Teen Condoms

[Noelle]

Original news article

Call it pint-sized protection for preteens.

A Switzerland-based company is manufacturing extra-small condoms for the 12- to 14-year-old set.

Dubbed the Hotshot, the prophylactic was developed in response to a study that indicated young teens were regularly engaging in unprotected sex.

"The result that shocked us concerned young boys who display apparently risky behaviour," said Nancy Bodmer, who oversaw the research for the study at the Center for Development and Personality Psychology at Basel University in Switzerland.

"They have more of a tendency not to protect themselves," she said, adding that because of their young age, they also do not know much about sexuality.

"They do not understand the consequences of what they are doing," Bodmer said. "The results of this study suggest that early prevention makes sense."

Several organizations, including family planning groups, campaigned for the production of the small condoms.

The Hotshot measures 1.7 inches in diameter (as opposed to 2 inches found with regular ones), and 7.4 inches in length. According to the company, Lamprecht AG, it is only available in Switzerland.

Although the age of consent in Switzerland is 16, sex between minors is perfectly legal as long as they are not more than three years apart in age.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2010/03/04/2010-03-04_switzerland_company_offers_young_boys_extra_small_condom_dubbed_the_hotshot.html#ixzz0ogVU8o00

Discuss.

[Rayne]

Ouch.. always hate ones like this... because on the one hand these kids should not be having sex this early, but on the other, just saying they can't won't change things... so the best course of action is to give them protection, despite how crazy that sounds.
However, I think while for now they do need to provide them with means of protection, they seriously need to also find a way to educate kids and get them to see why they should wait. Not that kids ever listened, but still.
Jeez at age 12 I was in 6th grade learning about this stuff for the first time in school. Guys and girls didn't wanna go near each other the entire month it was talked about in health class.
What happened to girls thinking boys had cooties or whatever? XP

[Sabby]

What happened to girls thinking boys had cooties or whatever? XP

This is EXACTLY why we need the mini-condoms.

[Brandon]

hmmm, I dont know of a single person that lost their virginity before they were 14, male or female, straight, bi, or gay. However if it is happening then we adults need to make sure they have the ability and education to protect themselves. Not giving them those tools for any reason seems like setting them up for failure in life

[Cherri Tart]

hmmm, I dont know of a single person that lost their virginity before they were 14, male or female, straight, bi, or gay. However if it is happening then we adults need to make sure they have the ability and education to protect themselves. Not giving them those tools for any reason seems like setting them up for failure in life

*reluctantly holds up hand* I was 13 years of age when i lost mine, and yes, when you're that young, if you decide you're going to have sex, you're going to have it wether or not condoms are easily available - Making them available won't make you more likely to have sex, only make you more likely to have SAFE sex. 

[Jude]

*reluctantly holds up hand* I was 13 years of age when i lost mine, and yes, when you're that young, if you decide you're going to have sex, you're going to have it wether or not condoms are easily available - Making them available won't make you more likely to have sex, only make you more likely to have SAFE sex.

I disagree.  I'm sure the effect isn't that huge, but making condoms available to children will probably make them more likely to have sex.  Saying it won't is essentially reasoning that there isn't a single child in existence who won't receive the message that availability of condoms specifically made for their age range is the adult's way of saying "have at it."

It isn't a question of possibility, ridiculous things can encourage behavior in unlikely ways, it's a question of how much versus the benefit.

Personally I don't think enough kids at the age of thirteen are having sex currently to justify the endeavor, so the benefits will be negligible (as are the non-financial drawbacks).

[HairyHeretic]

That's the same arguement that I've seen religious / conservatives advance in relation to the cervical cancer vaccine. Since the main trigger, if I remember the details correctly, is sexual activity, by providing this vaccine it would encourage women to have sex. Or at least not discourage them. The fact the cancer kills scores every year, preventably, seemed of secondary importance to them.

Face it, the age v legal age thing is never going to stop anyone from drinking, smoking, having sex, or doing anything else that they think they're ready for. If something can be provided to make that safer, I don't see it as a bad thing.

[Braioch]

That's the same arguement that I've seen religious / conservatives advance in relation to the cervical cancer vaccine. Since the main trigger, if I remember the details correctly, is sexual activity, by providing this vaccine it would encourage women to have sex. Or at least not discourage them. The fact the cancer kills scores every year, preventably, seemed of secondary importance to them.

Face it, the age v legal age thing is never going to stop anyone from drinking, smoking, having sex, or doing anything else that they think they're ready for. If something can be provided to make that safer, I don't see it as a bad thing.

