Sex-in-School Access Debated By Boards

[joebob]

Just couldn't work "Offender" into the title
I couldn't find a thread about condoms in schools on here. Thoughts?

Kids fuck.


What to do?

[CarloMarx]

I just graduated from a catholic highschool. My priests were pretty much cool as hell and though they taught the whole saving-it-til-marriage thing, most of them had insinuated that sex was a valuable expression.

Still - no condoms. Not very church friendly


IMHO, there are clinics for that thing. They give them out for free.

[drougan]

Kids should grow a pair and go out and buy some. They ain't expensive.

Though I also think a general policy of providing them to those with the self assurance to ask can be a good thing if it's done right. (discreet, private, no judgement, etc). Possession of a condom is not an encouragement to have sex just as the absence of a condom is hardly a deterrent.

[silentpaul]

IMHO, there are clinics for that thing. They give them out for free.
Exactly. Schools should educate about options. Clinics should provide the access.

[Hogarth]

Yeah, but many schools don't teach options because of fear of community backlash.

Support the Food and Drink Forum

[joebob]

IMHO, there are clinics for that thing. They give them out for free.
Clinics should provide the access.
You mean, until conservative groups shut them down, of course. Already, programs that promote anything more than "abstinence-only education" cannot receive a federal cent - kinda makes providing free or low-cost services a bit troublesome. Now we've got a court injunction in Chicago holding up the operating of a clinic due to some non-issue over a building permit obtained by the clinic years ago.

[Angel30]

Yeah, but many schools don't teach options because of fear of community backlash.

Which is ridiculous. Kinda like how people are up in arms on letting their daughters get vaccinated against HPV. Helping them prevent cancer in their teens does not tell them (the kids) that they can now go out and have all the unprotected sex they want. Nor does it say to them to even have sex.

I think kids should be educated; that whole knowledge is power thing. I think they should be encouraged to wait till they are older (I find the 13 year old mothers walking around depressing) but not told they'll go to hell if they don't wait for marriage. Explain that sex is more than just a physical feeling; it involves lots of emotions. Explain the psychology of it in basic terms; like that guys view sex differently than woman, etc.

America needs to grow up and stop being so damn Puritanical. ;)

[joebob]

Explain that sex is more than just a physical feeling; it involves lots of emotions. Explain the psychology of it in basic terms; like that guys view sex differently than woman, etc.
GET BACK IN THE KITCHEN YOU SENTIMENTAL BOOB-RACK!!!

:p

[Hogarth]

Careful, or you'll get the thread locked. Tsk, tsk tsk. ;)

[Sushi]

Kids should grow a pair and go out and buy some. They ain't expensive.

If you're not mature enough to go out and buy them yourself, you're not mature enough to have sex.

[the_birds]

Condoms should be free and available at school.

People are too uptight and stupid to make this happen.

[markalot]

Condoms should be free and available at school.

People are too uptight and stupid to make this happen.

Sorry, but I think it's reasonable to disagree. Schools aren't a place to promote sex, safe or otherwise. Safe sex should be taught in schools, I can go that far.

[the_birds]

Sorry, but I think it's reasonable to disagree. Schools aren't a place to promote sex, safe or otherwise. Safe sex should be taught in schools, I can go that far.

Making condoms free and available is not "promoting" sex. You don't even have to teach anything about sex, its not like its happening anyway, but provide the condoms free.

Just print on them, "if your having sex, use one of these."

[dragonflier]

Just print on them, "if your having sex, use one of these."
If the school is going to print something on them, can we at least agree that it should be "If you're having sex, use one of these." :p

[the_birds]

If the school is going to print something on them, can we at least agree that it should be "If you're having sex, use one of these." :p

Ha! Oops!

[Measure Up!]

Providing free condoms doesn't ensure their use and most of the people that take advantage of their free-ness can usually afford them.

[markalot]

Providing free condoms doesn't promote sex?

My company provides free pop, I like pop, I've been drinking more of it lately.

[drougan]

Providing free condoms doesn't promote sex?

My company provides free pop, I like pop, I've been drinking more of it lately.

Dude...That would make sense in this case would be if the school were providing free prostitutes. As it is, your analogy would be more sensible if your company were providing you straws, so as to protect you from cutting your lip on the can opening. ;)

[markalot]

Dude...That would make sense in this case would be if the school were providing free prostitutes. As it is, your analogy would be more sensible if your company were providing you straws, so as to protect you from cutting your lip on the can opening. ;)


Ha, yep you're right. I still like the idea of schools promoting sex though.

