Joining in with the others here, sexuality is one of the last things which I wished to approach my legal guardians about. It is also quite a good point that this will be all the more traumatic for a child who happens to have an alternate sexuality to what their legal guardian/s believe is appropriate. Imposing a policy whereby they are expected to go through their legal guardian/s would run the risk of directly circumventing the rights of the child.

Just saying that when I started having sex, my parents were the last ones that I'd go to talk about it and ask for protection or whatever. I instead talked to people on the net, where I learned everything about condoms and dental dams :P
and also my parents would not have known what to do or to say if I asked about having sex with a girl >.>

I was lucky enough not to need to have "the talk" with my parents, since I was on hormone treatments (which coincidentally are birth control) way before I started having sex. And condoms were easy enough for me to deal with, since I had access to transportation and funds by the time I was ready. Not all teens are so fortunate though.

I don't think it's appropriate for schools (Highschool level and below) to hand out condoms or go into great detail about sex.

I think safe sex education is a wonderful idea and those who are involved, interested or even curious should definitely have a place to go to find the info and resources that they need. I just don't think that a regular school is the right place for this.

Open communication witch school counselors and regular health education professionals should help put teens in touch with the right people to give them the free birth control and testing (such as Planned Parenthood)

Since public schools house such a variety of different kids from all walks of life I don't think that it's right to make sex education and things like handing out condoms a part of regular school activities. Some kids might feel threatened by these classes and handouts and even if the classes are optional and parents must sign a waver, the kids who's parents opt out might become ostracized.

How is a teen, who may not even have a driver's license, going to get to a planned parenthood? Do you have any idea what kind of connotations that has for parents if their child asks to go?

Absolutely. I suppose it does depend upon how far away it is from them.

I'm not exactly female, but I managed to get to our local PP for free checkups and birth control quite often when I was a teen. I relied on the bus line for it. I know that this might not be available for everyone but I still think that designating a certain spot away from school - Planned Parenthood or no - is far more appropriate than doing it at school.

I am really not seeing how it is inappropriate to have it done at school. Although the high school I went to had a medical doctor come visit about twice every week. Their purpose was specifically to address any difficulties or complications students might have health wise, particularly in regards to sexual issues. Their reasoning being that while we were students at their school they had an obligation to ensure our well being. It is much the same in regards to them also having a counselor on the staff.

Originally Posted by Afanassii

Absolutely. I suppose it does depend upon how far away it is from them.

I'm not exactly female, but I managed to get to our local PP for free checkups and birth control quite often when I was a teen. I relied on the bus line for it. I know that this might not be available for everyone but I still think that designating a certain spot away from school - Planned Parenthood or no - is far more appropriate than doing it at school.

There is no Planned Parenthood sector in my area. I live in a very small community, with smaller communities surrounding us. What about us?

Originally Posted by Crimson Fang

I am really not seeing how it is inappropriate to have it done at school. Although the high school I went to had a medical doctor come visit about twice every week. Their purpose was specifically to address any difficulties or complications students might have health wise, particularly in regards to sexual issues. Their reasoning being that while we were students at their school they had an obligation to ensure our well being. It is much the same in regards to them also having a counselor on the staff.

I'm kind of wondering about that as well. If you limit school to academic issues, which is what it seems Afanassii is suggesting, there should be no counselors, no school nurses, no P.E., no health classes, no provided lunches, no sex ed of any sort, and no classes on, say, dealing with peer pressure in regards to drug use, sexual harassment, or bullying. It seems like half my grade school experiences shouldn't have happened :lol:

If that's not what she's suggesting, my only other thought is that the sticking point is sex. I really don't see how the idea that teenagers have sex is so controversial it can't be addressed in a helpful way in an environment the vast majority of teens have ready access to.

I think it's perfectly fine for schools to be providing students with what they need in order to protect themselves. I also don't think that just because they are readily available it makes you want to go jump in bed with someone. The knowledge isn't like a switch. "Man... well... maybe not today.. oh, wait, CONDOMS! AWESOME let's go in the back /wink"

iI also don't think it's going behind the parents backs. Most of the time if the parent is aware enough, which I would like to THINK most parents are (of course this could be a HUGE misconception, I wouldn't be surprised) they should probably know that the school is providing these things. Usually schools don't keep it a "big secret" from the parents that are paying. There would be little reason for it (especially since if they decided NOT to have such things readily available it would same them some cash. Not all get those things for free~)

So I gotta say that I believe it's okay. Having them available for kids is not telling them to go out and have sex. That's already on a teens mind. And even then, how awkward is it to go to the nurse's office and ask for one? I know just asking for a PAD is bad enough in a females view. God forbid requesting a condom. Oo Maybe I'm wrong about this. xD

I think it's inappropriate because it's encouraging the under-aged to have sex. I know that a lot of people say that simply providing the condoms isn't encouraging teens to have sex but it certainly isn't showing a preference toward abstinence. Considering many high schoolers are below the age of consent, having a free source of birth control available at a place of learning sets a bad example in my opinion.

