MA elementary school distributing condoms to students

They are making condoms available. It's not like they're going to be coming into the classrooms and handing out condoms to all the kids every day.

“The thing is, sexual activity starts younger and younger,” Grosso added. “We don’t know what age that is. So we just said, ‘We’ll make it available to all of them.’ We didn’t want to pick an age, and I really don’t believe we’re going to get first-graders asking for a condom, as a practical matter.”

Source

This makes perfect sense to me. What is the danger?

Most of them probably don't even know what a condom is.

Sorry, but most of them undoubtedly do.

I'm 37. I was lucky, my parents were very open with us kids. They embraced the whole counter culture movement of the 60s, I think that helped.

I knew the basics by the time I was 10 and as I grew older my parents were always around to answer questions. Age appropriate answers were always at hand.

Now a days, most of the basics come from TV, thus they are grossly exagerated, or just plain wrong.

Kids do know, theyjust know form the wrong sources.




[edit on 24-6-2010 by Merigold]

Here is an article that might help explain why schools are taking such drastic measures. This concerns high school age kids, because apparantly teen pregnancies are on the rise in the area.

www.wickedlocal.com... 62/Teen-pregnancy-rates-rise

Last week, the Guttmacher Institute, a research and public education firm with four decades dedicated to global sexual health and reproduction issues, announced the national teen pregnancy rate has increased 3 percent, after more than a decade of decline. The teen birth rate has also risen 4 percent, and the rate of teens getting abortions has increased 1 percent. The study compared data from 2005 to 2006.

This is a very recent article, and goes to show this is a huge problem there!

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I believe that high school and possibly junior high school aged children should have access to condoms, but not elementary aged children. For one thing, sexual drive doesn't begin to motivate until puberty, making the kids not as apt to engage in sexual activities. Furthermore, it is our responsibility as parents and school administrators to keep children from having sex at that young age. It's not as if children that young are going to be having sex regardless of what adults think. Here's the thing, if I can't trust that the school is going to protect my children from harm, including sex, then I need to keep them home, however, it is law that I have to send them to school. Home-schooling is forbidden, for the most part in a lot of places. So in essence, we are being forced to give up protection of our children because the schools are refusing to do it and we are forced to send them to the schools. What's wrong with the schools focusing on academics only?

--airspoon

Seems they're only giving them to those who ask for them? If they're asking for them and if they're having sex, they should have condoms.

That someone judges or thinks they are too young to be having sex or finds this personally, morally wrong? All moot points and no reason to allow them to be unprotected.

As a personal observation, and not based on anything posted here, why is it that, in general, it's usually the same people yelling about too many teen pregnancies and abortion rates and right to life that are opposed to education and availability of protection at an early age?

reply to post by airspoon

Puberty is hitting earlier and earlier these days. It's not unheard of for elementary aged children to be in puberty.

[edit on 24-6-2010 by ~Lucidity]

Originally posted by airspoon
For one thing, sexual drive doesn't begin to motivate until puberty, making the kids not as apt to engage in sexual activities.

OK. So, what's the harm of them having the access to condoms if they're not apt to be having sex?

Furthermore, it is our responsibility as parents and school administrators to keep children from having sex at that young age.

And do you think that withholding condoms will be effective in keeping kids from having sex?

Here's the thing, if I can't trust that the school is going to protect my children from harm, including sex, then I need to keep them home,

What harm? How can the school keep your kid from having sex?

So in essence, we are being forced to give up protection of our children because the schools are refusing to do it and we are forced to send them to the schools.

You're making the same mistake that a lot of people make. Thinking that NOT talking about sex or having access to birth control is somehow "protecting" them. In FACT, giving them access to condoms IS protecting them. From STDs and pregnancy.

Kids are either going to choose to have sex or not. Why not have protection available should they decide to. Believe me, I didn't talk it over with my mom before I had sex the first time. And I didn't use a condom either. If they had been available, I very will might have.