But seriously, condoms aren't something a school should be handing out. Only the most socially liberal people are comfortable with that idea.

Prayer in schools doesn't promote religion. What about free bibles?

[drougan]

What about free bibles?

They probably have those too, in the library.

[Hogarth]

The analogy about bibles is a good one, since handing out bibles sure looks like an endorsement.

Maybe instead of handing them out, they should have free dispensers in the restrooms or something.

:eek:

I just put sex in the bathrooms. Cue the Larry Craig comments. ;)

[Dirk]

Providing free condoms doesn't promote sex?

My company provides free pop, I like pop, I've been drinking more of it lately.
You also drank pop before you started working there. If you didn't drink pop before you started working there, would the free pop make you suddenly want to start drinking it?

Basically, if you are already having sex, they are there for you. If you weren't having sex before, the condoms are in no way going to convince you to have sex.

[markalot]

The analogy about bibles is a good one, since handing out bibles sure looks like an endorsement.

Maybe instead of handing them out, they should have free dispensers in the restrooms or something.

:eek:

I just put sex in the bathrooms. Cue the Larry Craig comments. ;)

Oh, I thought you wanted to put bible dispensers in the rest rooms. :)

[silentpaul]

When teachers get paid what their job is worth, and classrooms have enough textbooks and other resources, then we can talk about handing out free shit.

[Hogarth]

Oh, I thought you wanted to put bible dispensers in the rest rooms. :)

I was raised Catholic, so no way do I want those people in school bathrooms. ;)

[Measure Up!]

teachers do get paid what they're worth.

[joebob]

Take that ballgame down the other end of the block. BLS stats for you nerds. (http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_oh.htm#b25-0000)

[Hogarth]

The analogy about bibles is a good one, since handing out bibles sure looks like an endorsement.

Maybe instead of handing them out, they should have free dispensers in the restrooms or something.

:eek:

I just put sex in the bathrooms. Cue the Larry Craig comments. ;)

Judge denies Craig motion to revoke plea By PATRICK CONDON, Associated Press Writer
13 minutes ago



MINNEAPOLIS - Idaho Sen. Larry Craig lost a court bid to withdraw his guilty plea stemming from an airport men's room sex sting, and his state's governor swiftly announced he had chosen a replacement in the event of a resignation.

ADVERTISEMENT

Craig had no immediate public response to the ruling by Hennepin County Judge Charles Porter in Minnesota.

But a pre-emptive announcement from Idaho, Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter seemed an unmistakeable signal that home-state Republicans want Craig to surrender the seat he has held for 17 years.

"He is ready to act should we receive a letter of resignation," said Jon Hanian, Otter's spokesman in Boise. "As of this hour, we still have not received one. I do not believe the replacement candidate has been notified because until we receive a letter of resignation we do not have a vacancy to fill."

When the charges first surfaced, Craig said he would resign by Sept. 30. But then he decided to attempt withdrawing a written guilty plea in August to a misdemeanor charge of disorderly conduct. He said he would stay in office at least until a judge ruled on that bid.

"Because the defendant's plea was accurate, voluntary and intelligent, and because the conviction is supported by the evidence ... the defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea is denied," Hennepin County Judge Charles Porter wrote.

Craig, a Republican, can appeal Porter's ruling. But it wasn't immediately clear if he would. Telephone calls and e-mails seeking comment from Craig spokesmen Sid Smith in Boise and Dan Whiting in Washington, D.C. weren't immediately returned.

Craig has maintained his innocence and said his actions in the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport bathroom June 11 were misconstrued by the police officer who arrested him.

The officer said Craig had looked into his bathroom stall, and tapped his foot and moved his hand under the divider in a way that suggested he was looking for a sexual partner.

Craig denied that in an interview with the officer after his arrest. But he pleaded guilty on Aug. 8. He later said he "panicked" in entering his plea, believing that it would keep the matter quiet. The Idaho Statesman had been holding back an article on rumors about his sexuality, and Craig said in court papers that he feared the arrest would trigger the story.

Porter rejected that as a good reason to withdraw the plea. Any pressure Craig was under "was entirely perceived by the defendant and was not a result of any action by the police, the prosecutor, or the court," he said.

Minnesota law allows a plea to be withdrawn if a "manifest injustice" occurs, but leaves it to judges to define that. Porter ruled that none occurred in Craig's case.

