Absolutely! Condoms literally help to save lives every day, and arguing against their use or filling people's heads with lies to scare them out of having sex is negligent.
February 27, 2006 12:45 PM
Anonymous said...
Ironic. Hyprocritical even. A certain someone on here goes on about how the school shouldn't teach a "fairy tale" version of the so-called "gay lifestyle".
Expecting every teenager to refrain from sex until marriage is even more of a fairy tale.
February 27, 2006 3:50 PM
Anonymous said...
Actually, restoring societal pressure against premarital sexual activity would do more to save lives than anything else.
Want proof? David and Dr D discussed last week the low AIDS rate among gays in Africa where homosexuality is taboo. It exists among heteros because prostitution is so widespread. It would seem societal pressure is powerful tool to save lives. Isn't hypocritical to not encourage it?
The fairy tale is that instruction in using condoms in public school will make a difference.
February 27, 2006 4:23 PM
Anonymous said...
anonymous said, "It would seem societal pressure is powerful tool to save lives. Isn't hypocritical to not encourage it?"
Sure we would like all to refrain from sex...does everyone(teenagers) listen? There is not one TTF'r out there encouraging kids to have sex. TTF'rs are encouraging kids to know what to do to protect themselves when they jump in and have sex. A full comprehensive sex ed program does that from abstinence on down the line.
Tell a teenager not to do something and see what happens...when peers encourage or not.
Hormones run amuck and when they do the most responsible thing to do is protect oneself and others if in the not so perfect world sex happens.
I think that there should be societal pressure against premarital sexual activity and that multiple forms of contraception should be encouraged.
We don't need unwanted children.
It is digusting for people to suggest that kids should be left to their own devices without being taught about contraception properly.
The outcome is not pleasant for anyone. We all know that.
If pro-lifers are so concerned about preserving the life of a baby, then maybe they should encourage as much contraception as possible so that the only children born are the intentional ones.
No one is saying condoms are 100% effective.
There is a certain way they have to be presented though, otherwise people would say "oh, they're ineffective anyway, so I won't bother".
They do help in most instances. You can't deny that. (Otherwise people wouldn't continue to use them)
"It is digusting for people to suggest that kids should be left to their own devices without being taught about contraception properly."
No one suggested that.
"No one is saying condoms are 100% effective."
Actually, the condom video had a chirpy little blonde say quite blithely loads of times... condoms are 99% effective. I would say this is misleading. The facts are condoms are 99% effective per use on 30 year old women in a lab. Not teenagers over the period of year - where the effectiveness rate is more like 70%.
Shocking Alex - we appear to be on the same side of this issue.
You know, I think we're on the same side of ths issue quite frequently, but the difference I've noticed is your underlying lens with which you view sex in all its forms. You've said it before when discussing that your daughters are too young, that you want to protect their innocence, and now inferring incorrectly from the video. It's the old faith vs. reality divide. You truly believe that kids will watch that video and think, "Wow, cool, let's have sex! I didn't want to before, but this makes it possible!" Do your eally not remember what it was like to be 16? You ascribe magical powers to that video. You believe so strongly in your daughters' innocence you're willing to go to great lengths to impose it on others.
Now, there are things in the culture I wish my boys weren't exposed to as well, but I don't see starting a crusade against Fox News as being very effective or even very American. This is a free society, capitalist-style, and you simply have to go with the flow. You can't keep your kids cloistered; all you can do is teach them the values you want them to have, model those yourself, and hope for the best. Telling them , ordering them, not to have sex before marriage is simply foolish, unless you want them married at 16. The world has changed, and you will all be a lot happier if you just would see that. You need to trust them.
So I do believe we agree on much -- except when you say words like "infestation," and then I truly wonder where your heart is and whether or not I'm allowing myself to be duped by you.
Perosnally, I have a problem with Theresa characterizing the woman in the video as a "chirpy little blonde"- it makes me question (even more) Theresa's values. I can be demeaning as well- gee, Theresa, what if it was an old white guy in a lab coat- is that where you look for guidance? If you don't like the video(and we know you don't) say so. Don't start the CRC nonsense(I changed my original word there) again about "the sexy blond teenager" misleading kids in the video.
Not to make sex-ed into a beauty pageant or anything, but ... I think the young woman in the condom video they use now is sexier.
JimK
February 28, 2006 9:43 AM
Anonymous said...
Theresa said, "Actually, the condom video had a chirpy little blonde say quite blithely loads of times... condoms are 99% effective. I would say this is misleading"
Well now Theresa what do you have against blondes and being chirpy? Oh my.... boys/girls run for the hills you are being enticed in Theresa's world to run out and have sex.
