Debate: condoms in school?

[QUOTE="harashawn"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

.......... No they are taught pretty standard things.. Its our current culture.. But yet again you have given us no reason why condoms shouldn't handed out.. Your ignoring the fact that teens are still going to have sex regardless of the consquences.. Its best they easy access to contraception have the education to know how TO use that contraception if they decide to do that.. They don't have to but many do even when they know the consquences..

raynimrod

I guess schools shouldn't provide food either - wouldn't want to encourage kids to get fat.

Kids (theoretically) will be having sex outside of school. So the comparison is rather immaterial.

[QUOTE="raynimrod"]

[QUOTE="harashawn"] If they want to have sex, they can buy their own condoms. Schools should not encourange students to have sex, "protected" or not.coolbeans90

I guess schools shouldn't provide food either - wouldn't want to encourage kids to get fat.

Kids (theoretically) will be having sex outside of school. So the comparison is rather immaterial.

They'll be eating outside of school too...

Sure, but upon request. Not like in a vending machine or something.

Edit: Ah, but it would depend on how they're funded. I don't think it's fair that people have to pay for other's kids when theirs might not even be a part of the problem.

I think they should sell them at the student store. It encourages safe sex, and some of these kids are embarrassed to buy condoms at a store.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="raynimrod"]

I guess schools shouldn't provide food either - wouldn't want to encourage kids to get fat.

raynimrod

Kids (theoretically) will be having sex outside of school. So the comparison is rather immaterial.

They'll be eating outside of school too...

Yes, with food not provided by the school. :|

I'm not against making condoms openly available to kids in school, but I don't want the school district to spend money on them. In FACT! Trojan should give out 5-packs at school rallies as advertisement. It gets the message across and the school district doesn't spend a dime.cd_rom

they do it at college. Hell, they gave us a big chinese takeout box full of condoms of all different types! It was great

I think they'd do it in high school if it were socially/politcally acceptable

I dunno why sex is such a huge part of certain societies. I'm sure its great and all, but there are far more important things.GazaAli

there are more important things, but sex is one of those human urges that should not be suppressed. People say "everything in moderation" to all sorts of things, and I feel that phrase is overused, but sex is one of those things where it legitimately applies in truth.

Two 16 year olds who are in love (and yes, I feel they can be in love, even if they are "kids") should not be denied a key part of any healthy relationship (sex), but they are not old enough to handle the fundamental reason (procreation) of sex, so they should be given another option outside of abstinence and pregnancy.

They obviously cannot get birth control medication (they need to be 18, or parents permission...good luck with that), so condoms and other contraceptives are perfect.

There needs to be a balance between realism, compromise, and moderation. I remember high school, and I was fortunate not to be a teen daddy because my hormones were raging as were my female classmates, and I sure wish I could have gone to the nurses' office to get a condom. I had to ask senior classmates to get them for me or ask people at parties for them.

[QUOTE="raynimrod"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Kids (theoretically) will be having sex outside of school. So the comparison is rather immaterial.

coolbeans90

They'll be eating outside of school too...

Yes, with food not provided by the school. :|

How do you know? A kid could buy a bag of chips at school and eat them at home.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="raynimrod"]

They'll be eating outside of school too...

raynimrod

Yes, with food not provided by the school. :|

How do you know? A kid could buy a bag of chips at school and eat them at home.

At this point, I'm honestly not sure if you're being even remotely sincere with this discussion. A 1 oz. bag of chips hardly qualifies as "food" in either quality or quantity. Furthermore, the entire reason food is offered at schools is because kids are there for a large portion of the day.

[QUOTE="raynimrod"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Yes, with food not provided by the school. :|

coolbeans90

How do you know? A kid could buy a bag of chips at school and eat them at home.

At this point, I'm honestly not sure if you're being even remotely sincere with this discussion. A 1 oz. bag of chips hardly qualifies as "food" in either quality or quantity. Furthermore, the entire reason food is offered at schools is because kids are there for a large portion of the day.

