Teen Condoms

Started by Noelle, May 22, 2010, 01:32:43 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Noelle

Original news article

QuoteCall 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

Quote from: Rayne on May 22, 2010, 02:29:38 PMWhat 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
Brandon: What makes him tick? - My on's and off's - My open games thread - My Away Thread
Limits: I do not, under any circumstances play out scenes involving M/M, non-con, or toilet play

Cherri Tart

Quote from: Brandon on May 22, 2010, 02:41:45 PM
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. 
you were never able to keep me breathing as the water rises up again



O/O, Cherri Flavored

Jude

Quote from: Cherri Tart on May 22, 2010, 11:09:23 PM
*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.
Hairys Likes, Dislikes, Games n Stuff

Cattle die, kinsmen die
You too one day shall die
I know a thing that will never die
Fair fame of one who has earned it.

Braioch

Quote from: HairyHeretic on May 23, 2010, 06:46:42 AM
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.
I'm also on Discord (like, all the time), so feel free to ask about that if you want

[tr]
   [td]
[/td]
   [td]
[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]

DarklingAlice

Quote from: Jude on May 22, 2010, 11:43:17 PM
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.
For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, elegant, and wrong.


Jude

#9
Quote from: DarklingAlice on May 23, 2010, 05:01:37 PM
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.
For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, elegant, and wrong.


Noelle

QuoteThe 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

Quote from: DarklingAlice on May 23, 2010, 09:08:25 PM
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.
For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, elegant, and wrong.


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?
For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, elegant, and wrong.


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

Quote from: Noelle on May 23, 2010, 10:49:31 PM
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. 
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

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).
For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, elegant, and wrong.


badasskicker

#18
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

#19
Quote from: HairyHeretic on May 23, 2010, 06:46:42 AMFace 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.
Hey.. where did you put that Drake?
I've taken the Oath of The Drake for Group RPs!
“Never waste your time trying to explain who you are
to people who are committed to misunderstanding you.”
— Dream Hampton

MercyfulFate

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

Paradox

Quote from: MercyfulFate on May 24, 2010, 08:14:12 AM
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


"More than ever, the creation of the ridiculous is almost impossible because of the competition it receives from reality."-Robert A. Baker

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

Quote from: Paradox on May 24, 2010, 08:43:21 AM
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

#24
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.

Lord Drake

Quote from: Jude on May 24, 2010, 09:24:42 AMIn any situation all serious points she be heard, the evidence weighed, the numbers ran, and decision reached based off of analysis of information, not blind adherence to imbued dogmatic principles.

Exactly.

I think we are walking on a fine line here.

Everything that may help "reduce the damage" on something is useful IF is paired with some kind of education about how to avoid the damage entirely.

Reducing the damage is NOT solving the problem. There are many people in the world that accidentally die for misuse of firearms... it is not like states are giving free bulletproofs vests to citizens, though.

If we keep THIS in mind, then we may consider the use of mini-condoms or whatever. If we do not, I personally am forceed to agree with the "dogmatic principles".
Hey.. where did you put that Drake?
I've taken the Oath of The Drake for Group RPs!
“Never waste your time trying to explain who you are
to people who are committed to misunderstanding you.”
— Dream Hampton

MercyfulFate

Quote from: Lord Drake on May 24, 2010, 09:39:30 AM
Exactly.

I think we are walking on a fine line here.

Everything that may help "reduce the damage" on something is useful IF is paired with some kind of education about how to avoid the damage entirely.

Reducing the damage is NOT solving the problem. There are many people in the world that accidentally die for misuse of firearms... it is not like states are giving free bulletproofs vests to citizens, though.

If we keep THIS in mind, then we may consider the use of mini-condoms or whatever. If we do not, I personally am forceed to agree with the "dogmatic principles".

Abstinence education is pretty much pointless. Sure it should be an option, but teaching kids it's the only way is doomed to fail.