The young person in that video also said the word abstinence and more about its reliability.
Would you like the more graphic old one used from before?
Or Theresa are you now saying there is going to be an "infestation" of sexual ideas?
freebird
February 28, 2006 10:11 AM
Anonymous said...
Theresa said, "Actually, the condom video had a chirpy little blonde say quite blithely loads of times... condoms are 99% effective. I would say this is misleading"
Well now Theresa what do you have against blondes and being chirpy? Oh my.... boys/girls run for the hills you are being enticed in Theresa's world to run out and have sex.
The young person in that video also said the word abstinence and more about its reliability.
Would you like the more graphic old one used from before?
Or Theresa are you now saying there is going to be an "infestation" of sexual ideas?
Something is missing in all these discussions, as well as the discussions on the CAC, but it was brought up by Betsy at the meeting last night. The Board wants to teach, and it wants the students to learn certain things they'll remember thirty years later. Not just for next week's test, but thirty years later.
I remember best my entertaining teachers -- those with passion, flair, desire, commitment. The ones that challenged me, provoked me -- the Robin Williams character in Dead Poets Society, or the Kevin Kline teacher. Boring old men in starched white coats will not do it; the kids won't pay attention. Unless the guy is so over the top, as played by right-wing lunatic Ben Stein in Ferris Bueller, that he has the same impact because he is drawn so extremely.
If it takes a pretty blond girl to get the boys to pay attention, then so be it. It can be done tastefully. You don't even see old men in white coats hawking drugs on tv anymore, either. Now, that's ageism, but that's a different problem.
Dana, There is an ad for the new statin (or maybe not- but it lowers cholesterol) that has an old white guy "Dr/teacher" in a lab coat with "medical students" spitting out bits of info about the drug- I didn't ask my own doctor about it. So old white guys are coming back into their own. I do remember bad teaching- as I proudly mentioned at the parents night for health education at Einstein. I saw a movie in my high school which made it clear you could only get STIs(or VD as we knew it) from contact(actual sex was not mentioned) with a really sleazy looking girl or a guy who looked like a deathly ill homeless man. Nothing was taught about how to protect oneself or actually what caused this VD thing but the main character tried to steal penicillin- and I knew stealing was wrong.. So I remember the movie -but have no idea what we were supposed to learn.
If you know any such old white guys in lab coats who are currently unattached, please let me know:-)
February 28, 2006 8:37 PM
Anonymous said...
When someone goes and haves sex before marriage, it is really stupid. They do it out of instinct and not out of reason, abstinence is what happens when you turn on your brain and think about what could happen.
So, Anon, are you saying that people do that? Or just that it would be better if they did?
JimK
May 21, 2007 2:11 PM
One of the stranger stories we hear in discussing sex-ed is the one that says that "condoms are ineffective." The way the story is told, people who use condoms are at nearly the same risk of pregnancy and infection as people who don't.
Personally, I question the motives of someone who would discourage taking preventative steps. But this anti-safe-sex message is spread pretty widely, you see it all the time on the Family Blah-Blah web sites and in their pamphlets.
As a note of background, one of the complaints that the Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum have always had about the previous citizens advisory committee is that they refused to include information from the Centers for Disease Control about the risks of this or that. As an active participant in this debate, I find myself looking at CDC's information pretty often, and it seems to me that the CDC's advice is almost exactly the opposite of what CRC wants. Like, here's something I came across this morning, from a site about HIV and how to avoid it. Effectiveness of Condoms
Condoms are classified as medical devices and are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Condom manufacturers in the United States test each latex condom for defects, including holes, before it is packaged. The proper and consistent use of latex or polyurethane (a type of plastic) condoms when engaging in sexual intercourse--vaginal, anal, or oral--can greatly reduce a person's risk of acquiring or transmitting sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV infection.
There are many different types and brands of condoms available--however, only latex or polyurethane condoms provide a highly effective mechanical barrier to HIV. In laboratories, viruses occasionally have been shown to pass through natural membrane ("skin" or lambskin) condoms, which may contain natural pores and are therefore not recommended for disease prevention (they are documented to be effective for contraception). Women may wish to consider using the female condom when a male condom cannot be used.
For condoms to provide maximum protection, they must be used consistently (every time) and correctly. Several studies of correct and consistent condom use clearly show that latex condom breakage rates in this country are less than 2 percent. Even when condoms do break, one study showed that more than half of such breaks occurred prior to ejaculation.
When condoms are used reliably, they have been shown to prevent pregnancy up to 98 percent of the time among couples using them as their only method of contraception. Similarly, numerous studies among sexually active people have demonstrated that a properly used latex condom provides a high degree of protection against a variety of sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV infection.