I only started going in this direction when it was suggested that providing condoms would encourage people to have sex, but offering food wouldn't encourage people to eat.

YESH!!!!!

Water balloon fun tiem magic partayy

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="raynimrod"]

How do you know? A kid could buy a bag of chips at school and eat them at home.

raynimrod

At this point, I'm honestly not sure if you're being even remotely sincere with this discussion. A 1 oz. bag of chips hardly qualifies as "food" in either quality or quantity. Furthermore, the entire reason food is offered at schools is because kids are there for a large portion of the day.

I only started going in this direction when it was suggested that providing condoms would encourage people to have sex, but offering food wouldn't encourage people to eat.

Hmm, fair enough. I probably shouldn't jump into conversations before reading them. Obviously offering food would encourage people to eat more.

Upon request sure, but not thrown out of a hot-air balloon.

[QUOTE="raynimrod"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

At this point, I'm honestly not sure if you're being even remotely sincere with this discussion. A 1 oz. bag of chips hardly qualifies as "food" in either quality or quantity. Furthermore, the entire reason food is offered at schools is because kids are there for a large portion of the day.

coolbeans90

I only started going in this direction when it was suggested that providing condoms would encourage people to have sex, but offering food wouldn't encourage people to eat.

Hmm, fair enough. I probably shouldn't jump into conversations before reading them. Obviously offering food would encourage people to eat more.

It's all good man :P

[QUOTE="raynimrod"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

At this point, I'm honestly not sure if you're being even remotely sincere with this discussion. A 1 oz. bag of chips hardly qualifies as "food" in either quality or quantity. Furthermore, the entire reason food is offered at schools is because kids are there for a large portion of the day.

coolbeans90

I only started going in this direction when it was suggested that providing condoms would encourage people to have sex, but offering food wouldn't encourage people to eat.

Hmm, fair enough. I probably shouldn't jump into conversations before reading them. Obviously offering food would encourage people to eat more.

I don't know about that. If I'm offered food and I'm not hungry, I usually say "No thanks." Being offered food doesn't suddenly make you hungry, but if you're ALREADY hungry then you'll probably accept the offer. I hope my point isn't being lost in the comparison.

As for anyone saying offering condoms in school would make teens who may not be thinking about having sex have sex....I can't remember a single moment in my teen years where I wasn't thinking about sex or something sexual in some way shape or form. Sex drive isn't something rational or deliberate, It's primal and instinctual. It's not something that any outside influence can hope to control or repress. You can only educate, and hope that the individual makes the right decisions. But they will never make the right decisions without the proper knowledge.

Yes because if teens want to have sex they will, regardless of whether protection is available. It won't encourage them - no-one decides to lose their virginity because someone handed them a condom. I think our secondary school should have run a clinic for students to learn more about sexual health, ask questions and get protection because there wasn't and I had to get protection myself and ask my mum any questions about health which not everyone is prepared to do.tofu-lion91

only if its one of these http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlWjt53nIKA

kids can buy their own condoms or get them from the local clinic

Yes because if teens want to have sex they will, regardless of whether protection is available. It won't encourage them - no-one decides to lose their virginity because someone handed them a condom. I think our secondary school should have run a clinic for students to learn more about sexual health, ask questions and get protection because there wasn't and I had to get protection myself and ask my mum any questions about health which not everyone is prepared to do.tofu-lion91

[QUOTE="tofu-lion91"]Yes because if teens want to have sex they will, regardless of whether protection is available. It won't encourage them - no-one decides to lose their virginity because someone handed them a condom. I think our secondary school should have run a clinic for students to learn more about sexual health, ask questions and get protection because there wasn't and I had to get protection myself and ask my mum any questions about health which not everyone is prepared to do.DroidPhysX

Yes, but why should we focus on just the bad consequences?