"It is not a manifest injustice to force the defendant to be bound by his plea bargain and the waivers and admissions which he made in conjunction with the execution of that bargain," Porter wrote.

He also wrote that Craig hadn't produced any "newly discovered evidence" that would clear him.

Roll Call reported Craig's arrest and guilty plea on Aug. 27. Fellow Republican senators soon called on Craig to resign, and conservative groups, which had given him near-perfect approval ratings, abandoned him quickly. Craig had been elected to Congress from Idaho in 1980 and was in his third term in the Senate.

Within days Craig said he would resign by Sept. 30. He then changed his mind, saying he would stay in office until the legal case was finished.

Prosecutor Christopher Renz had accused Craig of "politicking and game playing" with the legal system, and argued that Craig was urged to hire an attorney and had plenty of time to think about his plea.

Patrick Hogan, a spokesman for the Metropolitan Airports Commission, said in a statement that the commission, which runs Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, was pleased with the decision.

"The ruling continues to hold Senator Craig accountable for his conduct," Hogan said.

___

Associated Press reporter John Miller in Boise, Idaho, contributed to this story.

[joebob]

"The ruling continues to hold Senator Craig accountable for his conduct," Hogan said.
There are no words for the shame I feel that our system requires a ruling for our elected representatives to be accountable for their behavior.

[Hogarth]

Frankly, we haven't had a president who would be completely accountable for 15 years.

[Measure Up!]

Frankly, we've never had a president who would be completely accountable.

FTFY!

asdfg

[Hogarth]

Nah, Washington, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Truman

And I do think Bush the Elder was a pretty good guy. I even voted for him, mostly because I thought Bill Clinton was a weasel.

[joebob]

And I do think Bush the Elder was a pretty good guy. I even voted for him, mostly because I thought Bill Clinton was a weasel.
Yeah! Give condoms to students and Bill Clinton wins!

[berzerker]

When teachers get paid what their job is worth, and classrooms have enough textbooks and other resources, then we can talk about handing out free shit.

Best point ever.

[the_birds]

When teachers get paid what their job is worth, and classrooms have enough textbooks and other resources, then we can talk about handing out free shit.

The amazing thing about this comment (okay, not so much about this comment) and comments about not giving out condoms, IS that giving out condoms would save this country so much money in not paying for babies that kids WHO DON'T EVEN WORK, much less can afford, many of them born in hospitals who will write off the cost of having these babies, that it will save Millions in taxes that Republicans always bitch about and leave money for other things like paying teachers more.

Have some F'ing VISION, already.

And we're puzzled why this country is mired in the mud... :confused:

[markalot]

Have some F'ing VISION, already.

Yea, research clearly shows that horny teens wanting to have sex will use free school condoms. Too bad most of them thing if the guy pulls out it'll all be good.

Teach them about sex, leave the free condoms to someone else.

[berzerker]

Teach them about sex...

Wait, that's the parent's job... I'm sure they'll jump at the opportunity to talk to their kids about sex! :rolleyes:

[silentpaul]

The amazing thing about this comment (okay, not so much about this comment) and comments about not giving out condoms, IS that giving out condoms would save this country so much money in not paying for babies that kids WHO DON'T EVEN WORK, much less can afford, many of them born in hospitals who will write off the cost of having these babies, that it will save Millions in taxes that Republicans always bitch about and leave money for other things like paying teachers more.

Have some F'ing VISION, already.

And we're puzzled why this country is mired in the mud... :confused:
I'm going to have to go ahead and ask you for links and such to back up this point. That's a huge return to claim. Whereas I can point to classrooms that have 30 year old text books, water-stained and collapsing ceilings, and teachers that have to work two or three jobs just to make ends meet. Budgeting all-too-scarce education funds for handouts that not everyone agrees with is similarly lacking in vision.

[Measure Up!]

I honestly don't care if condom companies want to give free condoms to schools to be available for the taking. I also think Sex Ed classes should teach contraception, because it has become a part of our sexual lives. Let the student decide what method of birth control they wish to use. However, I just don't think that the availability of free condoms ALONE has a significant effect either way on teen pregnancy rates and transmission of STDs.