What's wrong with the schools focusing on academics only?

In a perfect world, nothing. But more and more kids are quitting school because they become pregnant. Keeping kids un-pregnant, un-diseased and in school are good things. And if the parents can't do it alone, what's wrong with some help from the school?


[edit on 6/24/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]

i]reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

And do you think that withholding condoms will be effective in keeping kids from having sex?

Elementary aged children? Absolutely, along with letting them know that it won't be tolerated. This really has nothing to do with teenagers. This isn't the normal abstence vs. prevention argument, as these are small pre-pubic children. They aren't teenaged kids. If kids that young are having sex, it's either because they are forced to do it (either through manipulation or by physical force) or they are experimenting with it in the same way that they would experiment with cigarettes. They wouldn't be having sex due to raging hormones as teenagers would. There is a huge difference between teenagers and small children. Trying to lump the two groups together is foolish. While the prevention side of the argument is understandable for puberty aged kids, it doesn't really work with pre-puberty aged small children.

You're making the same mistake that a lot of people make. Thinking that NOT talking about sex or having access to birth control is somehow "protecting" them. In FACT, giving them access to condoms IS protecting them. From STDs and pregnancy.

Kids are either going to choose to have sex or not. Why not have protection available should they decide to. Believe me, I didn't talk it over with my mom before I had sex the first time. And I didn't use a condom either. If they had been available, I very will might have.

No, I'm not making the same mistake as I never once said that we shouldn't talk to our children about sex. What I am saying, is that we shouldn't enable our pre-puberty aged children to have sex. They do not have the sex drive so small children of that age aren't going to have sex whether we want them to or not. It's not even close to the same argument for teenagers as it is with young pre-adolescent children.

You making the mistake of grouping teenagers with small children and trying to make it look like I'm arguing abstinence for kids, when I'm not. I realize that puberty aged children are going to have sex and I have nothing against giving them access to condoms, however, pre-adolescent children are not going to have sex if you don't allow them to. Giving these small children condoms, is sending them a signal that it's normal for their age-group to be having sex.

I have two children, one being elementary aged and I don't even want her to know what condoms are, yet. She won't have sex anytime soon because she doesn't even leave the house without adult supervision. It is her time to be a child and the last thing I want to do, is expose her to sex at such a young age. I would be extremely upset if her school gave her a condom, suggesting that it is okay that she have sex. It should be my choice to decide when and where she is exposed to that. Now, when she becomes of an age to where she goes out with friends or she is even able to leave the house without supervision, then that is an entirely different situation. She has no sex drive at the moment, due to lack of puberty and therefore won't have sex irregardless of what her parents or role models say.

Again, I'm not a supporter of abstinence for kids, only small children. Are you saying that it is okay for small children to have sex? Would it be okay for parents to not do everything in their power to keep them from having sex? If your answer is yes, then you have something in common with pedophiles. The point here, is that small pre-adolescent children are an entirely different animal than teenaged kids who have gone through or are going through puberty.

In a perfect world, nothing. But more and more kids are quitting school because they become pregnant. Keeping kids in school is a good thing.

Again, you are not differentiating pre-adolescents with adolescents. five and six year olds are not dropping out of school because they are becoming pregnant. Surely, you know the difference between a five year old and a sixteen year old? Five year olds shouldn't be dealt with as a sixteen year old should be and that is what's going on here.

Again I'll say it because you seem to have ignored it on most of my posts in this thread, I don't have a problem with giving adolescents access to condoms. I have a problem with giving five, six, seven and eight year olds access to condoms. This age group is not going to have to sex behind your back and therefore shouldn't be encouraged to have sex by having their teachers give them condoms. You are missing the entire point here and that point is the difference between small children and teenagers. Prevention for teenagers: understandable. Prevention for small children: absurd.

--airspoon

Originally posted by airspoon
Elementary aged children? Absolutely, along with letting them know that it won't be tolerated.