[QUOTE="tofu-lion91"]Yes because if teens want to have sex they will, regardless of whether protection is available. It won't encourage them - no-one decides to lose their virginity because someone handed them a condom. I think our secondary school should have run a clinic for students to learn more about sexual health, ask questions and get protection because there wasn't and I had to get protection myself and ask my mum any questions about health which not everyone is prepared to do.lightleggy

the condom is not the trigger to the urge to have sex. that urge is going to be there, especially if they are around students of the opposite sex.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="Nintendevil"]Yeah, if you live in TV soap operas. This is completely false.

In high school, kids wont be having sex if their parents son't let them go to parties or sleepovers or go on dates. Strict parents who impose MASSIVE threats on having an early sex life usually stops those kids from doing so. The fact is, parents who give their kids permission to do whatever they want are going to do whatever they want, and that includes having sex.

Once they are out of the house in in dorms is a different story though. THEN is when those kdis become rebelios because they are finally out of their parents grip.

Nintendevil

I disagree completely.. If this were not the case than the average age they a kid loses his/her virignity is at 16.. Either there isn't that many strict parents, or parents can not always control children...

My mother was raised with exactly this kind of mindset: don't teach about sex, don't say anything in fact. Pretend it doesn't exist and she won't have it. Guess what happened? She got knocked up at the age of 15. On the other hand she was very open with my sister and I about sex and guess what? No teen pregnancies from ether of us.

I vote no. Sex is a big deal, and it should be treated as such. I know today's world is filled with sex everywhere, and that's what is desensitizing us to it. Giving kids condoms is telling them it's okay to have sex, and it's not. Once they start, they'll wonder what it feels like without the condom... I did. Teaching them abstinence is the best way to prevent the spread of disease and pregnancy. With that they should also be taught how to control their urges. Taking the position of "they're going to do it anyway" is just dismissing the responsibility we have as parents/adults to teach our kids. It's flat out laziness. I have an aunt that took that approach about her son drinking alcohol. Now, he's 20 with 3 DUI's and could very well pass as an alcoholic. This whole mentality saddens me, and I feel this is why our society is heading in the direction it is. Everyone usually blames the parents for everything when it comes to what kids are, or are not, doing... except this.jshaas

No it isn't :| its facing a little thing we like to call REALITY.. Schools already teach the consquences of sexual activity including everything there needs to be known about it.. Teens need to be taught how to use contraception correclty and to have the possibility to ask the school nurse for a condom.. This in no way trivializes sex, but teens are still going have it they should have the access and education to be as safe as possible.. Contraception is by no means full proof but its far more realistic to look at things now to realize that teens are going to have sex whether you like it or not.. Schools are suppose to be teaching these people to become adults.. Being adult means you not only know the consquences of sexual activity, but the knowledge in how to use contraception if they do wish to have sex.

[QUOTE="jshaas"]I vote no. Sex is a big deal, and it should be treated as such. I know today's world is filled with sex everywhere, and that's what is desensitizing us to it. Giving kids condoms is telling them it's okay to have sex, and it's not. Once they start, they'll wonder what it feels like without the condom... I did. Teaching them abstinence is the best way to prevent the spread of disease and pregnancy. With that they should also be taught how to control their urges. Taking the position of "they're going to do it anyway" is just dismissing the responsibility we have as parents/adults to teach our kids. It's flat out laziness. I have an aunt that took that approach about her son drinking alcohol. Now, he's 20 with 3 DUI's and could very well pass as an alcoholic. This whole mentality saddens me, and I feel this is why our society is heading in the direction it is. Everyone usually blames the parents for everything when it comes to what kids are, or are not, doing... except this.DreamnDayUnite

Yeah because you know abstience being taught in central and south America (pushed forward by the Catholic church) sure is having a effect on their exploding population. :lol: Yet if you look around the world.. What places have the lowest birth rates? Thats right places lik Europe where sex is far FAR more open there than the United States.. Your logic would dictate that these places should be exploding in population with kids extremely sexually active leading to unwanted pregnancies.

