Condoms For First Graders?

[Trample the Elderly]

I was just thinking, how is a 1st grader supposed to use a condom in the first place? I mean what's he going to do, tie it in a knot?

[mlmpetert]

I guess i think its okay. If you put a age limit on it, say 6th grade, then 6th graders are going to think its okay to or feel pressure into having sex. If you just make condoms available for all students then nothing changes from year to year and there wont be mentality of "im entering 6th grade time to get some condoms and bang Stacy". Same thing if you put parent notification on it.

Im not sure if schools should provide condoms in the first place though. Maybe a better solution would be to have a government facility (like fire station, or police station), give out free condoms no questions asked. At the end of day its a public health issue, and if they want to limit sodium in our foods then I guess they should be able to force condoms on us too.

[SolidSnake84]

I'll come back on this argument now. I had no idea such a shitstorm would ensue.

I'm not sucking up, but Matty really is right. It's not the 1950's anymore. It's gonna blow your mind, but kids know what sex is. they want to have it. they choose it for themselves.

I dont condone it, but if they are going to do it, they need to be safe and know the risks involved.

This bothers me personally because i see the girls around this neighborhood, they have to be no older than 14 and they parade around showing off their shit. And it's not that they don't know, they want to. They want men to check out their asses when they wear bikinis and show cleavage. they know exactly what they are doing.

Any boy who has discovered their private parts are gonna want in on it to, regardless of his age. it isnt hard to figure out.

Other people want to try and shelter their children and keep them "innocent", and that's nobile, but kind of foolish. Kids need to know the consequences of their actions, and the only way i would know of to hide them from the world is like to join some cult or something that teaches you everything is bad...

I'm not busting on anybody, but maybe sex education for kids is a good thing, if it prevents the spread of disease and middle school pregnancies...

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by budw38

Exactly , the schools SHOULD NOT be monitoring , or" encouraging" sexual activity ... the school should not be undermining the parents . By giving the kids condoms , the school is monitoring , interfering with parenting . So , if a teacher gave a kid a bottle of seagrams to a student , but provided a seatbelt and buckled it for him before he drove on one of our public roads , we should be greatful for " service provided " ? We are talking about 6 year olds , if the school gives a 6 year old a condom , they are now the problem , just as a school giving a kid alcohol , cocaine or a loaded gun . Just curious to those who think the schools should be giving condoms to six year olds . If a 6 year old was getting bullied everyday , would you be ok with the school giving the kid a gun to protect himself ??

We're talking about giving a safety device to a child, and you relate that to giving guns, drugs and alcohol to children? Reach a little farther...

Originally Posted by Buster

Absolutely not...but instructions and encouragement to try it should not be in their lives.

Knowing how Mommy and Daddy made their baby sister is a far cry from getting an "insert Tab A into Slot B" sheet and a free condom to further engage the curiosity.

Some lessons are best left to parents to teach. Religion, sex and politics are among them.

Let the schools teach math, English and how to play kickball.

Nobody is encouraging sex -- they're encouraging safety, if anything.

[mredskins]

I was going to chime in but any debate with 1st and Buster is like riding one of these:

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

We're talking about giving a safety device to a child, and you relate that to giving guns, drugs and alcohol to children? Reach a little farther...



Nobody is encouraging sex -- they're encouraging safety, if anything.

Safety device ha ha ha ha I'm going to use that one tonight. Hold on baby, let me put on one of these "safety devices". Oh GD you liberals are a trip. Ha ha ha

[JoeRedskin]

I am going to try something new and different for our Warpath discussions: What can we agree on? Really. Start out broad, if we can narrow it down, great. If we have to broaden, it, fine. But let’s work on finding a statement, relevant to this discussion, that we can all agree on. Is there one?

Let me throw something out there:
1. “Six year olds should not be engaging in intimate sexual activity of any kind.” – Nice, broad terms. Can you reasonably define the terms of this statement for yourself so that you can agree with it. I am not concerned with what six year olds are actually doing – This is a statement concerning the standards we uniformly hold as a society regardless of whether individuals within the society occasionally don’t comply with the standard.

Here’s a trickier one:
2. “The sexual activity of children is a public health issue that affects the entire society, not just the individuals involved or their immediate families.” Again, can you reasonably define the terms of this statement in such a way as to agree with it? If not, how would you change it to make it something we could all agree on?

I would hope we can come to an agreement on No.1. I think No.2 will be trickier.

In terms of "everyone", let make this a real challenge. I challenge Matty, saden, buster, bud38, TTE, SS84, firstdown and GhettoDog, to find a statement that they can all agree on as to No.1 and No.2.

I dare you gentlemen. I believe each of you intelligent enough to understand the concept. I am not, however, so sure that each of you is willing to see what is "right" about someone else's point of view as to allow for finding a commonality. Quite frankly, I expect you to fail.

Shock me. I double dog dare you.

[JoeRedskin]

P.S. I am running a pool for the rest of you: I will cover all bets at 2 to 1 against.