How does withholding condoms keep kids from having sex? Explain that to me.

It's not like they're going to have sex in the hallways or classrooms. It's going to happen after school in some secret place. They're going to have a condom or they're not. What's your choice?

This really has nothing to do with teenagers. This isn't the normal abstence vs. prevention argument, as these are small pre-pubic children.

Where do you draw the line, then? 13? Have you googled "pregnant 12-year old" recently?

If kids that young are having sex, it's either because they are forced to do it (either through manipulation or by physical force) or they are experimenting with it in the same way that they would experiment with cigarettes.

And if they are experimenting, would you want them to have a condom or not? 8-year-old girls have periods, you know...

What I am saying, is that we shouldn't enable our pre-puberty aged children to have sex.

Making condoms available does not "enable" them to have sex. They are already "enabled". If they do not have the sex drive, and don't have sex, then there's no problem with them having access to condoms. You argument isn't logical.

They do not have the sex drive so small children of that age aren't going to have sex whether we want them to or not.

And giving them access to condoms is going to "wake up " their sex drive??? Read what you just said:

They do not have the sex drive so small children of that age aren't going to have sex whether we want them to or not.

And they aren't going to have sex whether they have a condom or not.

There are, however, going to be exceptions to the rule.

Giving these small children condoms, is sending them a signal that it's normal for their age-group to be having sex.

They are not GIVING them condoms. The kids have to ask for the condoms.

She has no sex drive at the moment, due to lack of puberty and therefore won't have sex irregardless of what her parents or role models say.

I'm sorry, but you are making another mistake here. Kids have sex for various reasons. ONE of them is raging hormones. MANY kids have sex because of peer pressure. Many just hear about it from other kids and experiment.

Are you saying that it is okay for small children to have sex?

Of course it's not OK. That doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. They are not in their parents' care 24 hours a day. Making condoms available is NOT condoning sex. IF they decide to have sex, I'd rather they had access to protection than to hear my 12-year-old tell me that she's pregnant. Or worse.

The point here, is that small pre-adolescent children are an entirely different animal than teenaged kids who have gone through or are going through puberty.

Perhaps. But SOME young children ARE curious about sex and will engage in it, whether they have a sex drive or not.

Again, you are not differentiating pre-adolescents with adolescents.

Where is the safe line? Youngest Birth Mothers

5 years, 229 days
6 years
8 years, 4 months
9 years

[edit on 6/24/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


Agreed. Any parent who believes that their 6 year old needs a condom should have their child taken away from them immediately and placed in a foster home.

There needs to be some minimum level of judgement required to be a parent

For those of you who are against this, please answer these questions, if only to yourself...

1. What's the harm of them having the access to condoms if they're not apt to be having sex?

2. Do you think that withholding condoms will be effective in keeping kids from having sex? HOW?

3. How can the school keep your kid from having sex?

4. And if the parents can't do it alone, what's wrong with some help from the school?

5. If YOUR little girl decides to have sex, she's going to have a condom or she's not. What's your choice?

6. At what age do you draw the line?

7. If they are experimenting, would you want them to have a condom or not?

8. Do you think giving them access to condoms is going to "wake up " their sex drive?

[edit on 6/24/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


The problem is that teaching your child about sex is the responsibility of the parent and not the school. Loco-parentus is associated with the general safety and welfare of the child, not instructing them on matters such as sex, the teaching of which is a personal matter.

The only way that a public school should be involved in this activity is by holding programs after school hours with mandated attendance of the parents.

There is no reason to teach a 6-7 year old child about condoms. To the extent that a teacher or school administrator feels it necessary to do so the family should be referred to social services.

Why is it that our entire society needs to be managed at the level of the lowest common denominator? If some low-life wants their kids to have condom instruction at 6, its their problem, not mine.