[QUOTE="jshaas"]I vote no. Sex is a big deal, and it should be treated as such. I know today's world is filled with sex everywhere, and that's what is desensitizing us to it. Giving kids condoms is telling them it's okay to have sex, and it's not. Once they start, they'll wonder what it feels like without the condom... I did. Teaching them abstinence is the best way to prevent the spread of disease and pregnancy. With that they should also be taught how to control their urges. Taking the position of "they're going to do it anyway" is just dismissing the responsibility we have as parents/adults to teach our kids. It's flat out laziness. I have an aunt that took that approach about her son drinking alcohol. Now, he's 20 with 3 DUI's and could very well pass as an alcoholic. This whole mentality saddens me, and I feel this is why our society is heading in the direction it is. Everyone usually blames the parents for everything when it comes to what kids are, or are not, doing... except this.sSubZerOo

No it isn't :| its facing a little thing we like to call REALITY.. Schools already teach the consquences of sexual activity including everything there needs to be known about it.. Teens need to be taught how to use contraception correclty and to have the possibility to ask the school nurse for a condom.. This in no way trivializes sex, but teens are still going have it they should have the access and education to be as safe as possible.. Contraception is by no means full proof but its far more realistic to look at things now to realize that teens are going to have sex whether you like it or not.. Schools are suppose to be teaching these people to become adults.. Being adult means you not only know the consquences of sexual activity, but the knowledge in how to use contraception if they do wish to have sex.

so we should also teach children and teenagers in school and highschool how to use firearms, so that they dont use them by accident! seriously, sex for a kid/teenager IS a big deal, and giving them condoms will only make it worst...and you said it yourself, they already have a bunch of people telling them the consequences of unprotected sex, yet it still happens a lot! you think that it will be different if the school gives them condoms? give them condoms, and they wont use them! why? because teenagers think its cool to go against what adults say, so they will say "oh they are giving me a condom...no way im gonna use it! gotta go agaisnt the current!"

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="jshaas"]I vote no. Sex is a big deal, and it should be treated as such. I know today's world is filled with sex everywhere, and that's what is desensitizing us to it. Giving kids condoms is telling them it's okay to have sex, and it's not. Once they start, they'll wonder what it feels like without the condom... I did. Teaching them abstinence is the best way to prevent the spread of disease and pregnancy. With that they should also be taught how to control their urges. Taking the position of "they're going to do it anyway" is just dismissing the responsibility we have as parents/adults to teach our kids. It's flat out laziness. I have an aunt that took that approach about her son drinking alcohol. Now, he's 20 with 3 DUI's and could very well pass as an alcoholic. This whole mentality saddens me, and I feel this is why our society is heading in the direction it is. Everyone usually blames the parents for everything when it comes to what kids are, or are not, doing... except this.lightleggy

No it isn't :| its facing a little thing we like to call REALITY.. Schools already teach the consquences of sexual activity including everything there needs to be known about it.. Teens need to be taught how to use contraception correclty and to have the possibility to ask the school nurse for a condom.. This in no way trivializes sex, but teens are still going have it they should have the access and education to be as safe as possible.. Contraception is by no means full proof but its far more realistic to look at things now to realize that teens are going to have sex whether you like it or not.. Schools are suppose to be teaching these people to become adults.. Being adult means you not only know the consquences of sexual activity, but the knowledge in how to use contraception if they do wish to have sex.

Yeah because than those people will be practicing SAFELY.. Instead of burying your head in the sand, how bout give the high schools the tools of knowledge in being as safe as possible in a act they know the consquences are... DO you SERIOUSLY THINK kids have sex because schools HAPPEN to teach sexual education? So by your logic we didn't teach anything, every one would be abstient.. Thats pretty fail logic right there.