[joebob]

I'm going to have to go ahead and ask you for links and such to back up this point.
And birds, don't forget those TPS reports.

http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m97/kdnphotobucket/lumberg.jpg

[Duemellon]

Passing out Christian bibles at schools are considered promotion of a particular religion

Passing out condoms at schools are considered condoning or promoting teenaged sex

But having a few holidays, parades, & special services held for veterans & those who died in our wars isn't viewed as promoting war?

[the_birds]

I'm going to have to go ahead and ask you for links and such to back up this point.

This is f'ing childs' play. First google, first result... Here's a link (http://www.surebaby.com/costs.php) and come on, its common sense. Where NOT having a child would mean saving conservatively (read the link, please) $75K, and that would pay a teacher's salary for a year and a half. And some spare change to buy some more condoms.

Also, who in in their right mind is going to pull out? Like that's even a practical option. That's a ridiculously ludicrous thought. Okay, teenager doesn't know shit about sex, but he's dick is feeling awesome right now and endorphins are shooting through his brain, giving him a natural heroin high, and...

Oh, yea, he's going to pull out now? Yea, that's likely...

[Orville Wrong]

Passing out Christian bibles at schools are considered promotion of a particular religion

Passing out condoms at schools are considered condoning or promoting teenaged sex

But having a few holidays, parades, & special services held for veterans & those who died in our wars isn't viewed as promoting war?

I'd promote commie trade unions for a parade and a three-day weekend.

Would passing out ball gags at public schools be considered condoning and promoting teenaged shutting the fuck up? I'm for that.

[silentpaul]

This is f'ing childs' play. First google, first result... Here's a link (http://www.surebaby.com/costs.php) and come on, its common sense. Where NOT having a child would mean saving conservatively (read the link, please) $75K, and that would pay a teacher's salary for a year and a half. And some spare change to buy some more condoms.

Also, who in in their right mind is going to pull out? Like that's even a practical option. That's a ridiculously ludicrous thought. Okay, teenager doesn't know shit about sex, but he's dick is feeling awesome right now and endorphins are shooting through his brain, giving him a natural heroin high, and...

Oh, yea, he's going to pull out now? Yea, that's likely...
Alright. It's 7am, I've had 4 hours of sleep, but I've got coffee and a muffin, so here goes.

I know the estimated cost of raising a child. What I was asking you for was a concrete connection between the handing out of condoms and the education system getting the money it needs.

If we weren't embroiled in the Iraq war right now, we'd have plenty of money for education, right? Yet education funds were low before we attacked. So it doesn't necessarily follow that if we weren't at war schools would be financially secure. The money would be there, but not enough of it would get to the schools.

Similarly, fewer people having children would free up some money, but it doesn't necessarily follow that it would go to the schools. I'd love it if it did, but I doubt it would. I was asking for published articles or studies that say this would definitely happen.

Regarding pulling out: I think the only person ever to do that was that guy in the Bible. One of Noah's sons, I think. I don't know where you got the idea that I was suggesting that as an alternative to condoms. (Even if a guy successfully pulled out in time, there's still the transmission of std's...)

To be clear, if teenagers are going to have sex, they should use condoms. I just don't think they should be handed out at schools. Make them available to parents or other legal guardians as well as teenagers via clinics or town hall or something. Let the schools educate about all the options, so the kids can go out into the world well-informed. As someone else pointed out, they can be acquired quite cheaply at your local convenience store.

[silentpaul]

And birds, don't forget those TPS reports.

http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m97/kdnphotobucket/lumberg.jpg
Yeah, I couldn't resist the phraseology. ;)

[mishka77]

As someone else pointed out, they can be acquired quite cheaply at your local convenience store.

They aren't that cheap, they are often kept behind the counter (which makes it harder for someone to get w/o feeling embarrassed), and the most easily found convenience store around here, UDF, WON'T CARRY THEM, because Lindner thinks they are immoral :rolleyes:

I have no problem with condoms being available at school, kept by the nurse but available no questions asked. Maybe they could be donated so they wouldn't have to be purchased with school funds.

[drougan]

They aren't that cheap, they are often kept behind the counter (which makes it harder for someone to get w/o feeling embarrassed), and the most easily found convenience store around here, UDF, WON'T CARRY THEM, because Lindner thinks they are immoral :rolleyes:

That's why you go to Target or freakin Walmart, where they're half the cost of CVS and are pretty unlikely to be behind a counter or subject to some midwestern conservative crackpot's moral predispositions. Or you lie about your age and order a free sample from the mfg's website.