There is a certain argument that people should wait to have sex until they're married. That would work. I mean, really, if would work if we had a society where people married in their teens. Parents could just chaperone their kids' activities until they found someone to marry. (Or we could have "traditional marriage," where the parents would pick someone out and their children would be forced to marry them.) There are lots of traditions in place for regulating the sexual behavior of young people. But people in our society marry, on average, at the age of 27. You don't want to be flipping on the porch light when somebody brings your 25-year-old daughter to the doorstep. And I doubt that she'd really appreciate it, either.
It's easy to see what the point is. What these people who complain about condoms are saying is that you shouldn't have sex until you're married. Then, making babies is not a problem, and you won't worry about catching an STD if both of you are virgins. Of course that's what they want to happen. And as parents, I think all of us would be happy with that.
But it is dishonest to twist the facts to fit what you want. The fact is, condoms provide a barrier for both semen and viruses that is quite effective. A condom can tear or come off, but the chances of that happening are greatly reduced by learning how to use one correctly. --And as the NIH report I linked above notes, even if a condom tears or slips, the chances of pregnancy and infection are vastly reduced. Further, no matter what the fuddy-duddies say, even the Bush administration's Centers for Disease Control strongly recommends use of a condom for anal sex.
It is not only dishonest but criminal to suggest that anyone should not use a condom for either heterosexual or homosexual activities, especially in those cases where the relationship is not monogamous and where there is a chance that the partner has a sexually transmitted infection of any sort. With the diseases that are out there now, arguing that a condom should not be used may amount to murder.
"On Arguing Against Condoms"
16 Comments -
Absolutely! Condoms literally help to save lives every day, and arguing against their use or filling people's heads with lies to scare them out of having sex is negligent.
February 27, 2006 12:45 PM
Ironic. Hyprocritical even. A certain someone on here goes on about how the school shouldn't teach a "fairy tale" version of the so-called "gay lifestyle".
Expecting every teenager to refrain from sex until marriage is even more of a fairy tale.
February 27, 2006 3:50 PM
Actually, restoring societal pressure against premarital sexual activity would do more to save lives than anything else.
Want proof? David and Dr D discussed last week the low AIDS rate among gays in Africa where homosexuality is taboo. It exists among heteros because prostitution is so widespread. It would seem societal pressure is powerful tool to save lives. Isn't hypocritical to not encourage it?
The fairy tale is that instruction in using condoms in public school will make a difference.
February 27, 2006 4:23 PM
anonymous said, "It would seem societal pressure is powerful tool to save lives. Isn't hypocritical to not encourage it?"
Sure we would like all to refrain from sex...does everyone(teenagers) listen? There is not one TTF'r out there encouraging kids to have sex. TTF'rs are encouraging kids to know what to do to protect themselves when they jump in and have sex. A full comprehensive sex ed program does that from abstinence on down the line.
Tell a teenager not to do something and see what happens...when peers encourage or not.
Hormones run amuck and when they do the most responsible thing to do is protect oneself and others if in the not so perfect world sex happens.
freebird
February 27, 2006 4:45 PM
I think that there should be societal pressure against premarital sexual activity and that multiple forms of contraception should be encouraged.
We don't need unwanted children.
It is digusting for people to suggest that kids should be left to their own devices without being taught about contraception properly.
The outcome is not pleasant for anyone. We all know that.
If pro-lifers are so concerned about preserving the life of a baby, then maybe they should encourage as much contraception as possible so that the only children born are the intentional ones.
No one is saying condoms are 100% effective.
There is a certain way they have to be presented though, otherwise people would say "oh, they're ineffective anyway, so I won't bother".
They do help in most instances. You can't deny that. (Otherwise people wouldn't continue to use them)
February 27, 2006 11:58 PM
"It is digusting for people to suggest that kids should be left to their own devices without being taught about contraception properly."
No one suggested that.
"No one is saying condoms are 100% effective."
Actually, the condom video had a chirpy little blonde say quite blithely loads of times... condoms are 99% effective. I would say this is misleading. The facts are condoms are 99% effective per use on 30 year old women in a lab. Not teenagers over the period of year - where the effectiveness rate is more like 70%.
Shocking Alex - we appear to be on the same side of this issue.
The old condom video was extremely misleading.
February 28, 2006 1:39 AM
Theresa,
You know, I think we're on the same side of ths issue quite frequently, but the difference I've noticed is your underlying lens with which you view sex in all its forms. You've said it before when discussing that your daughters are too young, that you want to protect their innocence, and now inferring incorrectly from the video. It's the old faith vs. reality divide. You truly believe that kids will watch that video and think, "Wow, cool, let's have sex! I didn't want to before, but this makes it possible!" Do your eally not remember what it was like to be 16? You ascribe magical powers to that video. You believe so strongly in your daughters' innocence you're willing to go to great lengths to impose it on others.