Fact: teenagers are going to have sex. This is human nature, hell, it's basic biology. The drive for sex is one of the most powerful forces human beings can feel, and it begins during teen years. People who think we can just tell kids "don't do it" and they won't, frankly, have their heads in the sand. "Abstinence only" education has been proven to be a complete failure. Our kids are going to have sex whether we want them to or not. The best thing we can do is give them the knowledge and means to be safe about it.

[QUOTE="lightleggy"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

No it isn't :| its facing a little thing we like to call REALITY.. Schools already teach the consquences of sexual activity including everything there needs to be known about it.. Teens need to be taught how to use contraception correclty and to have the possibility to ask the school nurse for a condom.. This in no way trivializes sex, but teens are still going have it they should have the access and education to be as safe as possible.. Contraception is by no means full proof but its far more realistic to look at things now to realize that teens are going to have sex whether you like it or not.. Schools are suppose to be teaching these people to become adults.. Being adult means you not only know the consquences of sexual activity, but the knowledge in how to use contraception if they do wish to have sex.

sSubZerOo

Yeah because than those people will be practicing SAFELY.. Instead of burying your head in the sand, how bout give the high schools the tools of knowledge in being as safe as possible in a act they know the consquences are... DO you SERIOUSLY THINK kids have sex because schools HAPPEN to teach sexual education? So by your logic we didn't teach anything, every one would be abstient.. Thats pretty fail logic right there.

Fact: teenagers are going to have sex. This is human nature, hell, it's basic biology. The drive for sex is one of the most powerful forces human beings can feel, and it begins during teen years. People who think we can just tell kids "don't do it" and they won't, frankly, have their heads in the sand. "Abstinence only" education has been proven to be a complete failure. Our kids are going to have sex whether we want them to or not. The best thing we can do is give them the knowledge and means to be safe about it.

worlock77

correct me if im wrong, and I mean it because im not trying to sound smartass here... but doesnt the biological drive for sex has reproductory purposes? in other words...the body doesnt want sex...the body WANTS TO REPRODUCE...wouldnt that make the kids to start throwing their condoms away and just have unprotected sex? btw its amazing how you think that 100% of the teenagers will have sex

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="lightleggy"] so we should also teach children and teenagers in school and highschool how to use firearms, so that they dont use them by accident! seriously, sex for a kid/teenager IS a big deal, and giving them condoms will only make it worst...and you said it yourself, they already have a bunch of people telling them the consequences of unprotected sex, yet it still happens a lot! you think that it will be different if the school gives them condoms?lightleggy

Yeah because than those people will be practicing SAFELY.. Instead of burying your head in the sand, how bout give the high schools the tools of knowledge in being as safe as possible in a act they know the consquences are... DO you SERIOUSLY THINK kids have sex because schools HAPPEN to teach sexual education? So by your logic we didn't teach anything, every one would be abstient.. Thats pretty fail logic right there.

I am sorry but this just isn't case.. The school districts with the poorest education have immense amounts of teen prengences.. And your last statements fail at logic completely.. So your saying if we teach safe sex practices.. They are going to have more unprotected sex? What kind of logic is that?

[QUOTE="lightleggy"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Yeah because than those people will be practicing SAFELY.. Instead of burying your head in the sand, how bout give the high schools the tools of knowledge in being as safe as possible in a act they know the consquences are... DO you SERIOUSLY THINK kids have sex because schools HAPPEN to teach sexual education? So by your logic we didn't teach anything, every one would be abstient.. Thats pretty fail logic right there.

sSubZerOo

I am sorry but this just isn't case.. The school districts with the poorest education have immense amounts of teen prengences.. And your last statements fail at logic completely.. So your saying if we teach safe sex practices.. They are going to have more unprotected sex? What kind of logic is that?