They will have sex. You need to teach them how to do it safely.

Torch

#27
Quote from: Emmaline on May 24, 2010, 09:06:16 AM
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.

Actually, while they may not have necessarily gone down, they aren't going up either. I believe the numbers have remained fairly constant throughout the previous century. According to the Guttmacher Institute, a very small percentage of teens under the age of 15 are having sex, but the number rises to a majority percentage by the age of 19 (which is of course, above the age of consent in every state). The latest data shows that teens are actually waiting later to have their first sexual experience.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/FB-ATSRH.html

QuoteWhy 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.

While that might be true for a small percentage of teens, it isn't true for ALL teens, otherwise EVERY teen would be drinking, using illegal drugs, and engaging in sexual behavior. And statistics show that the majority of teens DO NOT engage in this type of behavior.

Please don't paint all teenagers with a broad brush. There do exist teenagers who are self-aware enough to make smart choices, and weigh the consequences of their behavior. My fifteen year old daughter is one of them.

Yes, there will always be a certain percentage of teens that engage in risky and illegal behavior. But they are not the norm or nor are they the majority.

"Every morning in Africa, a gazelle wakes up. It knows it must outrun the fastest lion or it will be killed. Every morning in Africa, a lion wakes up. It knows it must run faster than the slowest gazelle, or it will starve. It doesn't matter whether you're a lion or a gazelle, when the sun comes up, you'd better be running."  Sir Roger Bannister


Erotic is using a feather. Kinky is using the whole chicken.

On's and Off's

Jude

Quote from: MercyfulFate on May 24, 2010, 10:01:41 AM
Abstinence education is pretty much pointless. Sure it should be an option, but teaching kids it's the only way is doomed to fail.

They will have sex. You need to teach them how to do it safely.
Quote from: WikipediaA federally-funded University of Pennsylvania study published in the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine found that only one third of sixth- and seventh-graders who completed abstinence-focused programs had sex within the next two years, compared to nearly half of the students who attended other classes, including ones that taught combined abstinence and contraception.[3]  The study has been called "game-changing" by supporters of abstinence-only sex education. Critics pointed out that the abstinence program used in the study was not representative of most abstinence programs; it did not take a moralistic tone, encouraged children to delay sex until ready instead of until married, did not portray extramarital sex as inappropriate, and did not disparage contraceptives.[4]

According to SIECUS, the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, an organisation that promotes sex education in the United States[5], a "...study, conducted by Mathematica Policy Research Inc. on behalf of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, found that abstinence-only-until-marriage programs are ineffective."[6]

A 2010 report by the Guttmacher Institute, a division of Planned Parenthood,[7] pointed out that pregnancy rates for teens 15-19 reversed their decline in 2006, near the peak of the Abstinence Only campaign in the United States.[8] Sarah Kliff of Newsweek pointed out that there was no corresponding "indication of an uptick" in teen pregnancy rates when abstinence-only sex education funding was increased during the Clinton years, but in fact a small decline.[9] James Wagoner, president of the nonprofit group Advocates for Youth, blames the poor quality of Bush era abstinence-only programs as compared to abstinence-only programs under Clinton's administration for the difference in outcomes.[10]
Doesn't seem as settled as you seem convinced that it is.  What exactly are you basing that opinion on, anyway?  I don't think abstinence only is the way to go, but you have to form your opinions, especially when they're stark and strong, on fact not personal inclinations.

MercyfulFate

#29
Quote from: Jude on May 24, 2010, 11:46:07 AM
Doesn't seem as settled as you seem convinced that it is.  What exactly are you basing that opinion on, anyway?  I don't think abstinence only is the way to go, but you have to form your opinions, especially when they're stark and strong, on fact not personal inclinations.

