Stop sexualizing children! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5758385/Condoms-available-Boy-Scouts-global-gathering.html
Stop sexualizing children! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5758385/Condoms-available-Boy-Scouts-global-gathering.html
Actually, what is said "I won't even ask where you got this info". But you're apparently determined to think what you like no matter what the evidence shows. Flu shots are a big pharma conspiracy, access to condoms sexualizes kids and trying to protect teens from getting pregnant, or catching an STI is "lazy adulting". I'm gonna punch out here because as far the salient points go I don't think theres much else I can say that will be constructive. You have a nice day. Happy Memorial Day weekend Suzanne.
No, I don't get flu shots, as most doctors not bought by big pharma do not think healthy adults should get them as it actually weakens your natural resistance over time.
But that makes me think to check if Trojan has bought into the BSA.
(PS: YOU were actually the one who started with the thinly veiled insulting innuendo back at "I dont know how you would know" about teen penis development, so don't play that BS with me.)
Have you ever gotten a flu shot? In a given year there's only about a 15% chance that it will be effective. But it's still sound practice to get one. And just so I get this straight, my wanting to make condoms available to the kids who want them is somehow equated with exposing them to STIs, but your wanting stop them from having condoms is somehow medically better for them? As for not wanting to ban them, I asked you directly if you thought they would be better off not providing them at the jamboree and you answered that you thought they would. I'm not sure how else to take that. I'd also appreciate if you refrain from talking about my ass, and my sexual history. You're starting to sound a little unhinged. If you'd like to come back to this later when you've calmed down we can do that. But please keep your personal speculations in check. It's not a proper discussion once you resort to insults.
Protection that still lets you get a disease is not adequate for protection.
Do you know how HPV, syphilis and herpes are contracted?
Somebody who has done graduate work in sexology should know the difference between "prevention" and "protection".
"They protect against HIV, HPV, Syphilis, Gonorrhea, and yes, even Herpes."
Lets start with a couple of quotes.
"Thats literally HALF of the diseases YOU claimed are prevented by condom use which are NOT."
Thats literally HALF of the diseases YOU claimed are prevented by condom use which are NOT.
I'm now THOROUGHLY convinced you are talking out of your ass on this topic, and are defending an interal conflict. Likely you had sex early yourself and are projecting.
I however did my graduate studies in sexology.
Thats how I know your STI info on condoms is so wrong. Yet if you were in charge of my children, you'd allow them to be exposed to many STIs because rather than ensure they are not having sex, you'd give them condoms that you FALSELY thought would protect them.
So, no, no thank you. I'll keep my children away from such irresponsible chaperoning. And million of other parents will too.
And here's some knowledge you need about condoms "A condom can act as a barrier for fluids but it does not eliminate all skin-to-skin contact. As a result, transmission of STIs such as herpes, HPV, syphilis, pubic lice, or scabies can occur even if a condom is used. Condoms are not always used correctly."
Ok, now you have crossed into insanity. I often find the person writing thesis size posts in a debate is doing so from a personal sense of desperation.
There is a difference between a young person having their OWN birth control and the BSA PROVIDING IT.
You act as though I have suggested BANNING condoms brought by the chlidren from the Jamboree which I never did. Equally if a child with their PARENTS have obtained the pill, that is their prerogative. However, I would UTTERLY OPPOSE the BSA HANDING OUT BIRTH CONTROL PILLS.
Sends the wrong message to young girls.
Is medically irresponsible.
Usurps the role of the parent And...
Would only be away to abdicate responsibility of the ADULTS who are SUPPOSED TO be WATCHING your child.
If bullet proof vests were 85% effective, so cheap as to be virtually free, saved tax dollars, and only about 15% less comfortable than not wearing a shirt at all I'd be out in the street trying to get them distributed out right now. Especially in light of recent events. As it stands, by your own admission, condoms are about 85% effective. Your math is wrong though. It means about 6 out of 7 times they're used they work as they should. Instead of 1-in-33 girls getting pregnant when they have unprotected sex between age 15 and 17 (inclusive) it would be 1-in-198 for a given occasion. Condoms also protect against transmission of any number of STDs, not just pregnancy. They protect against HIV, HPV, Syphilis, Gonorrhea, and yes, even Herpes. Even if you lay aside the benefits of not getting pregnant, condoms are something that teenagers should be ENCOURAGED to use, not prevented from using because it's your personal opinion that it somehow magically "sexualizes" them. If you really believe this, and since I've asked twice with no answer so far, I'll ask again: would you go so far as to have girls that go to the jamboree stop taking their birth control? I have to admit I'm pretty curious since I'd like to know what the distinction is for you; or if there is one.