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I am going to try something new and different for our Warpath discussions: What can we agree on? Really. Start out broad, if we can narrow it down, great. If we have to broaden, it, fine. But let’s work on finding a statement, relevant to this discussion, that we can all agree on. Is there one?

Let me throw something out there:
1. “Six year olds should not be engaging in intimate sexual activity of any kind.” – Nice, broad terms. Can you reasonably define the terms of this statement for yourself so that you can agree with it. I am not concerned with what six year olds are actually doing – This is a statement concerning the standards we uniformly hold as a society regardless of whether individuals within the society occasionally don’t comply with the standard.

Here’s a trickier one:
2. “The sexual activity of children is a public health issue that affects the entire society, not just the individuals involved or their immediate families.” Again, can you reasonably define the terms of this statement in such a way as to agree with it? If not, how would you change it to make it something we could all agree on?

I would hope we can come to an agreement on No.1. I think No.2 will be trickier.

In terms of "everyone", let make this a real challenge. I challenge Matty, saden, buster, bud38, TTE, SS84, firstdown and GhettoDog, to find a statement that they can all agree on as to No.1 and No.2.

I dare you gentlemen. I believe each of you intelligent enough to understand the concept. I am not, however, so sure that each of you is willing to see what is "right" about someone else's point of view as to allow for finding a commonality. Quite frankly, I expect you to fail.

Shock me. I double dog dare you.

Children shouldn't be having sex.

No, the welfare of a child is the responsibility of the parents, not the government.

[MTK]

#1 - kids no sexy time - agreed. There should be no problem reaching a group consensus on this one.

#2 - kids are the responsibility of parents and society at large. No way we will reach a consensus here.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I am going to try something new and different for our Warpath discussions: What can we agree on? Really. Start out broad, if we can narrow it down, great. If we have to broaden, it, fine. But let’s work on finding a statement, relevant to this discussion, that we can all agree on. Is there one?

Let me throw something out there:
1. “Six year olds should not be engaging in intimate sexual activity of any kind.” – Nice, broad terms. Can you reasonably define the terms of this statement for yourself so that you can agree with it. I am not concerned with what six year olds are actually doing – This is a statement concerning the standards we uniformly hold as a society regardless of whether individuals within the society occasionally don’t comply with the standard.

Here’s a trickier one:
2. “The sexual activity of children is a public health issue that affects the entire society, not just the individuals involved or their immediate families.” Again, can you reasonably define the terms of this statement in such a way as to agree with it? If not, how would you change it to make it something we could all agree on?

I would hope we can come to an agreement on No.1. I think No.2 will be trickier.

In terms of "everyone", let make this a real challenge. I challenge Matty, saden, buster, bud38, TTE, SS84, firstdown and GhettoDog, to find a statement that they can all agree on as to No.1 and No.2.

I dare you gentlemen. I believe each of you intelligent enough to understand the concept. I am not, however, so sure that each of you is willing to see what is "right" about someone else's point of view as to allow for finding a commonality. Quite frankly, I expect you to fail.

Shock me. I double dog dare you.

Haha, nice. I can agree with both 1 and 2, but I have never really been arguing that point anyways.

If it makes any difference, the point I was arguing is censorship really. If/when I have kids, I will not be concerned about sheltering them from information, but instead I will strive to teach them critical thinking so they may be able to make their own reasonable conclusions. Exposure to information is not the problem as I see it. However, it is each parent's right to teach their kids how they like, and to shelter them if they like.

[mredskins]

Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick Asks Provincetown's School Committee To Revise Condom Policy - wjz.com

[Trample the Elderly]

Just remember what's been done in the name of security and for the public good.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

Children shouldn't be having sex.

No, the welfare of a child is the responsibility of the parents, not the government.

And right out of the gate we have a fail. You even going to try TTE?

No.2 said that "sexual activity of children is a public health issue that affects the entire society, not just the individuals involved or their immediate families.” If a child (however you define it) is sexually active, you don't think this has any effect on the public health i.e. the transmission of STD's, increased poverty rates, higher educational costs?

Your statement about parental provision for the welfare of the child relates to the appropriate solution to a public health issue. Before we get to the solution, however, I just want to see if we can agree on the problem. Do you see children having sex as a problem for society as a whole? Is it your belief that children's sexual activity has no effect on our society's public health, that any ill effects from the activity will harm only those actually engaging in it? If kids start having sex, it will have no detrimental effect on the body politic?

[mredskins]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

And right out of the gate we have a fail. You even going to try TTE?

No.2 said that "sexual activity of children is a public health issue that affects the entire society, not just the individuals involved or their immediate families.” If a child (however you define it) is sexually active, you don't think this has any effect on the public health i.e. the transmission of STD's, increased poverty rates, higher educational costs?

Your statement about parental provision for the welfare of the child relates to the appropriate solution to a public health issue. Before we get to the solution, however, I just want to see if we can agree on the problem. Do you see children having sex as a problem for society as a whole? Is it your belief that children's sexual activity has no effect on our society's public health, that any ill effects from the activity will harm only those actually engaging in it? If kids start having sex, it will have no detrimental effect on the body politic?