Now, there are things in the culture I wish my boys weren't exposed to as well, but I don't see starting a crusade against Fox News as being very effective or even very American. This is a free society, capitalist-style, and you simply have to go with the flow. You can't keep your kids cloistered; all you can do is teach them the values you want them to have, model those yourself, and hope for the best. Telling them , ordering them, not to have sex before marriage is simply foolish, unless you want them married at 16. The world has changed, and you will all be a lot happier if you just would see that. You need to trust them.
So I do believe we agree on much -- except when you say words like "infestation," and then I truly wonder where your heart is and whether or not I'm allowing myself to be duped by you.
February 28, 2006 8:17 AM
Perosnally, I have a problem with Theresa characterizing the woman in the video as a "chirpy little blonde"- it makes me question (even more) Theresa's values. I can be demeaning as well- gee, Theresa, what if it was an old white guy in a lab coat- is that where you look for guidance? If you don't like the video(and we know you don't) say so. Don't start the CRC nonsense(I changed my original word there) again about "the sexy blond teenager" misleading kids in the video.
February 28, 2006 9:38 AM
Not to make sex-ed into a beauty pageant or anything, but ... I think the young woman in the condom video they use now is sexier.
JimK
February 28, 2006 9:43 AM
Theresa said, "Actually, the condom video had a chirpy little blonde say quite blithely loads of times... condoms are 99% effective. I would say this is misleading"
Well now Theresa what do you have against blondes and being chirpy? Oh my.... boys/girls run for the hills you are being enticed in Theresa's world to run out and have sex.
The young person in that video also said the word abstinence and more about its reliability.
Would you like the more graphic old one used from before?
Or Theresa are you now saying there is going to be an "infestation" of sexual ideas?
freebird
February 28, 2006 10:11 AM
Theresa said, "Actually, the condom video had a chirpy little blonde say quite blithely loads of times... condoms are 99% effective. I would say this is misleading"
Well now Theresa what do you have against blondes and being chirpy? Oh my.... boys/girls run for the hills you are being enticed in Theresa's world to run out and have sex.
The young person in that video also said the word abstinence and more about its reliability.
Would you like the more graphic old one used from before?
Or Theresa are you now saying there is going to be an "infestation" of sexual ideas?
freebird
February 28, 2006 10:12 AM
Something is missing in all these discussions, as well as the discussions on the CAC, but it was brought up by Betsy at the meeting last night. The Board wants to teach, and it wants the students to learn certain things they'll remember thirty years later. Not just for next week's test, but thirty years later.
I remember best my entertaining teachers -- those with passion, flair, desire, commitment. The ones that challenged me, provoked me -- the Robin Williams character in Dead Poets Society, or the Kevin Kline teacher. Boring old men in starched white coats will not do it; the kids won't pay attention. Unless the guy is so over the top, as played by right-wing lunatic Ben Stein in Ferris Bueller, that he has the same impact because he is drawn so extremely.
If it takes a pretty blond girl to get the boys to pay attention, then so be it. It can be done tastefully. You don't even see old men in white coats hawking drugs on tv anymore, either. Now, that's ageism, but that's a different problem.
February 28, 2006 11:53 AM
Dana,
There is an ad for the new statin (or maybe not- but it lowers cholesterol) that has an old white guy "Dr/teacher" in a lab coat with "medical students" spitting out bits of info about the drug- I didn't ask my own doctor about it. So old white guys are coming back into their own.
I do remember bad teaching- as I proudly mentioned at the parents night for health education at Einstein. I saw a movie in my high school which made it clear you could only get STIs(or VD as we knew it) from contact(actual sex was not mentioned) with a really sleazy looking girl or a guy who looked like a deathly ill homeless man. Nothing was taught about how to protect oneself or actually what caused this VD thing but the main character tried to steal penicillin- and I knew stealing was wrong.. So I remember the movie -but have no idea what we were supposed to learn.
February 28, 2006 4:12 PM
Andrea,
If you know any such old white guys in lab coats who are currently unattached, please let me know:-)
February 28, 2006 8:37 PM
When someone goes and haves sex before marriage, it is really stupid. They do it out of instinct and not out of reason, abstinence is what happens when you turn on your brain and think about what could happen.
May 21, 2007 1:52 PM
So, Anon, are you saying that people do that? Or just that it would be better if they did?
JimK
May 21, 2007 2:11 PM