Certainly, some teens are going to have sex and I think that they should have access to birth control and health care as it becomes necessary, but it should be apart from school because otherwise it sets a bad example for the rest of the kids.

My own sister and several friends have attested to the easy access of birth control being the reason why they lost their virginity at a younger age then they likely would have without it. This obviously wouldn't be the case for everyone but I'd rather keep things that encourage unlawful behavior completely away from school grounds. Similar to smoking - which isn't allowed anywhere on high school grounds in my area of the country.

Originally Posted by Afanassii

I think it's inappropriate because it's encouraging the under-aged to have sex. I know that a lot of people say that simply providing the condoms isn't encouraging teens to have sex but it certainly isn't showing a preference toward abstinence. Considering many high schoolers are below the age of consent, having a free source of birth control available at a place of learning sets a bad example in my opinion.

Certainly, some teens are going to have sex and I think that they should have access to birth control and health care as it becomes necessary, but it should be apart from school because otherwise it sets a bad example for the rest of the kids.

My own sister and several friends have attested to the easy access of birth control being the reason why they lost their virginity at a younger age then they likely would have without it. This obviously wouldn't be the case for everyone but I'd rather keep things that encourage unlawful behavior completely away from school grounds. Similar to smoking - which isn't allowed anywhere on high school grounds in my area of the country.

I don't really believe that just because they are there it means that children will be more inclined to have sex. I never once had a personal thought going "well... they're there, so I guess I'm gunna do it!" It's not hard to get condoms, any idiot can do it. I feel that the pressure to have sex is more with those around them rather then the availability of condoms,

The other worry here is this, schools know kids are going to have sex. Schools are there to protect the children and provide and promote a safe environment. By denying such things as condoms they are denying such protection that would be easily obtainable by the school. And sometimes when condoms are not available people choose the worse option, not protecting themselves.

You can attempt to promote abstinence as much as you want to until you're blue in the face. It might work for some, but it's a harder method. People have needs, and hormones are running in high school.

However I would like to post this one article, featuring the pros and cons of distributing condoms in school.

Here

Yes yes and yes. Why, might you ask? Because of the sheer number of times I have heard THIS:

"Well, we usually use a condom, but we didn't have one so we thought it would be okay. Could I be pregnant?"

I have heard that far, far more times than I have ever heard (and realistically will ever hear) that having a condom made a kid have sex. In fact, I have never heard of a kid having sex just because protection was available.

Abstinence is a pipedream. Teens are going to have sex no matter what you do. Why not provide them with the tools to at least have safe sex? To me, refusing to provide condoms in schools isn't promoting abstinence. It's promoting the spread of STDs and teen pregnancy, straight up.

I think they should - this enforces how important it is to have safe sex. You'd be surprised how many teens are doing it now - sex is everywhere in the media, why not be safe?

But I also think they should accompany the free condoms with lessons about why safe sex is important. They should educate the students about the risks involved and any possible methods that prevents transmission of STDs and pregnancy.

Do you know that young Hispanic women are MORE likely to get pregnant than any other race before hitting 18? It's because that many Hispanics are highly religious - this means that Hispanic parents will only tell their children that sex is wrong. They do not educate them in terms of prevention and such. My mother was like that - she never once told me about safe sex because she didn't want to do it before I was married. Fortunately my father was an Atheist and he told me all about them. I think it is important to educate the teens of today so that they wouldn't do one of the worst things they could ever do - not use protection.
And I think handing out condoms would allow students to ask questions about sex. They should be educated not left in the dark.

Originally Posted by Afanassii

I think it's inappropriate because it's encouraging the under-aged to have sex. I know that a lot of people say that simply providing the condoms isn't encouraging teens to have sex but it certainly isn't showing a preference toward abstinence. Considering many high schoolers are below the age of consent, having a free source of birth control available at a place of learning sets a bad example in my opinion.

Certainly, some teens are going to have sex and I think that they should have access to birth control and health care as it becomes necessary, but it should be apart from school because otherwise it sets a bad example for the rest of the kids.

My own sister and several friends have attested to the easy access of birth control being the reason why they lost their virginity at a younger age then they likely would have without it. This obviously wouldn't be the case for everyone but I'd rather keep things that encourage unlawful behavior completely away from school grounds. Similar to smoking - which isn't allowed anywhere on high school grounds in my area of the country.

Just wanted to state that sex is NOT illegal for children 15 or older where I'm from. So saying that is a reason is kind of odd in my ears. And how is providing condoms "encouraging" to having sex??

We get prepared and educated for most things that we will or might face in our lives, so why not sex?
And why do people always see abstinence as a good thing? I have had great fun having sex. I started early but have always been too scared of diseases to not use protection. It should be a choise, either to have or to not have sex. Both ways are good.

And I don't know about you bsut I knew of sex long before I knew of condoms...

Originally Posted by Afanassii

I think it's inappropriate because it's encouraging the under-aged to have sex. I know that a lot of people say that simply providing the condoms isn't encouraging teens to have sex but it certainly isn't showing a preference toward abstinence. Considering many high schoolers are below the age of consent, having a free source of birth control available at a place of learning sets a bad example in my opinion.