You need to read what you quoted more carefully, it's well pointed out that that one class wasn't like the majority of them, and it's not indicative of how abstinence only is taught in most places.

http://www.openeducation.net/2009/01/05/abstinence-only-sex-education-statistics-final-nail-in-the-coffin/

Effectiveness of Program
Previously, when discussing abstinence-only education, most people would reference a recent summary by the Cochrane Collaboration. The Cochrane folks studied 13 abstinence-only education programs – they could not find one that showed an “enduring effect” on teen’s sexual behavior.

In addition to the Cochrane study, another federally funded study of four abstinence-only programs by the Mathematica Policy Research Inc., published in April of 2007, revealed similar results. The research group found that “participants had just as many sexual partners as nonparticipants and had sex at the same median age as nonparticipants.” In other words, abstinence education programs did nothing favorable – the result was the same as if there were no program being offered at all.

Now a third study, this by Janet E. Rosenbaum of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, revealed some of the most troubling data of all. A national longitudinal study of adolescents, specifically 934 high school students, examined one of the factors used as a measurement of success for abstinence-only education programs, the virginity pledge.

Final Nail in the Coffin
In the most recent study, researchers compared teens who had taken the virginity pledge to those who had not taken a pledge. The researchers found results similar to the aforementioned studies.

First, the rate of the teens taking part in sex was the same. Those taking the virginity pledge were just as likely to have intercourse. The only positive, statistically small, was that those taking the pledge had 0.1 fewer sex partners over the five year study than did those who did not take such a pledge.

The worst part? Here you go:
However, two other findings were most damning. First, those taking the virginity pledge were less likely to protect themselves. Pledge takers were found to be less frequent users of condoms and other forms of birth control.

Therefore, those youngsters who took the virginity pledge were not only just as likely to have intercourse, they ultimately were more likely to take part in sex in an unsafe manner. This has led experts to conclude that the lessons students take from their abstinence-only education programs is a negative and/or faulty view of contraception.

Second, and most importantly, virginity pledges are one of the measurement tools for determining if the abstinence education program is effective. For these federal funded programs, the government has counted pledges as data that the program is effective.
Rosenbaum summarizes the data succinctly, “Abstinence-only education is required to give inaccurate information. Teens are savvy consumers of information and know what they are getting.”


Teach kids abstinence only, don't teach them about how to be safe when they actually choose to have sex, and you've made it a lot worse for them. Do you really believe kids will never have sex, or wait longer if you tell them not to? They are GOING to do it, much like the D.A.R.E. program was an epic failure on teaching kids not to use drugs, thus is abstinence only education.

So it's not just personal opinion, thanks.

DarklingAlice

Quote from: Torch on May 24, 2010, 11:07:07 AM
Actually, while they may not have necessarily gone down, they aren't going up either. I believe the numbers have remained fairly constant throughout the previous century. According to the Guttmacher Institute, very few teens under the age of 15 are having sex, but the number rises to a majority by the age of 19 (which is of course, above the age of consent in every state). The latest data shows that teens are actually waiting later to have their first sexual experience.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/FB-ATSRH.html

@Torch: Be careful in the way you put things. While it is true a small percentage of teens engage in sex under fifteen, a very large number do. The link you posted estimates that over eight-million children will have had sex before the age of fifteen, in America alone. This is not "very few".

@Jude: Yes, we could certainly listen to the opinion of James Wagoner, or we could listen to the WHO and CDC, whose research has shown no conclusive benefit to abstinence-only education, as opposed to clear benefit to abstinence+ education. Or the peer reviewed journal articles like Bruckner & Bearman, 2006. Which showed no appreciable benefit in terms of STD prevention from pledges of abstinence. Or the numerous state health departments that have performed studies and found no benefit to abstinence-only education (like the 'Abstinence Education Evaluation Phase 5 Technical Report' the Texas State Health Department performed in 2004-2005). Or the polls of the public and the scientific community that show there is significant agreement that there is more benefit to abstinence+ education, regardless of political affiliation (c.f. Bleakly, et al. 2006). Further, the practice of abstinence-only sex education has even come under fire from the medical community as being unethical (c.f. Santelli & Ott, 2006).