Originally posted by dolphinfan
The problem is that teaching your child about sex is the responsibility of the parent and not the school.

I don't argue that a child's sex education SHOULD come from the parent. But how's that working? Too many parents leave it up to the school because they find it uncomfortable to talk about. I had "health class" on reproduction in 1967. Reproduction is part of science and health. It IS academic. Most American parents are too hung up about the moral aspect of it to teach it to their children until it's too late.

If some low-life wants their kids to have condom instruction at 6, its their problem, not mine.

Perfect example. What makes a parent a "low-life" for educating their children about reproduction and how to prevent it?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

1. What's the harm of them having the access to condoms if they're not apt to be having sex?

Because it gives them the idea that it is normal for their age-group to have sex. It is not okay for a five year old child to have sex and they need to know that. For the most part, five and six year olds won't have sex if your forbid them to, unlike teenagers.

2. Do you think that withholding condoms will be effective in keeping kids from having sex?

For five year olds? Sure, along with letting them know that it isn't okay. By giving them condoms but telling them not to use them, you are only going to send a mixed signal to a child of that age.

3. How can the school keep your kid from having sex?

By proper supervision and not encouraging them to do it by handing out the proper peripherals.

4. And if the parents can't do it alone, what's wrong with some help from the school?

We are talking about five and six year olds. Any adult that is charged with supervising these children, has a responsibility to keep them away from murders, pedophiles, sex, guns, sharp objects and harmful chemicals. These are children who require supervision at all times, not teenagers who go off on their own.

5. How does withholding condoms keep kids from having sex? Explain that to me.

You have already asked this but it's okay, I'll answer again. Handing out condoms to small children, only gives them the message that it is normal for them to have sex. Maybe when the man in the white van pulls up at the bus stop and lures the child in with candy, she might just think it's okay to allow this man to have sex with them because after all, Ms. Smith did give him/her a condom. The point is, it gives the children a mixed message. Small children of that age think differently than you and I. We need to keep these children from having sex by letting them know in everyway possible that it isn't okay for them to have sex. Remember, these aren't teenagers or even adolescents, their small children - still keen on crayons and coloring books.

6. If YOUR little girl decides to have sex, she's going to have a condom or they're not. What's your choice?

The point is, if your five year old is having sex, you completely failed and shouldn't be supervising or even around children in the first place. The point is, your child should not be having sex at all, period and it is our responsibility that they don't. If our small children are having sex, then it is because we are allowing it. My little girl won't decide to have sex, unless I send her a mixed signal to where she thinks it may be okay in addition to a pedophile or another child in the bathroom who has had the same mixed signals.

7. At what age do you draw the line?

Well, there comes an age when you have no control over it. Such is the age that your child starts to hang out with friends unsupervised and generally after puberty. Of course it will no longer be in your absolute control anymore. This age is different depending on the child, but always after puberty. It's something that you shouldn't have to worry about with small children, save for pedophiles and child molesters, in which case a condom will be the last of your worries.

8. And if they are experimenting, would you want them to have a condom or not?

Well sure, however the benefit to cost ratio is not even close to being good enough. Again, a five year old shouldn't be experimenting and if they are, a condom should be the least of your worries, as that child is being molested. Giving such a young child a condom, only sends a confusing signal to the child, telling them that it could be okay to have sex. Children at that age don't really work on logic and reasoning, rather they look for signals from you, the supervisor or parent.

For instance, if I give my child a cookie before dinner, next time dinner is served, he is going to cry for a cookie. It wouldn't really matter what I say about eating dinner first as the signal he got last time, was that if he cried loud enough, he would get a cookie.

9. Do you think giving them access to condoms is going to "wake up " their sex drive?

No, it's not going to "wake up" their sex-drive, however it will send them a mixed signal that it is not completely unacceptable for them to have sex with anyone, including pedophiles. At such a young age, they need to know that their privates are not to be touched by anyone, for any reason, period. By giving them condoms, they aren't going to get that message, instead they are going to get the message that it could be acceptable, otherwise you wouldn't have given them a condom. Again, these aren't teenagers that we are talking about, they are kindergarteners and first graders.