So give all kids bullet proof vests. Lets make them readily available. Thats much better than finding solutions to keep guns out of their hands.
Sure, unless they get shot in the head.
With sex, lets not try harder to prevent teen sex. Just give them condoms. Works great.
Sure unless they get crabs or herpes, or use the condom ineffectively.
From planned parenthood "If you use condoms perfectly every single time you have sex, they're 98% effective at preventing pregnancy. But people aren't perfect, so in real life condoms are about 85% effective — that means about 15 out of 100 people who use condoms as their only birth control method will get pregnant each year."
If people aren't perfect at condoms 15% of the time, how much less perfect would teens with no experience be?
So, sure, lets just presume kids are gonna screw, and give them condoms and if 1 or 2 out of every 10 get pregnant, well, at least we tried, right?
No, we failed. Just as I said, its lazy adulting that appeases adult guilt for laziness but actually keeps putting kids at risk.
Okay, lets extend your disturbing metaphor conflating guns with sex. You admit that kids can get guns. You say "While locking up guns makes it harder, studies show that locking guns reduces kids shooting accidentally or intentionally by half, that still means half the time kids are getting into locked guns". Since you've decided to rely on "basic logic" you'll be obliged to admit that the teen pregnancy rate of 22.3 per thousand for ages 15-19 is obviously not confined only to 18 & 19 year olds. By that basic logic there is a group of 15,16, & 17 year olds who are having sex. So as not to be biased I'm willing to say that group only represents 10 of 22.3 per thousand. For ease of figuring lets knock off an order of magnitude and make 10/1000 be 1/100. Since pregnancy occurs less than 1-in-5 times we can safely say that more than 1-in-100 girls has sex. Lets say 1-in-33 as that numbers allows for 2 of those girls having sex more than once. Mind you I'm (obviously) only using the numbers only for teens who've gotten pregnant, and leaving aside the number of teens who have protected sex, sex with chemical birth control, or are lucky enough not to get pregnant. I'm doing this to remove any bias, except that which might actually be in your favor. Okay, now we've established through logic that A) Teens will get guns despite them being locked up B) Teens will get pregnant despite what we would hope happens. I would say that for a 15-17 year old teenager that getting shot, or getting pregnant is going to have a large impact on their future. Socially, medically and career wise. In a previous comment you asked "So why dont we give kids bullet proof vests in case we cant stop them from playing with guns?". I would say that's perfectly fine. If you expect a teenager to get shot, and you put them in a situation where they have a 1-in-33 chance of getting shot, and you DON'T give them body armor then you're being horribly irresponsible. By the same token if you put a teenager in that situation where they have a 1-in-33 chance of getting pregnant and don't at least allow them access to condoms you're being horribly irresponsible. You've already said that teenagers are going to do things contrary to our wishes. Why would you only protect one, but not the other?
Well, its basic logic. While locking up guns makes it harder, studies show that locking guns reduces kids shooting accidentally or intentionally by half, that still means half the time kids are getting into locked guns. Are you denying that kids have been able to get to locked guns?
If you don't want to to provide your info just say so. I was wondering where you'd seen it. But back to the original question. So as to not risk "sexualizing" teenagers, do you think that girls taking birth control at the jamboree should stop?
You're right......no kid has ever gotten into anything with a lock on it.....lolololol.....please.
So glad we invented locks, and kids aren't able to use keys. Whew. Problem solved. These kids stealing cars and breaking into houses in gangs across the country must be lying on their birth certificates.
I'd be interested to see your information on kids getting guns that were locked up. I'm am absolutely NOT arguing that we shouldn't try to protect kids from guns and drugs. We should. I'm in favor of Narcan. It gives people a chance to recover from a mistake which could have long lasting (eternal) consequences. I advocate that handguns be registered and that all firearms owners be legally required to lock them up, and to be held responsible when those weapons are used in the commission of a crime. But you may noticed that despite the best efforts of law enforcement throughout the United States people still die from guns and drugs every day. People who are "responsible" adults, who have had time for their judgement to mature, and who should have known better. To hold a teenager to a higher standard than we hold adults to is naive at best. You don't need anything except what you already got to have sex. You can't take away their penises or vaginas the same way you can take away drugs and guns. What you CAN do is help moderate the effects of bad judgement. That means access to condoms. By all means, be strict, be scary, and set consequences. But if you go through life planning for the best and really expecting it, you're gonna be disappointed. Oh, and you're right. They used to be the Boy Scouts. Since the let in girls, now they're just plain old "Scouts". I'm not sure I get what you mean about the motto, but I do know girls can be prepared too. I'm willing to give you good odds that some of them will be on birth control while they're at the jamboree. Do you think they should go off of it?