So yeah, we could spend five minutes Wikipediaing something and try to manufacture a controversy, or we could actually research a topic from primary sources and see that there isn't one.
For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, elegant, and wrong.


Torch

Quote from: DarklingAlice on May 24, 2010, 02:09:12 PM
@Torch: Be careful in the way you put things. While it is true a small percentage of teens engage in sex under fifteen, a very large number do. The link you posted estimates that over eight-million children will have had sex before the age of fifteen, in America alone. This is not "very few".

I was speaking of percentages, not numbers, and I will amend my post to include the clarifying word.

And "very few" is a subjective term. IMO, 13% is very few when you consider the percentage curve and the fact that most of those 13% are closer to the age of fifteen than not. In considering the population of the United States as a whole, 8 million (assuming that is the correct number) is "very few", IMO.

"Every morning in Africa, a gazelle wakes up. It knows it must outrun the fastest lion or it will be killed. Every morning in Africa, a lion wakes up. It knows it must run faster than the slowest gazelle, or it will starve. It doesn't matter whether you're a lion or a gazelle, when the sun comes up, you'd better be running."  Sir Roger Bannister


Erotic is using a feather. Kinky is using the whole chicken.

On's and Off's

LIAR

People are going to do what they want to do whenever they think they're ready to do it. Best thing we can do is inform, inform, inform. What they do with that knowledge? Their choice.

Torch

Quote from: Your Akina on May 24, 2010, 03:46:46 PM
People are going to do what they want to do whenever they think they're ready to do it. Best thing we can do is inform, inform, inform. What they do with that knowledge? Their choice.

Except we aren't talking about "people", we are talking about minor children, and in most (if not all) states it is illegal for these minor children to be engaging in sexual behavior with anyone.

And I have heard absolutely nothing from anyone regarding parental responsibility for these minor children. A 12 year old child CANNOT make the choice or give consent to sexual behavior, even with another child.

Disclaimer: I'm not speaking about "playing doctor" or games of "You show me yours, and I'll show you mine." I'm talking about full-on intercourse or oral sex.
"Every morning in Africa, a gazelle wakes up. It knows it must outrun the fastest lion or it will be killed. Every morning in Africa, a lion wakes up. It knows it must run faster than the slowest gazelle, or it will starve. It doesn't matter whether you're a lion or a gazelle, when the sun comes up, you'd better be running."  Sir Roger Bannister


Erotic is using a feather. Kinky is using the whole chicken.

On's and Off's

MercyfulFate

Quote from: Torch on May 24, 2010, 04:20:31 PM
Except we aren't talking about "people", we are talking about minor children, and in most (if not all) states it is illegal for these minor children to be engaging in sexual behavior with anyone.

And I have heard absolutely nothing from anyone regarding parental responsibility for these minor children. A 12 year old child CANNOT make the choice or give consent to sexual behavior, even with another child.

Disclaimer: I'm not speaking about "playing doctor" or games of "You show me yours, and I'll show you mine." I'm talking about full-on intercourse or oral sex.

Where is it illegal for two 15 year olds to have sex? Most states in the US list out differences in age, but not for the same age.

Noelle


Torch

Quote from: MercyfulFate on May 24, 2010, 04:31:03 PM
Where is it illegal for two 15 year olds to have sex? Most states in the US list out differences in age, but not for the same age.

A quick check of AOC (age of consent) laws shows only four states where minors under the age of 16 can consent to sexual intercourse.

Arkansas
Colorado
Indiana
Iowa

There are six states where "age gap" laws apply, the states listed above plus Delaware and Florida. For the rest of the states, the AOC laws apply even if the other party is also under the AOC. In other words, both participants are technically breaking the law.

