <shudder>

[Thorne]

I have one of each! Made every effort to deal with them as thinking entities. My daughter heard a lot of the traditional daddy threats about how their boyfriends would be treated. My favorite being a spiked baseball bat. But in reality her friendships were treated as just that. With attendant curfews and analysis as needed, same for my son.
After having made a multi-year attempt to teach values, responsibility, and yes, morals (which involve more than sex) the only option left when those come into play is to provide guidance, when required.
Being a parent is one of the hardest jobs in the world. Even so one can not just abdicate, or allow others to substitute for you. Remember if you want a job done correct ....

Yeah, the spiked baseball bat sounds like what I would be thinking about. But it's good to hear that you were treating your children as young adults, not as chidren. You were teaching them what they needed to know as they moved into the adult world. As you say, it is a very hard job indeed, one which seemingly will never end.

And I, for one, am not saying one should abdicate that responsibility. In fact, I'm saying the opposite. Some things, such as biology and psychology, might be better taught in schools, with qualified teachers who know more about the subjects than I do. That doesn't mean you can just ignore the topic, though. There is still much about it that must be taught at home. Morality being perhaps the most important. But there has to be a certain amount of common sense and understanding mixed in with that morality. Trying to teach your kids that something is filthy and sinful and disgusting one day but perfectly fine once you sign that marriage certificate is just confusing the issues. Sure, you can try to impress upon them that they'll be happier if they wait, but at the same time they are seeing all around them signs that sexual activity among loving couples can be just as rewarding without marriage.

Perhaps your kids didn't experiment with sex, or drugs, or alcohol. But how can you be sure? And if they were sexually active, what could you have done about it except try to understand them? Would you have locked your daughter away in the basement and found a suitable mate for her, as some cultures might?

No, it's far better to teach your kids what they NEED to know, not hide it from them until you think they're old enough.

[DuncanONeil]

My responsibility is to teach my kids values, morals, and about making choices. The technical stuff is what I hire teachers for.
When our kids are young we teach them that cigarettes are nasty and disgusting?
If we do not instill them with values and a sense of morality how can we expect them to make the hard choices? The clerk gave me too much change! What oh what do I do??

That "loving couple" part is very important! Nor is it anywhere near what the subject of this thread is asking about!

Yeah, the spiked baseball bat sounds like what I would be thinking about. But it's good to hear that you were treating your children as young adults, not as chidren. You were teaching them what they needed to know as they moved into the adult world. As you say, it is a very hard job indeed, one which seemingly will never end.

And I, for one, am not saying one should abdicate that responsibility. In fact, I'm saying the opposite. Some things, such as biology and psychology, might be better taught in schools, with qualified teachers who know more about the subjects than I do. That doesn't mean you can just ignore the topic, though. There is still much about it that must be taught at home. Morality being perhaps the most important. But there has to be a certain amount of common sense and understanding mixed in with that morality. Trying to teach your kids that something is filthy and sinful and disgusting one day but perfectly fine once you sign that marriage certificate is just confusing the issues. Sure, you can try to impress upon them that they'll be happier if they wait, but at the same time they are seeing all around them signs that sexual activity among loving couples can be just as rewarding without marriage.

Perhaps your kids didn't experiment with sex, or drugs, or alcohol. But how can you be sure? And if they were sexually active, what could you have done about it except try to understand them? Would you have locked your daughter away in the basement and found a suitable mate for her, as some cultures might?

No, it's far better to teach your kids what they NEED to know, not hide it from them until you think they're old enough.

[thir]

And as to whether it's appropriate at that age... that's a societal convention. There was a time that 13 year olds were expected to make their own way in life, adding to the financial potential of the family... and adding to the family through marriage and child rearing.

This is a good point. Actually the concept of 'children' being a seperate categoy of people did not come about until about 18th or 19th century.
Leo9 reminds me that in Shakespears 'Romeo and Juliet' Romeo was 15 and Juliet 13 and that was not considered anything speciel by his audience. Romeo and Juliet were old enough to marry, and Romeo to carry a sword and use it.

In the 12th century daughters of the nobility were often married off at 13-14 years old.

A close relative of mine had her debut at 12, I was a late bloomer at 18 though I made up for lost time ;-)

Laws recognize children as 'children' until a certain age, but biology has its own laws regardless. I must agree with the people who thinks that information and acces to condomes are a must.

[DuncanONeil]

"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?