Yet, kids still get guns, even locked up. Kuds still get drugs. Your argument that we cant stop kids from sex so give them protection is made moot by your argument about other things we cant prevent them from getting but dont protect them from.
PS: They also used to be the BOY scouts. Not sure they are living up to their motto when they cant even live up to their name.
The reason the motto of Scouting is "Be Prepared" is because they've long known that things don't always turn out the way you want them to. I'd say having condoms available when you have a couple thousand teenagers camping together would be much in keeping with the spirit of that motto.
You can lock up your guns, but you can't lock up their penises. Young animals, from all species have a drive to procreate. That includes humans. Teenagers don't have an inherent biological drive to do heroin, but when people do get hooked they can go to a needle exchange because reasonable people have realized that if somebody is gonna do something anyway, it's better they don't get sick doing it. Just because you don't want it to happen doesn't mean it won't. That's not how life works Suzzanne. I'm not encouraging anyone to play with guns, do heroin, or have dangerous sex, so please don't put words in my mouth. I'm saying none of us is perfect. Are we not to recognize and plan for human frailty? Shall we compound that error and continue delude ourselves to the detriment of our children; or should we try to make them as safe as possible while they learn to be responsible adults? I prefer the real world, where we can see clearly what IS, not what we wish it to be.
Or.....we should prevent kids from playing with guns and doing heroin.
And from having dangerous pre adult sex.
Unlike you, thats what I suggest. Protect kids from harming themselves like adults should.
Shouldn't we pass out clean hypodermic needles in case kids choose to do heroin?
Isn't it irresponsible not to do it?
Yet we don't. Only with sex.
Why only sex?
Under your premise, yes, but we dont do it. Only with sex.
Why only sex?
Isn't that irresponsible of us?
So why dont we give kids bullet proof vests in case we cant stop them from playing with guns?
Why only sex?
I mean seriously, how could they not? The motto is "Be Prepared".
I guess that's where you and I differ. I am 100% certain that no matter how vigilant the adults may be, they will not be able to stop 100% of the kids who want to have sex. I've worked in security and no matter how hard you might try, even with LITERAL fences in good repair, you're never able to stop everybody from sneaking in. Teenagers, even Scouts, are not renowned for their decision making skills. Since that's the case I believe it's better that they should have what protection we are able to give them, and help to shield them from the effects of a momentary bad decision. I think it would be irresponsible to do otherwise.
Yes. I believe that providing condoms is harmfully suggesting sex to kids.
The "fence" IS the adults. Is it safer to avoid fixing the broken fence and throwing up your hands and issuing life vests? No, its lazy adulting.
I agree, there should be more education and information offered by the Scouts. And you may be right, maybe we DO need a fence around the lake. But there isn't one now, and there isn't going to be one for the foreseeable future. Does that mean we should just throw up our hands and abandon those kids who make a bad decision? NO. You do the best with what you have. I have to ask; do you think that the participants at the jamboree would be better off if condoms were not available?
I UTTERLY disagree with your idea that providing protection is not akin to providing approval.
Do the BSA intend to do safe sex education while providing condoms? Nothing in the info suggests they do.
Lets take your canoe metaphor.
If you have a very dangerous and toxic lake that you do not want kids to be on, and you don't want them getting in canoes on the lake, issuing life vests while providing ZERO swimming lessons or instruction on properly putting on a life vest (that by the way doesn't fit) is at BEST an utterly confusing mixed message, and that mixed message is HIGHLY dangerous.
Its like saying "That lake is toxic, dont go in it. We have no intention of letting you in it. But if you defy us and go in it, here is a piece of safety gear that we have no intention of training you to safely use and thus will probably not save you at all because you will use it wrong without training. But it makes us adults feel better about being utterly unable to do our job to keep you safely out of the lake."
This policy isn't to make kids safe. Its to assuage the guilt of adults who can at least claim that children had to tools to "protect" themselves when the adults couldn't adult. Kids will use the reasonable logic of "if you didn't want us on the lake, why did you give us life vests? " We don't need vests, we need a fence around the lake.
PS Child body development is scientific knowledge. Being uncomfortable with the FACT that penises grow to full size at adulthood doesnt give me confidence in your ability to make decisions on what should go on them. Its a body part, why does it make you uncomfortable? Answer, because you have sexualized it.