"Every morning in Africa, a gazelle wakes up. It knows it must outrun the fastest lion or it will be killed. Every morning in Africa, a lion wakes up. It knows it must run faster than the slowest gazelle, or it will starve. It doesn't matter whether you're a lion or a gazelle, when the sun comes up, you'd better be running."  Sir Roger Bannister


Erotic is using a feather. Kinky is using the whole chicken.

On's and Off's

MercyfulFate

"The enforcement practices of age-of-consent laws vary depending on the social sensibilities of the particular culture (see above). Often, enforcement is not exercised to the letter of the law, with legal action being taken only when a sufficiently socially-unacceptable age gap exists between the two individuals, or if the perpetrator is in a position of authority over the minor (e.g., a teacher, minister, or doctor). The sex of each actor can also influence perceptions of an individual's guilt and therefore enforcement.[1]"

So really that's a non issue, regardless of legality. Almost nowhere is going to prosecute something like that, except in silly cases like when the minor posted pictures of his minor girlfriend and is a sex offender now.

Anyway, this is about teaching them about sex ed, which they need to know about long before they ever have sex. Many, many, many people have sex before 16.

Torch

Quote from: MercyfulFate on May 24, 2010, 04:48:00 PM
"The enforcement practices of age-of-consent laws vary depending on the social sensibilities of the particular culture (see above). Often, enforcement is not exercised to the letter of the law, with legal action being taken only when a sufficiently socially-unacceptable age gap exists between the two individuals, or if the perpetrator is in a position of authority over the minor (e.g., a teacher, minister, or doctor). The sex of each actor can also influence perceptions of an individual's guilt and therefore enforcement.[1]"

So really that's a non issue, regardless of legality. Almost nowhere is going to prosecute something like that, except in silly cases like when the minor posted pictures of his minor girlfriend and is a sex offender now.

Statutory rape cases (which is what we are talking about) are prosecuted every day. Whether you want to dismiss it or not, minor children cannot consent to sexual behavior in the same way they cannot consent to legal contracts. They are minors. Period.

I'll state it again: A 12 year old child CANNOT make the choice or give consent to sexual behavior, even with another child.


"Every morning in Africa, a gazelle wakes up. It knows it must outrun the fastest lion or it will be killed. Every morning in Africa, a lion wakes up. It knows it must run faster than the slowest gazelle, or it will starve. It doesn't matter whether you're a lion or a gazelle, when the sun comes up, you'd better be running."  Sir Roger Bannister


Erotic is using a feather. Kinky is using the whole chicken.

On's and Off's

HairyHeretic

Unfortunately that isn't going to stop them doing it.
Hairys Likes, Dislikes, Games n Stuff

Cattle die, kinsmen die
You too one day shall die
I know a thing that will never die
Fair fame of one who has earned it.

MercyfulFate

Quote from: HairyHeretic on May 24, 2010, 05:01:28 PM
Unfortunately that isn't going to stop them doing it.

Exactly, and the likelihood of two minors being prosecuted is negligible.

Abstinence only doesn't work, period. You might as well teach them how to be safe when they do have sex, otherwise teen pregnancy and STD's may occur.

Torch

Quote from: HairyHeretic on May 24, 2010, 05:01:28 PM
Unfortunately that isn't going to stop them doing it.

I didn't imply otherwise. I merely wanted to clarify the intent of the AOC laws. They are there for a reason. If we didn't have them, then where exactly would we draw the line? At what point does sexual exploration morph into child sexual abuse?
"Every morning in Africa, a gazelle wakes up. It knows it must outrun the fastest lion or it will be killed. Every morning in Africa, a lion wakes up. It knows it must run faster than the slowest gazelle, or it will starve. It doesn't matter whether you're a lion or a gazelle, when the sun comes up, you'd better be running."  Sir Roger Bannister


Erotic is using a feather. Kinky is using the whole chicken.

On's and Off's

MercyfulFate

Quote from: Torch on May 24, 2010, 05:05:25 PM
I didn't imply otherwise. I merely wanted to clarify the intent of the AOC laws. They are there for a reason. If we didn't have them, then where exactly would we draw the line? At what point does sexual exploration morph into child sexual abuse?