Certainly, some teens are going to have sex and I think that they should have access to birth control and health care as it becomes necessary, but it should be apart from school because otherwise it sets a bad example for the rest of the kids.

My own sister and several friends have attested to the easy access of birth control being the reason why they lost their virginity at a younger age then they likely would have without it. This obviously wouldn't be the case for everyone but I'd rather keep things that encourage unlawful behavior completely away from school grounds. Similar to smoking - which isn't allowed anywhere on high school grounds in my area of the country.

It never encouraged me to have sex. And not everyone believes in abstinence, so why not provide condoms to those who want them? For those who want to abstain, great, they don't need them. For those who want to have sex, at least they'll be protected. I'd like to see proof where it encourages teens to have sex.

And I don't see how it sets a "bad example" to other kids. I look up to people who use protection during sex, because they're being smart and looking at their future.

Your sister saying that isn't proof enough for me, because you could just be making that up right now. Provide concrete proof to all your points.

I got comprehensive sex ed in high school, when I was 14, which included education on all sorts of contraceptive devices (including condoms AND abstinence, not that abstinence is a contraceptive... but anyway). I didn't have sex until well after I had graduated.

I've never been pregnant. I don't have any STD's. I use at least two methods of contraception. (two METHODS, not two condoms... :sweat:)

So what, exactly, is the problem?

I mean, I've had access to all of these things as soon as I had a driver's license (and I started taking birth control regularly when I was 17, due to a health condition--still well before I lost my virginity). I owned my first condom when I was 16. None of this impacted my decision. Not being pregnant (or even a smidge at risk of being pregnant) far outweighed losing my virginity to some boy.

Same as Keyori, in grade 9 of high school (14 yrs old) we had 'ethical living' essentially sex ed. I knew about them, but it didn't make me want to go out and have sex! I didn't have sex until my senior yr. I had had 3 boyfriends since grade 9 (light experimentation with 2) , and my current bf and me were dating for 5 months already when we started heavy petting! So when we started having sex it was just natural that we used condoms. (we had a deal that, well he bought the first pack of condoms, so I bought the next, then him then me, etc) 3 months after loosing my virginity I started using b.c. to help with my period, not to stop using condoms, but to regulate my period.

Me and my boyfriend are still together (1 yr 8 months). I've never been pregnant, no STD's.
Again like Keyori, whats the problem?

My own sister and several friends have attested to the easy access of birth control being the reason why they lost their virginity at a younger age then they likely would have without it. This obviously wouldn't be the case for everyone but I'd rather keep things that encourage unlawful behavior completely away from school grounds. Similar to smoking - which isn't allowed anywhere on high school grounds in my area of the country.

I just can't agree with this. I was 18, but without a license, and the fact that I was still under my moms health care, I had to talk to her about getting birth control. She drove me to the doctors, I had to talk to my male doctor about getting birth control. He gave me a pap smear, and I got my prescription.
*shudder* It was not easy to get birth control! At least not for me!

I had a male doctor, but I chose a male specifically, because I had heard that the girl doctors aren't as gentle. :c

It helped that he was kinda cute too. >3>

But having had both now, I can't say there was much of a difference. They've both been excellent, and the only reason I changed was because I moved.

But yeah. Pap smears. *shudder* Getting the pill is definitely not easy. I hate those appointments. I'm supposed to have one again soon.

lets see your supposed to get one once a year? or what?

yeah that was my first one. It was helpful that he's the doctor I've had since I was 8 *giggles* not that I see him very often.

yeah I went to my boyfriends place afterwords and all I could do was shudder for feeling violated... Not really but it's quite awkward the first time!

Yeah, once a year or so. More often if you have problems, but once a year is the minimum. I can't get a prescription for longer than a year anyway.

ditto... I was just thinking I might want to book one soon... I think I had my last one in the fall of last year....

I love and hate that the yearly appointment is required. I'm glad that it's required, because then women get screened for all sorts of things that they need to be screened regularly for, especially if they have multiple partners. And I hate it because I've been monogamous for four years and it's unlikely I'll ever get an abnormal pap smear or an STD (unless he cheats... but that's a whole separate issue, lol). Though, I do like having the "official" breast exam once a year. I have a bunch of cysts, so I can never tell if it's a "lump lump" or just a lump from a cyst.

But the rest of it... I don't really need it. But I wouldn't have the requirement taken away. It's just a minor inconvenience for me. It's worth it for all the other women it helps.

ditto. My bf would never cheat on me. Actually me and my flirtatious nature is more likely even though I never would! I love him too much! but yeah I understand where your coming from. But I've never had any issues, or anything like that. No lumps or anything, and I know my body well.

yeah take away the requirement, and make it more of a suggestion.

TOTALLY!

I mean, no matter what, teenagers are going to have sex. You can try the 'supporting abstinence' thing, but that just makes the idea taboo, and kids will wanna do it even more!

Schools giving out condoms is better than nothing, it would encourage safe sex and prevent a lot of bad things from happening.