Okay, taking your points in detail: 1)Taking precautions to help ensure the health and well being of the scouts is NOT EQUIVALENT to encouraging them to have sex. Whether or not they are "mentally prepared to deal with the intimacy of sex" it has still been known to happen. Condoms are one way of helping to prevent a lasting "social consequence" (pregnancy or disease) which a teenager is probably not equipped to deal with. 2) Adults ARE chaperoning the children. Be that as it may, it is still a system planned and staffed by human beings, and is therefore not perfect. Whether they SHOULD be able to have sex and whether they ARE able to have sex are not the same thing. Even the most committed optimists I know have a spare in their car. Why you ask? Because s*1t happens in the real world. 3) I'm gonna skip this one. Mainly because I really don't want to talk about teen weiners. I won't even ask where you got this info. I will say that I have jackets that are too big for me but still keep me well protected from the wind and rain. I don't wear the ones I've outgrown. 4) From your article "The program for the older boys and girls will largely be divided along gender-lines, with single-sex units pursuing the same types of activities, earning the same array of merit badges and potentially having the same pathway to the coveted Eagle Scout award. Surbaugh said that having separate units for boys and girls should alleviate concerns that girls joining the BSA for the first time might be at a disadvantage in seeking leadership opportunities". Even so, if you think you can keep teenage boys away from teenage girls for ten whole days without a battalion of infantry in a camp that isn't Stalag 17, you've got another think coming. Also, while same sex encounters may not lead to pregnancy, they can lead to the transmission of STDs. Condoms help prevent this. As treatments for STDs become less effective it's important that steps are taken to prevent the transmission of those diseases. 5)Again, taking precautions to help ensure the health and well being of the scouts is NOT EQUIVALENT to encouraging them to have sex. Whether or not it's "statistically normal" to have sex at this age, it is certainly not unknown. An average is typically the mean value of a set of numbers. By using the average, you necessarily recognize that some of your data set are, or will be, below average, and some are, or will be, above average. Since some will be under the average age when they first have sex it's important to make sure that they have the protection they need so that they don't face consequences they're not ready to deal with.
Lastly "even KIDS know its too early to be having sex and it isn't normal" doesn't mean they won't do it. Kids know they should do their homework and brush their teeth, and not shoplift, and not sneak out, and not steal their dads' beer, and not blame stuff on their little brother. What kids know, and what kids do are not the same. We don't live in a perfect world, and kids are not perfect. To make allowances for that, and to try and protect those kids from the consequences of bad decisions is not the equivalent of normalizing or endorsing teen sex. As I said before, buying a life jacket doesn't mean you want your kids to get in a boat wreck. It means that if they do make bad decisions and end up in the water they'll have a better chance of getting to shore unharmed.
So even KIDS know its too early to be having sex and it isnt normal. Nor should it be normalized.
From wikipedia Despite their behaviors, 90% of adolescents "agree that most young people have sex before they are really ready." The average age of first sexual intercourse in the United States is around 18 for males and around 17 for females, and this has been rising in recent years.
If you don't see how this is an unfortunate confluence of events designed to create early sexualization in teens, I don't know what to tell you. I hope you aren't raising teens.
According to the guide in your article "Participants at the World Scout Jamboree should be aged between 14 to 17 years (inclusive). The World Scout Jamboree is open to boys and girls, young men and women. The World Scout Jamboree is for members from all NSOs. Every Scout should have the opportunity to attend one World Scout Jamboree. The Host Organisation should take into consideration the dates for the preceding and succeeding World Scout Jamborees, and if necessary, accept Scouts who are 13 years of age (who will be 18 at the time of the succeeding Jamboree)". They also expect half of the participants to be female. It would be irresponsible for Scouting to put that many young men and women in close proximity for ten days without making provisions for the fact that some of them will inevitably end up having sex. Taking necessary steps to protect the welfare of their scouts is not the same as "sexualizing children, or normalizing preteen sexual behavior". If you'd read the article that YOU POSTED, you would have realized that 13 is the youngest possible age for a participant, and only under certain circumstances, thus making your concern with "preteen sex" moot. Scouting is about teaching kids skills and knowledge to help shape them into responsible and successful adults. Neither is accomplished by ignoring the fact that they're also normal, human teenagers.
As I have worked with kids of this age for a decade in my previous careers, I can tell you it is a fallacy to think that 10-13 yr olds are going to go talk to an adult to get a condom before sneaking off into the bushes for sex. I don't oppose educating children about safe sex practice. But to demand that condoms be 'freely available ' isn't education. It suggests to children 1. that adults deem sex at that age as normal and 2. we expect you to have it, so we've prepared for it. This is called sexualizing children, or normalizing preteen sexual behavior. Both are bad. We need to be discouraging this preteen sex, not telling kids we expect it.
Suzanne, relax. They're not handing out instruction manuals. If I give a kid life jacket it doesn't mean they're gonna go canoeing. It doesn't mean they know how to paddle. It just means that if they do go canoeing that they do it safely. They might not even meet their "canoe" until later in life and may wait until they're married to "paddle around". In the mean time I predict a lot of "water balloon" fights at the jamboree.