It's not child sexual abuse unless there's an age difference significant enough to warrant it. Calling two 15 year olds having sex statutory rape or child abuse is confusing.

Torch

Quote from: MercyfulFate on May 24, 2010, 05:07:28 PM
It's not child sexual abuse unless there's an age difference significant enough to warrant it.

You don't believe a child can sexually abuse another child close to his or her own age? Because I'd be glad to point you to several well known cases of this exact circumstance.

QuoteCalling two 15 year olds having sex statutory rape or child abuse is confusing.

Not according to the law it isn't.

I think the problem is far too many folks see 15 year olds as "almost adults". They aren't. They are minor children.

"Every morning in Africa, a gazelle wakes up. It knows it must outrun the fastest lion or it will be killed. Every morning in Africa, a lion wakes up. It knows it must run faster than the slowest gazelle, or it will starve. It doesn't matter whether you're a lion or a gazelle, when the sun comes up, you'd better be running."  Sir Roger Bannister


Erotic is using a feather. Kinky is using the whole chicken.

On's and Off's

LIAR

It doesn't matter that they are children or that it is illegal. They're still going to do what they want be it drinking, drugs, or sex. You simply can not stop someone from doing what they want to do short of being there 100% of the time, and no parent is that vigilant. All one can really do to combat the rampant stupidity is make sure that information is stated, restated, and stated again to help their children make informed decisions.

DarklingAlice

It is a complex issue, this is why child on child abuse prosecutions are rare. Children cannot statutorily consent to sex, they can still willingly engage in sexual intercourse. Child on child abuse occurs when one child is unwilling. There is no way to criminalize the actions of two children willingly having sex since neither of them can statutorily consent, and thereby neither of them can be held responsible for their actions? How do you propose guilt be determined in a case where each party is willing and neither party is competent to commit the supposed crime?

Also, 13% is a significant value. If 1 in every 8 teenagers were dropping dead, or were to be infected with a particular disease, there would be a national panic. With 1 in 8 teenagers under the age of 15 exposing themselves to infectious, community based, STI's and pregnancy risk, we have a major roadblock in the attempt to curb STI infections and the high rate of unwanted teen pregnancy. This is a matter of extreme concern from a health standpoint, and I have no idea why you would want to downplay it, especially considering how distressed you seem over the idea of this 13% engaging in intercourse.
For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, elegant, and wrong.


MercyfulFate

Quote from: Torch on May 24, 2010, 05:18:38 PM
You don't believe a child can sexually abuse another child close to his or her own age? Because I'd be glad to point you to several well known cases of this exact circumstance.

Not according to the law it isn't.

I think the problem is far too many folks see 15 year olds as "almost adults". They aren't. They are minor children.

Two 15 years old agreeing to have sex is what I'm talking about, not actual abuse.

Torch

Quote from: DarklingAlice on May 24, 2010, 05:38:48 PM
It is a complex issue, this is why child on child abuse prosecutions are rare. Children cannot statutorily consent to sex, they can still willingly engage in sexual intercourse. Child on child abuse occurs when one child is unwilling. There is no way to criminalize the actions of two children willingly having sex since neither of them can statutorily consent, and thereby neither of them can be held responsible for their actions? How do you propose guilt be determined in a case where each party is willing and neither party is competent to commit the supposed crime?

Also, 13% is a significant value. If 1 in every 8 teenagers were dropping dead, or were to be infected with a particular disease, there would be a national panic. With 1 in 8 teenagers under the age of 15 exposing themselves to infectious, community based, STI's and pregnancy risk, we have a major roadblock in the attempt to curb STI infections and the high rate of unwanted teen pregnancy. This is a matter of extreme concern from a health standpoint, and I have no idea why you would want to downplay it, especially considering how distressed you seem over the idea of this 13% engaging in intercourse.