Yeah I didn't have sex till I was of legal age, but that had nothing to do with the legality of it, just that I didn't want to have sex until I was ready, turns out the person I was ready with didn't come along till I was almost 17. Age limit didn't stop me from having a few drinks now and again either, setting the age down would have made me likely to drink more often I'm sure, as the availability was there, but it certainly didn't stop me from drinking when I had the chance.

I certainly don't like the idea of kids having sex at 12, I mean....I was still too busy being a damn kid after all. I can't fathom having had sex at 12, sure I mean, that was when the hormones started, but sheesh I had other things I was worrying about.

Though even with that, I would much rather there be a safe option for them for sure.

[DarklingAlice]

Personally I don't think enough kids at the age of thirteen are having sex currently to justify the endeavor, so the benefits will be negligible (as are the non-financial drawbacks).

You do realize that, at least here in America, that number hovers around 8-10% of all boys (Abma JC, Martinez, GM, Mosher, WD., Dawson, BS. "Teenagers in the United States: Sexual activity, contraceptive use, and childbreaing, 2002." National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat 23(24). 2004.), right? In your opinion, exactly how many kids at risk of unwanted pregnancy and STDs does it take to warrant the expense of protecting them?

Also, the original article is being sensationalistic, while the study on 12-14 year olds was one of the factors prompting the 'Hotshot', Lamprecht AG also cited a German study in which 25% of all males aged 13-20 said that standard condoms were too large, along with rising concerns of HIV transfer and unwanted teen pregnancy rates in Switzerland and the rest of the EU. So the actual target demographic range is 12-20, rather than 12 to 14.

[Jude]

You do realize that, at least here in America, that number hovers around 8-10% of all boys (Abma JC, Martinez, GM, Mosher, WD., Dawson, BS. "Teenagers in the United States: Sexual activity, contraceptive use, and childbreaing, 2002." National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat 23(24). 2004.), right? In your opinion, exactly how many kids at risk of unwanted pregnancy and STDs does it take to warrant the expense of protecting them?

If the numbers are the same there, then it seems like a good idea, but you used numbers from the United States to judge a Switzerland only product?

[DarklingAlice]

Switzerland based company. Not a Switzerland only product. They used research from across the EU and have expressed a desire to take the product international. Thus I am treated the issue as an international one.

[Noelle]

The Hotshot measures 1.7 inches in diameter (as opposed to 2 inches found with regular ones), and 7.4 inches in length. According to the company, Lamprecht AG, it is only available in Switzerland.

[DarklingAlice]

Switzerland based company. Not a Switzerland only product. They used research from across the EU and have expressed a desire to take the product international. Thus I am treated the issue as an international one.

Future tense. They are responding to what they perceive as an international problem and starting in their home country.

[Noelle]

Yes, but at the present time, it is isolated to their country only and I believe what Jude would have preferred is numbers that are relevant to the country they are presently selling in.

I'm not denying there is a market for them, I'm just trying to clarify ;p

[DarklingAlice]

Fair enough ^_^

I am not Jude's number fairy though. I had American numbers handy, so that's what I posted. If I come across Swiss numbers I will be happy to post them. Although, now I am wondering why Jude made a statement concerning the necessity without the numbers in the first place?

[Noelle]

So, after some thought, I do have to go back on my statements a bit.

I do agree that even one instance of a kid deciding to have sex because condoms are available makes the earlier statement true, that much is pretty hard to argue with. However, I don't believe Jude is saying that makes EVERY kid want to have sex more or even that it's a common trend.
This is the real crux of it: Whether or not you provide condoms or sex education or what-have-you, someone will still be having sex. Abstinence-only education yields the same results. People are still having sex even after.

The next step is to evaluate -- if, no matter what you do, someone is still having sex, you have to start to consider what you can do to improve the situation since it is not going away. Risk vs benefits essentially. If you provide condoms and conversely a few more instances of kids wanting to have sex goes up, you have to weigh that against protecting those who would choose to either way versus how effective abstinence-only education is and decide which one benefits the most people.

This much I can still go along with -- if people will be having sex either way and abstinence-only does not benefit as many people, then I wholeheartedly support adequate protection and sex education so that when people do make the choice to have sex, regardless the age, they are able to make wise decisions therein.

NOW. What I find contrary to my previous statement is this: marketability.

The age range these are marketed towards primarily do not have their own source of income. They either rely on their parents purchasing what they want directly, or they are given an allowance. In the case of the latter, how many kids in that age bracket do you suppose is going to spend their allowance money on something responsible such as condoms? How many parents do you suppose will purchase this for their child? The targeted age range may be a significant enough pool to warrant such a product, but how plausible is it that these products will actually reach their intended destination?

[Oniya]

NOW. What I find contrary to my previous statement is this: marketability.