I can tell you don't have children. Children of such a young age think different than children of even a few years older. Teenagers can understand logic and reason to a degree and so can understand the your intentions. Small children do not understand your intentions and so work off of cues. The key here is their extremely young age and the difference between a five year old and a sixteen year old.

--airspoon

At first I thought... ok, you give my 8 year old a condom and I will break your legs. But after reading, its not like they are handing them out. They will give them if asked. I would hope the school would be responsible enough to phone me if my 8 year old went asking for a condom.

I don't know if it is because im getting older.. but kids today are nothing like when I was in school. I'm only 33... My mother works in our local high school and sometimes I will stop by just to say hello to her. The way these girls dress IN SCHOOL today is... shocking? I mean honestly. When I was in school, if my pants so much as sagged a little I was brought to the principals office and forced to put a belt on. Fast forward to today, we have 14,15,16 year old girls wearing daisy dukes and having their chests falling out of their shirts, in school. Its insane. And I believe it has a ton to do with parents today.

It just seems like more and more parents are becoming 'hands off' when it comes to raising their children. You have babysitters, nannys, school, television, etc etc etc. Some parents expect the school system to teach their children everything. Granted, there are some lessons that kids just need to learn on their own. But there is a limit. I can blame the school for letting girls run around dressed the way they do. But ultimately, its the parents fault. How could they let their kids out of the house like that?

Kids are getting more sexually charged at an earlier age. Blame TV, the internet, etc etc etc for that.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


The fact that some parents are not effectively teaching their children about sex should not subject the rest of the children, who have responsible parents who will teach them about sex at the appropriate time to be subject to the premature class.

The person is a lowlife because they are unable to carryout a basic function of being an adult parent, a serious obligation they took on willingly and need to rely on the government to pick up the slack. In so doing they are forcing their failures upon the rest of us

Originally posted by airspoon
Because it gives them the idea that it is normal for their age-group to have sex.

But they're NOT giving them to the children. The child has to ALREADY have the idea that he's going to have sex before he ASKS for it.

By giving them condoms but telling them not to use them, you are only going to send a mixed signal to a child of that age.

That's not what they're doing. They're not giving them condoms. The child has to ASK for it, meaning they're ALREADY planning to have sex.

Handing out condoms to small children, only gives them the message that it is normal for them to have sex

Read the question again. How does withholding condoms keep kids from having sex?

My little girl won't decide to have sex, unless I send her a mixed signal to where she thinks it may be okay

That is a FANTASY! My mother never sent me any positive OR mixed signals about sex and I decided to on my own. You are fooling yourself if you think she will only have sex with your blessing. You think you have it all figured out, but let me tell you, kids don't follow a prescribed pattern. They are unpredictable. Trust me. I used to be one.

Again, a five year old shouldn't be experimenting and if they are, a condom should be the least of your worries, as that child is being molested.

Not necessarily! Not if it's a 5-yer-old that they're experimenting with. Or a 7 and 9 year old. Or an 8 and 12 year old.

For instance, if I give my child a cookie before dinner, next time dinner is served, he is going to cry for a cookie.

They aren't handing out condoms like cookies.

I can tell you don't have children.

I used to be one, though.

[edit on 6/24/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Look, I'm not going to keep beating this donkey. Making condoms available could easily turn into handing them out, even like cookies. Could you imagine if some child hears from his older brother that they are giving out condoms, so this little boy tells his friends at the swing set and now you have every kid on the playground asking for a condom. Sally will then ask because Rebecca asked and Rebecca asked because little Jimmy asked, etc.. Now, little Sally may just get the wrong idea because after all, it was her Gym teacher or school principal, someone she trusts, that handed her the condom. So, when she is at "cousin perverts" house and he decides to play "show me yours and I'll show you mine", she thinks it's okay because Ms. Goodworth gave her a condom and why would good old Ms. Goodworth give her a condom if it wasn't normal for her to use it? Little Sally then wants to put that condom on cousin pervert to see how it works. After all, it was her trusted principal or teacher who gave her the condom in the first place.