That being said, I agree that the nurse would be a good place to keep them and that the kids have to ask, as I mentioned in the post about them being fairly cheap and easily obtainable.

And on another related note, even if you do pull out before ejaculation, theres a good chance some seminal fluid has already seeped out and a couple of hundred thousand of your boys are already gunning for the prize.

[Dirk]

And on another related note, even if you do pull out before ejaculation, theres a good chance some seminal fluid has already seeped out and a couple of hundred thousand of your boys are already gunning for the prize.
That why you do it with her on top, then she can't get pregnant. It's simple gravity!

[miami2112]

teachers do get paid what they're worth.
trade jobs with you any day. :mad:

unless your job really sucks.

[miami2112]

since i'm keeping the bible out of schools, i'd have to keep condoms out too.

i'm all about educating about sex. and someone said it earlier, they should be taught that if they're mature enough to have sex, they are mature enough to buy a condom.

[Homsar]

But having a few holidays, parades, & special services held for veterans & those who died in our wars isn't viewed as promoting war?

I don't think it is. I would be fine if from now on I only had to remember those that have died in wars already, and not worry about if I'll have to remember even more people that will have died in wars.

No one says, "Hey! Let's have a war so we can get more veterans! And more funerals!"

I think part of the memorial holidays is trying to put some reason or purpose to their deaths.

[joebob]

I think part of the memorial holidays is trying to put some reason or purpose to their deaths.
Thank you for correcting him.

Sincerely,
A Son, Grandson, and Great-Grandson of veterans.

[Hogarth]

Um, I think we already had this debate with Due, and it didn't go well. :eek:

[Duemellon]

I don't think it is. I would be fine if from now on I only had to remember those that have died in wars already, and not worry about if I'll have to remember even more people that will have died in wars.

No one says, "Hey! Let's have a war so we can get more veterans! And more funerals!"

I think part of the memorial holidays is trying to put some reason or purpose to their deaths.We have recognition that they fought in war. Then we hold them up higher than others with much more reverence. How many people died enforcing the law? How many people died breaking the law? How many people died simply paying taxes?

They don't deserve more reverence than anyone else who died for a cause, do they? Yet we give it to them. By giving it to them we elevate how they died. By elevating how & what they died for, we say "Being a soldier gets you recognized on these days, but simply being a CEO, tax payer, or soccer mom doesn't."

Passing out condoms at school promotes sex
Passing bibles out at school promotes a religion
Having recruiters on campus promotes the military

What if we had a day to honor all the people who had sex? All those great "sexers" in history? Like, 4 of them? People shot off fireworks & said things like "You're here because someone before you had sex." or a button saying "Thank a fucker today"? We couldn't have a country without sex. Our country wouldn't have lived this long without these sexers.

This thread is about something else, & I know people revere the military & war so strongly & it's so ingrained that any attempt to show them how it's just propoganda will go against a "faith". You can continue with this discussion & if you want to talk this issue we can, but probably in a different thread.

[Duemellon]

Thank you for correcting him.

Sincerely,
A Son, Grandson, and Great-Grandson of veterans.I'm a direct descendent of people who fought in the 1st war the US ever had. As well as having relatives in pretty much every war since. Yet I said what I said.

I guess I could put "I'm a son, grandson, & great-grandson of people who didn't fight in wars" too. Meh.

[joebob]

Bully for you. You win. Talk about condoms.

[silentpaul]

Bully for you. You win. Talk about condoms.
Just as long as they're big enough.

http://media.prankies.com/images/Body-condom-flash84.

[Duemellon]

Bully for you. You win. Talk about condoms.aw man, that last post lost some of the other stuff I was saying.

Exactly, who cares about my credentials? So I'm a descendant of the War of the Colonies.

[markalot]

Passing out Christian bibles at schools are considered promotion of a particular religion

Passing out condoms at schools are considered condoning or promoting teenaged sex

But having a few holidays, parades, & special services held for veterans & those who died in our wars isn't viewed as promoting war?



No, because we aren't having parades of used condoms commemorating sex once had, or those who sacrificed for a good time.

[the_birds]

I know the estimated cost of raising a child. What I was asking you for was a concrete connection between the handing out of condoms and the education system getting the money it needs.


Well, first we would have to link the two concepts together. Condoms are not that expensive in the first place and the idea that this could erode the pool of money for education is somewhat ludicrous in the first place. It might be a tiny fraction. Your education dollar is being spent at "wholesale" not "retail" for teachers, buildings, maintenance, supplies, etc., and the "wholesale" price of condoms would probably be covered, by not running the A/C for a day in your local district.