I'm assuming this was addressed to me, but there was no quote, so I'll wing it.

What I was "downplaying" was the supposed notion that every young teen is out getting his or her freak on just because all the grown-ups have told them not to. That is a highly exaggerated picture of early adolescence, and the statistics bear this out, that the numbers based upon percentages start out low, and then increase with age to adulthood.

What I do not and have never downplayed are the risks of sexual intercourse for anyone, regardless of age. One of the fastest growing groups of new HIV transmissions are older people, above the age of 55, but I have yet to see any condom advertising geared towards the AARP set. Anyone making the choice to engage in sexual behavior should take responsibility for themselves and their partner, and that includes teenagers. Should they be given condoms along with education about abstinence? Of course. It would be foolhardy to think otherwise.

That still doesn't change the fact that minors engaging in sexual behavior (protected or not) is risky and unhealthy, and should be discouraged across the board. The two notions are not mutually exclusive.

"Every morning in Africa, a gazelle wakes up. It knows it must outrun the fastest lion or it will be killed. Every morning in Africa, a lion wakes up. It knows it must run faster than the slowest gazelle, or it will starve. It doesn't matter whether you're a lion or a gazelle, when the sun comes up, you'd better be running."  Sir Roger Bannister


Erotic is using a feather. Kinky is using the whole chicken.

On's and Off's

DarklingAlice

<_< Yeah, should have been a quote there, sorry, scatterbrained today.

Thank you very much for the clarification. I think that everyone is pretty much in agreement, that this is a big risk being taken by a significant portion of people, but it seems like the current sticking point is on the law. I am not sure that it is productive to keep going back and forth on it though, and seems to be drifting off-topic.

Can we all agree that regardless of the law, the 13% should be taken as a sign that the law is not deterring the behavior?

And if we take that to be the case, it seems like a more profitable line of discussion, that is more in line with the OP, might be:

Do condoms promote the behavior and if so, is that a problem?
For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, elegant, and wrong.


GothicFires

#49
My cousin as a 11 year old daughter who has a 16 year old body. She has already had dss called on her because her daughter told people at school that she had sex... only because her friends where saying the same thing and begged the staff at her school not to tell her mother she lied.

A couple of days ago my cousin broke down in tears because she found pictures that her daughter took of herself masturbating. When asked why she did it the 11 year old replied because she 'itched and tingled there'.

So I get to have the discussion about masturbation and how she goes about pleasing her own body because we don't want her to view sex as something dirty and shameful. Education is the best gift that anyone can be given and in this day and time it is becoming earlier because we are expecting children to be young adults. it is their goal and what they supposed to be growing into.

In the state of SC the age of consent is 14. So yes... i will be buying her toys she can experiment with now and when she gets ready for the next step I will keep her supplied with condoms and even give her pointers on how to make her experience with another person more pleasurable. But it is also our hope that with this education she makes decisions based on consequences she knows can happen rather than the impulse of the moment.
looking for new games
discord: Agara#3507

Torch

Quote from: DarklingAlice on May 24, 2010, 06:29:45 PM
<_< Yeah, should have been a quote there, sorry, scatterbrained today.

Thank you very much for the clarification. I think that everyone is pretty much in agreement, that this is a big risk being taken by a significant portion of people, but it seems like the current sticking point is on the law. I am not sure that it is productive to keep going back and forth on it though, and seems to be drifting off-topic.

Agreed as I'm the guilty party for nudging things off-topic.  :P

QuoteCan we all agree that regardless of the law, the 13% should be taken as a sign that the law is not deterring the behavior?

I have no problem with this. The law is often not a deterrent, but as a society we feel obligated to make the gesture nonetheless.

QuoteAnd if we take that to be the case, it seems like a more profitable line of discussion, that is more in line with the OP, might be:

Do condoms promote the behavior and if so, is that a problem?