I dont see why is illogical....isnt adolescense (sorry if misspelled) confirmed to be an "experimenting stage"? so its natural, and completly logical to think they will want to experience a lot of things...they will experience safe sex, and then, what will happen next? safe sex for the rest of their lives? no, they will want to experience THE OTHER KIND OF SEX, how does that sounds illogical to you? did you already forgot what was like being a teenager? when one could say something like "oh, kissing with tongue feels good, but how would other type of kisses feel?" they will also say "safe sex feels good, but I wonder if unprotected sex feels better! I gotta try it! it'll be ok im already experienced at sex anyway" also, like I said, they already know the consequences of unprotected sex, yet it still happens a lot, condoms will not make it different, they will keep doing it without them

Only the city schools *cough*

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="lightleggy"] im not saying they have the urge for sex because school, im saying that they will have the urge anyway, but giving them condoms will make it bigger and will make them feel that they are being told they should have sex. and there is no assurance they will want to practice it safely 100% maybe the first time (And im sure that less than half of them will do it...because the other half will think that they are too cool for condoms) but then after they already experienced sex with condom, they will want to experience sex without it.lightleggy

I am sorry but this just isn't case.. The school districts with the poorest education have immense amounts of teen prengences.. And your last statements fail at logic completely.. So your saying if we teach safe sex practices.. They are going to have more unprotected sex? What kind of logic is that?

Than by your logic we shouldn't be teaching sex period because it will make them too curious. We should also seperate the males from the females in school too, just in case they become curious.. I love where your logic is going.

[QUOTE="lightleggy"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

I am sorry but this just isn't case.. The school districts with the poorest education have immense amounts of teen prengences.. And your last statements fail at logic completely.. So your saying if we teach safe sex practices.. They are going to have more unprotected sex? What kind of logic is that?

sSubZerOo

Than by your logic we shouldn't be teaching sex period because it will make them too curious. We should also seperate the males from the females in school too, just in case they become curious.. I love where your logic is going.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="lightleggy"] I dont see why is illogical....isnt adolescense (sorry if misspelled) confirmed to be an "experimenting stage"? so its natural, and completly logical to think they will want to experience a lot of things...they will experience safe sex, and then, what will happen next? safe sex for the rest of their lives? no, they will want to experience THE OTHER KIND OF SEX, how does that sounds illogical to you? did you already forgot what was like being a teenager? also, like I said, they already know the consequences of unprotected sex, yet it still happens a lot, condoms will not make it different, they will keep doing it without themlightleggy

Than by your logic we shouldn't be teaching sex period because it will make them too curious. We should also seperate the males from the females in school too, just in case they become curious.. I love where your logic is going.

I am pointing out that your entire point hinges on a slipperly slope fallacy.. Which I than show how absurd it is if we start going down that road.. With your logic we can argue for the seperataion of males and females, and the banning of sex ed because they some how promote sexual activity.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Fact: teenagers are going to have sex. This is human nature, hell, it's basic biology. The drive for sex is one of the most powerful forces human beings can feel, and it begins during teen years. People who think we can just tell kids "don't do it" and they won't, frankly, have their heads in the sand. "Abstinence only" education has been proven to be a complete failure. Our kids are going to have sex whether we want them to or not. The best thing we can do is give them the knowledge and means to be safe about it.

lightleggy

correct me if im wrong, and I mean it because im not trying to sound smartass here... but doesnt the biological drive for sex has reproductory purposes? in other words...the body doesnt want sex...the body WANTS TO REPRODUCE...wouldnt that make the kids to start throwing their condoms away and just have unprotected sex? btw its amazing how you think that 100% of the teenagers will have sex

No, the drive is for sex. Reproduction is a side effect of that. Even if it were vice-versa the means of reproduction is sex, so the drive is still for sex. Did I say "100% of teenagers will have sex"? No, I did not. Don't place words in my mouth.