But I digress. You don't even have to go out on a limb, shit, you don't even have to climb the tree. The use of Condoms preventing one pregnancy per year at every decent sized high school (and middle schools, unfortunately) would pay for by total tax savings for the life of not having the kid, a teacher's salary at each school, not to mention it would be one less child to educate in the future! If you break it down in to real cash per year benefits. The price to have a child at a hospital starts at $10,000 and that's a bargain. Not to mention all the WIC and TANF and Food Stamps you would save in the first year.

So, if you just prevented ONE pregnancy in one year at a each high school, which is not even remotely a stretch, the first year real cost savings would be $13,000 conservatively and probably would average to be around $15,000. About 25 to 33% of one teachers' pay.

[markalot]

You don't even have to go out on a limb, shit, you don't even have to climb the tree. The use of Condoms preventing one pregnancy per year at every decent sized high school

First you have to prove people would use it whereas they would not before, then you have to prove that if kids used it the number of kids having sex was the same, the condoms where used correctly, and it did actually reduce the rate of accidental pregnancy.

If the distribution of free condoms increased student sex then there's a risk of more, not less, pregnancies.

[the_birds]

To extrapolate one more level. Your HS is not going to spend $15,000 a year on condoms to hand out and if they did, you would certainly be preventing more than one pregnancy which would greatly multiply the benefits of said preventative action.

[the_birds]

First you have to prove people would use it whereas they would not before, then you have to prove that if kids used it the number of kids having sex was the same, the condoms where used correctly, and it did actually reduce the rate of accidental pregnancy.

If the distribution of free condoms increased student sex then there's a risk of more, not less, pregnancies.

Marky...

We're talking about free condoms preventing ONE, just ONE, pregnancy at your average HS of 2,000 students. Statistically, its a slam dunk proposition, not something you can reasonably dispute.

[Hogarth]

It's a great idea.....



....here on the boards, we all agree....




Now go try to convince social conservatives not to protest. :mad:

[silentpaul]

To extrapolate one more level. Your HS is not going to spend $15,000 a year on condoms to hand out and if they did, you would certainly be preventing more than one pregnancy which would greatly multiply the benefits of said preventative action.
I don't dispute the math. I dispute the notion the saved money will go where it needs to.

[markalot]

Marky...

We're talking about free condoms preventing ONE, just ONE, pregnancy at your average HS of 2,000 students. Statistically, its a slam dunk proposition, not something you can reasonably dispute.

Birdy,

did you not read what I said? The law of unintended consequences is seldom studied by social liberals.

[Orville Wrong]

To extrapolate one more level. Your HS is not going to spend $15,000 a year on condoms to hand out and if they did, you would certainly be preventing more than one pregnancy which would greatly multiply the benefits of said preventative action.
Actually, Hillary is going to place a $5,000 bounty on popping out a kid, so won't there be conflicting messages?

[Duemellon]

Birdy,

did you not read what I said? The law of unintended consequences is seldom studied by social liberals.Strange, it doesn't seem to be studied well by conservative libertarians either.

[markalot]

Fair enough.

First, do no harm.

[Lidja]

Schools aren't a place to promote sex


a 16 year-old pair of breasts do.

[the_birds]

I don't dispute the math. I dispute the notion the saved money will go where it needs to.

That's what I tried to explain in the initial explanatory post. You can't say that providing free condoms would cost very much money and it would be a miniscule percentage of any School Districts' budget. No, the saved money would NOT get diverted back to the schools. It would however, pay off in 5 years when non-existent child doesn't enter Kindergarden.

[the_birds]

did you not read what I said? The law of unintended consequences is seldom studied by social liberals.

So, you're saying that providing condoms will result in more sex? If you want a very simple study result (more here) (http://www.childbirthsolutions.com/articles/pregnancy/teensex/index.php)

"A sexually active teenager who does not use contraceptives has a 90% chance of becoming pregnant within one year."

I am talking about preventing pregnancy and the consequent little "drains on our economy." Come on you "Libertarian" start acting like one, and not like an idiotic Conservative!

[purdueman_in]

Prayer in schools doesn't promote religion. What about free bibles?

That's what hotels are for...

[Hogarth]

That's what hotels are for...