The age range these are marketed towards primarily do not have their own source of income. They either rely on their parents purchasing what they want directly, or they are given an allowance. In the case of the latter, how many kids in that age bracket do you suppose is going to spend their allowance money on something responsible such as condoms? How many parents do you suppose will purchase this for their child? The targeted age range may be a significant enough pool to warrant such a product, but how plausible is it that these products will actually reach their intended destination?

While some may have a source of income (mowing lawns, paper routes, maybe burger-flipping at the upper end), I want to know how many teenaged guys are going to want to be caught buying 'smaller than normal-sized' condoms. 

[DarklingAlice]

It is possible that the primary customer will be public health organizations who will buy them in bulk and then distribute the condoms free of charge to the lower end of the demographic as a public service (sort of like how Planned Parenthood distributes condoms in America, or how some schools distribute condoms from the nurse's office).

[badasskicker]

They should make small condoms but not for teens it must be for small penis lol just kidding. I think kids should not start having sex in their age to minimize the population explosion.

[Lord Drake]

Face it, the age v legal age thing is never going to stop anyone from drinking, smoking, having sex, or doing anything else that they think they're ready for. If something can be provided to make that safer, I don't see it as a bad thing.

This.

Actually my take on it is that it is always difficult to discuss about a PART of a good (or bad) solution. My take on it is that mini-condom "as they are" are not exactly going to solve much but they may be part of a campaign of sensibilization. The instruction sheet is GOING to be read so what you write there is probably going to be impressed in the user's brain (a little like "smoke kills" on cigarette packs).

It is always tricky to decide if something like that will have a good or bad effect. I think that there is the potential for either.

And EDIT: my personal opinion is that 13 years old is way too young an age to have sex. Definitely and absolutely. Just to separate the idea on the general concept to the opinion on this paricular topic.

[MercyfulFate]

Are the genitals of the 12-14 year old set that much smaller?

[Paradox]

Are the genitals of the 12-14 year old set that much smaller?

Do we really need to discuss 12 year olds' dicks?

The short answer to your question is: Yes, they are smaller. Genitals continue to grow throughout puberty; at 12-14, they're only about halfway through their growth potential. For more information, check out the Tanner scale of genital development

[Emmaline]

All numbers aside ... facts are YOUNG teens ARE having sex, in EVERY country. Period.

When I was a teenager (too long ago to mention) both of my under 15 year old cousins got pregnant, The guys who got them pregnant? Their age as well.  And seriously, the numbers of sexually active teens have sure as hell not gone down. Why would it ever be a bad thing to protect someone from unwanted pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases and what all. You can shake a finger all you want, make all the 'rules' you want and tsk tsk tsk .... it's not going to stop kids from fucking.

Or drinking, or using drugs, or watching South Park or anything else 'you' think they shouldn't be doing it. In fact, the more you tell them 'no' the more intriguing the forbidden item becomes.

End rant.

[MercyfulFate]

Do we really need to discuss 12 year olds' dicks?

The short answer to your question is: Yes, they are smaller. Genitals continue to grow throughout puberty; at 12-14, they're only about halfway through their growth potential. For more information, check out the Tanner scale of genital development

Yes, we do.

[Jude]

Numbers are everything.  Imagine there was only 1 child in the entire world having sex at age 13; wouldn't that be relevant?  Now imagine that 90% of children were having sex at the age of 13--that too would inform the discussion.  In solving any problem you must first analyze how much of a problem it is, consider possible solutions, and then the impact of those solutions.

I'm not delusional enough to think that there aren't kids out there, quite a few in fact, having sex at the age of thirteen.  I'm not against these condoms being made and distributed on the basis that it's going to encourage more kids to have sex, but lets face it, it will.  However, going back to my earlier point, it isn't a matter of whether or not it will at all (because there are without a doubt some children out there in the multitude of people in this world that would take it this way--even if that wasn't the intention at all), it's a matter of how much it does.  Depending on the method of distribution, I'm willing to bet the effect there will be negligible.

The idea that sex ed doesn't encourage some people to have sex (intentionally or not) is an oversimplified liberal rebuttal to the conservative concern that the availability of birth control and sex ed will encourage minors to engage in sexual behavior.  Both sides of the argument want to pretend that the other side's points are baseless because it makes their case far simpler to argue; it's much easier to dismiss the encouraging effect some forms of sex ed can have on minors as an impossibility without considering that it very well could happen and giving it serious thought.

In any discussion all serious, relevant points should be heard and taken into account.  Then the evidence should be gathered, considered, and finally a decision should then be reached based off of the analysis of information and more subtle applications of principles as opposed to blind adherence to dogmatic political beliefs.