[QUOTE="lightleggy"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Than by your logic we shouldn't be teaching sex period because it will make them too curious. We should also seperate the males from the females in school too, just in case they become curious.. I love where your logic is going.

sSubZerOo

I am pointing out that your entire point hinges on a slipperly slope fallacy.. Which I than show how absurd it is if we start going down that road.. With your logic we can argue for the seperataion of males and females, and the banning of sex ed because they some how promote sexual activity.

[QUOTE="lightleggy"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Fact: teenagers are going to have sex. This is human nature, hell, it's basic biology. The drive for sex is one of the most powerful forces human beings can feel, and it begins during teen years. People who think we can just tell kids "don't do it" and they won't, frankly, have their heads in the sand. "Abstinence only" education has been proven to be a complete failure. Our kids are going to have sex whether we want them to or not. The best thing we can do is give them the knowledge and means to be safe about it.

worlock77

correct me if im wrong, and I mean it because im not trying to sound smartass here... but doesnt the biological drive for sex has reproductory purposes? in other words...the body doesnt want sex...the body WANTS TO REPRODUCE...wouldnt that make the kids to start throwing their condoms away and just have unprotected sex? btw its amazing how you think that 100% of the teenagers will have sex

No, the drive is for sex. Reproduction is a side effect of that. Even if it were vice-versa the means of reproduction is sex, so the drive is still for sex. Did I say "100% of teenagers will have sex"? No, I did not. Don't place words in my mouth.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="lightleggy"]

correct me if im wrong, and I mean it because im not trying to sound smartass here... but doesnt the biological drive for sex has reproductory purposes? in other words...the body doesnt want sex...the body WANTS TO REPRODUCE...wouldnt that make the kids to start throwing their condoms away and just have unprotected sex? btw its amazing how you think that 100% of the teenagers will have sex

lightleggy

No, the drive is for sex. Reproduction is a side effect of that. Even if it were vice-versa the means of reproduction is sex, so the drive is still for sex. Did I say "100% of teenagers will have sex"? No, I did not. Don't place words in my mouth.

I was speaking in generalities. I figured that would have been obvious, but if you'd like I'll be sure to include a disclaimer next time. No, the female body does not fertilize eggs. Making that statement makes me wonder how well you actually understand the subject.

[QUOTE="lightleggy"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

No, the drive is for sex. Reproduction is a side effect of that. Even if it were vice-versa the means of reproduction is sex, so the drive is still for sex. Did I say "100% of teenagers will have sex"? No, I did not. Don't place words in my mouth.

worlock77

I was speaking in generalities. I figured that would have been obvious, but if you'd like I'll be sure to include a disclaimer next time. No, the female body does not fertilize eggs. Making that statement makes me wonder how well you actually understand the subject.

sorry, maybe I didnt explained myself right, english is not my main language which can make my sentences look pointless sometimes

I saw my error, sorry, didnt meant to say that the body fertilizes the egg...the body prepare eggs so that they can be fertilized by sperm...did I said it right now?

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="lightleggy"] but in females for example, even if they dont want babies, their bodies still fertilizes eggs, because the body DOES want babies all the time. and you didnt said it explicitly, but with the "our kids are going to have sex wheter we want them to or not" you pretty much made me understand thats what you wanted to say. also do you have any factual evidence that abstinence has been shown to be a failure?lightleggy

I was speaking in generalities. I figured that would have been obvious, but if you'd like I'll be sure to include a disclaimer next time. No, the female body does not fertilize eggs. Making that statement makes me wonder how well you actually understand the subject.

sorry, maybe I didnt explained myself right, english is not my main language which can make my sentences look pointless sometimes

I saw my error, sorry, didnt meant to say that the body fertilizes the egg...the body prepare eggs so that they can be fertilized by sperm...did I said it right now?

Fair enough. And no, I don't agree with the argument that the female body produces eggs means that it wants to reproduce. It's a simple biological function, nothing more. To use a comparison: the body produces poop. That doesn't mean that it wants to poop all the time, it's just a simple function of biology.