So we're still talking about teenage sex, right? :p

[Orville Wrong]

"A sexually active teenager who does not use contraceptives has a 90% chance of becoming pregnant within one year."
That's odd, since a sexually active teenager has a less than 50% chance of even being female.

[classicgrrl]

Seeing as how we actually fired a Surgeon General for the unGodly act of suggesting masturbation I think we have a good 100 years or so before we get to the point of condoms being given out for free in school.

In the meantime, we'll just have to argue abortion rights and keep paying for all the welfare kiddies.

:)

[classicgrrl]

actually, thats a damned good idea. what if we taught all women the age of 15 and over how to masturbate and that it was good for them???

I wonder what the unintended consquences would be?

I would rather we do that than hand out condoms. MAL, what say ye?

[joebob]

what if we taught all women the age of 15 and over how to masturbate and that it was good for them???

I wonder what the unintended consquences would be?
I'm guessing the average boyfriend would learn to go down about 12 years sooner.

[Jumpman]

teachers do get paid what they're worth.

I'd like to hear you say that to my wife. You might survive, maybe. If I said it, I would simply need to prepare myself for a life sans sex.

[Measure Up!]

I'd like to hear you say that to my wife. You might survive, maybe. If I said it, I would simply need to prepare myself for a life sans sex.


I can do it over the phone if you'd like.

[Jumpman]

I can do it over the phone if you'd like.

I'd feel responsible for anything that became of you. I simply can't let you go down that road.

[Measure Up!]

I'd feel responsible for anything that became of you. I simply can't let you go down that road.

Fair enough, I enjoy being alive.

[silentpaul]

Seeing as how we actually fired a Surgeon General for the unGodly act of suggesting masturbation I think we have a good 100 years or so before we get to the point of condoms being given out for free in school.

In the meantime, we'll just have to argue abortion rights and keep paying for all the welfare kiddies.

:)
Maybe in that hundred years we'd finally provide adequate funding for our education system, at which point we could talk about handing out free stuff...

[silentpaul]

That's what I tried to explain in the initial explanatory post. You can't say that providing free condoms would cost very much money and it would be a miniscule percentage of any School Districts' budget. No, the saved money would NOT get diverted back to the schools. It would however, pay off in 5 years when non-existent child doesn't enter Kindergarden.
However much it would cost, I'd still rather that money went to improving a school's resources than to free condoms.

[classicgrrl]

Maybe in that hundred years we'd finally provide adequate funding for our education system, at which point we could talk about handing out free stuff...

Amen.
12456

[joebob]

You know, they're not that expensive. Condoms retail for as little as $.15 each (in quantity). People are debating free condoms, and are often using the phrase "giving condoms to kids." "Access" doesn't mean giving students anything. What if they were available, but not free?

[Orville Wrong]

However much it would cost, I'd still rather that money went to improving a school's resources than to free condoms.
American schools are fine, American teachers are fine. American parents suck and their children are shit. Government can't fix that.

[classicgrrl]

American schools are fine, American teachers are fine. American parents suck and their children are shit. Government can't fix that.

there is some truth in this...

[classicgrrl]

You know, they're not that expensive. Condoms retail for as little as $.15 each (in quantity). People are debating free condoms, and are often using the phrase "giving condoms to kids." "Access" doesn't mean giving students anything. What if they were available, but not free?

accessible?

I'd just like to walk into one Cincinnati Kroger store and be able to purchase condoms or lubricant after 7:00 PM. they lock them up behind the pharmacy counter and nobody has the keys after 7:00 PM.

In Cincinnati, you can drink all you want, but you better not have sex. after 7:00 PM anyway. :p

[joebob]

accessible?

I'd just like to walk into one Cincinnati Kroger store and be able to purchase condoms or lubricant after 7:00 PM. they lock them up behind the pharmacy counter and nobody has the keys after 7:00 PM.

In Cincinnati, you can drink all you want, but you better not have sex. after 7:00 PM anyway. :p
I've always gone to the University Plaza Kro, they actually carry my brand. Never locked up, but they put the plastic tabs in the boxes to prevent theft.

I thought I read that Lindner turned over the UDF company to another party. I'm very surprised they don't yet carry condoms.

[silentpaul]

American schools are fine, American teachers are fine. American parents suck and their children are shit. Government can't fix that.
It's not like American teachers can't do their jobs, but there is a real need for resource improvement.

I agree, though, that -- generally speaking -- many parents are taking less and less responsibility for raising their kids. And no, government can't fix that.