[Thorne]

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

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".

[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!

[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]

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.

[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!!!!!

[leo9]

In terms of actual penetrative sex I was a later starter than thir, but I had been playing sexual games of stripping and genital manipulation (usually also involving bondage and play-torture, but that's another thread) with siblings and friends from about age 11. I have no evidence that this is unusual.

The fact that none of us considered including penile penetration in our games might have been influenced by the fact that we had been told what it involved, and could share an unspoken concensus that it was too serious for games, just as we wouldn't include a real knife in play-fights.

But from age 13 I was certainly ready to fantasise about it, and if I'd been lucky enough to have found a like minded partner I'd have been keen to try it for real. Again, I've no
reason to think this is unusual.

[denuseri]

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.

[thir]

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

Jumping in here for a moment: As the originator of the thread, I'd like to say that I do not mind if the discussion goes in that direction. These things - what to teach our children - are so darn difficult and good to get turned over now and again.

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.

Agreed unreservedly.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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]

"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."

Serious advantage to having a Gunny for a father!!!!

[denuseri]

Serious advantage to having a Gunny for a father!!!!

My mother and father raised us together btw, and neiather of their jobs really mattered in that part of the equation to us as kids. And your right in it was an advantage having condoms available and birth control and being taught how to use both just in case I needed them.

[Thorne]

My mother and father raised us together btw, and neiather of their jobs really mattered in that part of the equation to us as kids. And your right in it was an advantage having condoms available and birth control and being taught how to use both just in case I needed them.

I think this is where most fundamentalists get it wrong. They make the assumption that protecting kids from the complications of sexual activity is tantamount to encouraging them to perform such activities. They can't seem to understand that providing contraceptives is really no different than buying a bicycle helmet for your kids. You're not forcing them to ride their bikes, but if they do ride you want them to be protected.

[DuncanONeil]

I was thinking about the firearms!

My mother and father raised us together btw, and neiather of their jobs really mattered in that part of the equation to us as kids. And your right in it was an advantage having condoms available and birth control and being taught how to use both just in case I needed them.

[denuseri]

Both of my parents are what some would loosely coin as being in the camp of the "fundamentalists" and they still taught us safe sex.

The main point I am trying to make is that common sence is common sence, one doesnt need politics, religion, philosophy or any other kind of BS to have and or employ it's use.

And trying to tie what should be basic biology 101 to any of the "isms" is just plain bad sophistry, no matter which side of which "isim" is doing it.

So is trying to paint things into any stereotypical partisan corners or anti religious ones etc etc.

[Ozme52]

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

Okay? which part are you saying is spurious?

That social mores change over time? You can't really believe we have the same standards today as in the past... even the near past isn't the same as the far past.

That Bill Clinton didn't claim oral genital contact with Monica Lewinsky wasn't sex? Because I think that's a pretty well documented accounting of what he said.

That children today who openly engage in fellatio and anal intercourse think they're still virgins and chaste... because, though that's more anectdotal, I would argue that it isn't spurious.

And according to Google, there are 25,000 articles, conversations, or websites available on the topic of Herbal Abortives.

So... what part invalidates the entire arguement as apochryphal?

[DuncanONeil]

Did not say spurious! Apocraphal!

Mostly what I had in mind is; "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'."

Which essentially means neither side can actually produce material of an evidentiary nature.

Okay? which part are you saying is spurious?

That social mores change over time? You can't really believe we have the same standards today as in the past... even the near past isn't the same as the far past.

That Bill Clinton didn't claim oral genital contact with Monica Lewinsky wasn't sex? Because I think that's a pretty well documented accounting of what he said.

That children today who openly engage in fellatio and anal intercourse think they're still virgins and chaste... because, though that's more anectdotal, I would argue that it isn't spurious.

And according to Google, there are 25,000 articles, conversations, or websites available on the topic of Herbal Abortives.

So... what part invalidates the entire arguement as apochryphal?

[Ozme52]

Did not say spurious! Apocraphal!

Well bud!... you didn't capitalize it the first time!... so!, yes!, you did say spurious!

!!!

Main Entry: apoc·ry·phal
Pronunciation: \-fəl\
Function: adjective
Date: 1590
1 : of doubtful authenticity : spurious
2 often capitalized : of or resembling the Apocrypha

[Torq]

And yet ANOTHER good thread RUINED, with personal attacks in lieu of

STAYING ON TOPIC!!!

T