I don't want anyone handing my five year old a condom, for any reason because I don't want her to get the idea that it's okay or normal that she should even have it or use it. It's not okay and as long as she isn't getting signals otherwise, she will know that. If you give a teenager a condom and tell them, "just in case", they will understand that, however if you give a five year old a condom and tell them the same thing, you are sending a signal that will confuse them on what to do.

Also, my little girl won't decide to have sex at such a young age, unless I send her a mixed signal, such as giving her a condom. It's not a fantasy, it's reality. Since when is it a fantasy that five year olds don't have sex? It would be a fantasy to think this of a teenager, but not a five year old, unless of course I was putting her in that situation. We are not talking about teenagers here, we are talking about five year olds. Huge difference in mind-set. I'm not saying at all that she will wait until I give my blessing to have sex, because I realize that when she is older, it will no longer be in my control but this is not the case when she is a small child who doesn't even know how to tie her shoes. Were you having sex at five years old?

As far as your question of how withholding condoms keeps children from having sex, in the same way that withholding heroin keeps your children for injecting the drug or withholding fire-arms keeps your children from shooting themselves. Of course withholding alone won't do the job, but it certainly is counter-productive to hand them over. Again, we are talking about five and six year olds who still can't wipe their [snip] by themselves, not teenagers who are going to do certain things anyway, out of your control.

Sure, if a five year old is getting fondled by another child, it is still considered molestation and the child doing the fondling is usually a child who has been molested themselves. I urge you to read up on it, as a five year old who is fondled by another child, is still considered to be molested and will most likely suffer emotional distress from it.

You are speaking of small pre-adolescents as if they are teenagers. It's extremely important to differentiate between the two as it pertains to this subject. I'm not at all talking about teenagers here. I'm talking about young five year olds. You are trying to suggest that I'm making this argument against teenagers or adolescents when I'm not. I'm strictly speaking of young pre-pubic or pre-adolescent children. If a child has sex at five or even six, it is considered molestation, even if it is by their peers and these children usually grow up with extreme emotional scars.

--airspoon

My children should be focusing on academics in school - from the school staff - that's it. Everything else is simply considered indoctrination.
--airspoon

So what DO you want your kids taught in school? I for one want my kids taught everything. I can handle any questions that may arise at home. Should they be taught about sex in kindergarten? Sure. It's biology. It's not like they're going to be shown a hardcore porno.

Should they have access to condoms? Sure. Having sex at 11 or 12 or whatever sounds pretty young to me, but safer sex is better than no protection at all (with abstinence being the most responsible choice, of course) . I'm more concerned about children having sex before they are ready emotionally (or being exploited), and I'll drill that message into my kids as best as I can.

Whats next?? Will they give the kids clean syringes? We all know how first graders love to shoot up.

If the alternative is kids using dirty needles then I'm okay with making clean syringes available. The school isn't making illegal drugs available just as they aren't making kids have sex. Neither action is a solution to the big problem (drug use, underage sex) but I don't think it'll make things worse. And if it prompts questions and/or discussion from my kids, not only will I deal with it but I would be happy to do so.

I actually wish I would have been given an unlimited supply of condoms when I was in grade school. An endless supply of water balloons would have made wonderful havoc during every recess.

Originally posted by ArchAngel_X
An endless supply of water balloons would have made wonderful havoc during every recess.

That's pretty funny. I can imagine that conversation with the nurse/counselor.

Nurse: Another condom? Well at least you're having protected sex.
Li'l ArchAngel: Yes....sex... *looks around nervously*