Condoms != more sex .:. grubbykid.com

Condoms != more sex

Condoms in schools not linked to teen sex rate

Teenagers at high schools where condoms were available were no more likely to have sex than other teens, a study published Wednesday finds. -- snip -- "The concerns of the small minority of parents who oppose providing condoms or related instruction in schools were not substantiated," wrote lead author Susan M. Blake and her colleagues at George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services.

That's right: just because there are condoms available, doesn't mean that kids are laying pipe more. Small pieces of latex do not transform the youth of America into sex fiends. Say it with me: latex is not to teens as spinach is to Popeye. Let's protect kids from std's and pregnancy when they have sex. Because, lets get this straight: teens have sex.

We ask for all of the Baby-Boomers reading to remember when you were younger. OK, remember? Remember being young, and noticing women for the first time? Or, for the ladies, do you remember looking at Johnny-sports-hero during practice or gym? Did people have sex? Of course you had sex. That, and you all pretty much laid pipe from here to the moon during the 60's and 70's. Even the "Lost Generation," and the "Me Generation" was able to take care of business.

So don't act surprised that the youth of America are doing it too. You at least had a get-out-of-jail-free-card with the clap and syphilis; we have to deal with things that can kill us. So lets arm teens with a two-fold attack: educate kids about their body and teach self-respect. This respect will transfer to others; if we can get rid of the Judeo-Christian self-body loathing, things will be that much easier. The second prong of attack is to teach safe sex: condom use, the availability of the morning-after pill [which is not abortion], and the reinforcement that safe sex will protect all.

By combining self-respect and safe sex, not only would you get teens that will want to wait, but also when they will have sex, they will be protected. What is more alluring: something, which is bad and dirty like many treat sex, or something, which is open and discussed? Who do kids drink and smoke? It is because we tell them it is bad and they naturally are rebellious.

There are three morals of this situation. First, just because condoms are available, doesn't mean kids will use it. The other moral is that teens are smarter, and are making smarter decisions, than society gives them credit. Finally, a small minority of the Christian Right will use any scare tactic to instill fear and loathing - especially when dealing with sex. Just because you loathe your body, doesn't mean we should. Yes, our bodies are temporary vessels, and we are sinful, and the greatest glory is in heaven, but dammit - things are pretty good here. So don't go and try to foist your restrictive values on us.

Thanks.

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry,

Comments

ma plem says:

you are preaching to the choir. however, today, as in "back in the day", teenagers think that "it can't happen to them" condom or no condom. availability does not equal use.

Posted by: ma plem at May 29, 2003 3:24 PM #

samantha says:

i completely agree with you. i was given condoms from the doctor and had them for about a month and before that they were quite available to me through my boyfriend. we are now broken up and i am still a virgin but my father took away my condoms because he thought i would do something wrong with them.

Posted by: samantha at September 21, 2003 11:24 AM #

Toothpick says:

I think personally that samantha is smart to stay pure and not mess up her life. You Go Girl!!