IMO, no, the condoms will not promote the behavior.

First, there are the logistical concerns of getting condoms into the hands of those 12-14 year olds, some of which have already been addressed. Second, there will always be a certain percentage of sexually active young teens who will not use any type of contraception, even if the condoms are freely available (although sadly this is true for the population across the board, regardless of age or experience or maturity).
"Every morning in Africa, a gazelle wakes up. It knows it must outrun the fastest lion or it will be killed. Every morning in Africa, a lion wakes up. It knows it must run faster than the slowest gazelle, or it will starve. It doesn't matter whether you're a lion or a gazelle, when the sun comes up, you'd better be running."  Sir Roger Bannister


Erotic is using a feather. Kinky is using the whole chicken.

On's and Off's

Serephino

I really think education is key.  Whether parents like it or not, teenagers are going to have sex.  I remember what it was like in high school.  I was a freak for being a virgin.  Of course I didn't care.  It was a decision I made because I was educated.  My mom actually talked to me about it when I became a teen. 

I can remember 3 girls getting pregnant while I was in high school.  I guess that's not really a high number even though I went to a small school that averaged 300-400 students.  Still....  There were also a few scares that I knew about, and overheard stories of what happened at parties. 

One of my female friends had two pregnancy scares.  The sad part is, she had no idea how her own cycle worked.  She still doesn't, she thinks she got pregnant 2 days after she had her period....  I can also remember one of her uncle's girlfriends gave her a month's worth of birth control and she thought she was good for the month and didn't have to use a condom.  I knew better, but it wasn't what she wanted to hear.  I made sure to know these things so that if I ever did decide I was ready then if it was a girl I wouldn't get her pregnant. 

My point is, it isn't wise to let girls like my ex-friend C run around eternally ignorant.  At the very least she knew enough to use a condom, though I wonder if she went without anyway if she couldn't get one.  I'm all for telling young teens that it isn't a good idea because I agree they aren't mature enough to make that decision.  However, I am also not naive enough to bury my head in the sand and believe that teens won't do it just because we tell them not to.  If they decide they want to, they're going to.  And I think it would be an excellent idea to make damn sure that if and when they decide to have sex that one, they know how their own plumbing works, and two, they know about contraceptives and how to use them. 

Oniya

*shakes head*  It may have been more of the hygienic aspects, but at least I knew what was happening inside my plumbing when I was through with 8th grade.  Due to skipping a grade, that would have made me about 12, and not yet at the point where I needed supplies - but I knew how things were working and therefore didn't freak out a couple years later.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Blitzy

Quote from: Brandon on May 22, 2010, 02:41:45 PM
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

*Shrugs.* I was 3 months away from being 14 when I had sex for the first time. Between the ages of 13-15 I had sex three times. Total. There was a will, and a way, to do it and I did. I look at this issue differently than most because I still remember what was going through my head when I was that young and I know that I was fully consenting to sex. I have abuse in my past and perhaps that warped my sense of sexual identity and the desire. I'm well aware that it can cause those long term effects. However I was not coerced, forced, or intimidated into having intercourse then. I would've done it.

I had sexual education in my school, not abstinence training, and guess what? I used a condom. Every time. Yes, it does help. Yes, having them available does help. If they can't get the condoms, they will not use them. Then we only increase the spread of pregnancy in teens and STDs. Think about it this way: Minor children are minors, clearly, and they most often don't have jobs. Therefore they cannot purchase condoms. When I was younger, I couldn't ask my parents to buy them for me. Or money for them. So I had to rely on the health department to give me condoms for free. Thankfully they did. That meant when I did have sex, cuz yes... teens have sex... I had protection handy.

Again, I'm speaking from personal experience. Yes, I do think that my experience was helped because I had the education in school and the intelligence and resolve to follow through with the condom usage (even though there was the 'but they don't feeeeel as good' comments).
One on One stories on hold currently. Apologies to my writing partners.