They should be giving them away for free.

I believe schools should dissuade teens from having sex. Not that it would make that big of a difference, but at least attempt to set a good example.

Selling or giving away condoms for free would contradict this idea, so. :/

"Selling or giving away condoms for free would contradict this idea, so. :/ "

This assumes that students won't have sex if they don't have access to condoms which, if you know any teenagers, is a fantasy.

I am a teenager. :/ So, would this be self-explanatory?

And what I meant to say by that was that this would oppose my opinion on schools giving out condoms, which is that I believe they should dissuade them from having sex at all. If a school gives out condoms, it's basically saying "Do whatever you want to do, take this and you're on your own with whatever you want to do." I just think that sex is a huge responsibility that not a lot of teens are ready to take on, and should be treated as such.

Schools always have a policy of encouraging abstinence, and (at least, up until Utah banned it) teach comprehensive sex education including about contraception (or they should). Offering condoms doesn't undermine this message, it strengthens it by saying, "We encourage you to wait until you are emotionally and psychologically mature enough to handle the consequences of your decision, and if/when you make that choice, we hope you do it smartly and safely."

NOT talking about sex won't stop kids from having it. NOT offering condoms doesn't mean kids won't get them from elsewhere, also for free at free clinics, and even if they can't get them, it won't stop many of them from having sex. Especially oral sex. Many teens, if they want to have sex but lack contraception or condoms will engage in oral sex because there's no risk of pregnancy, but they don't understand that STDs can still easily spread that way.

Just like having seat belts and airbags in a car doesn't encourage drivers to crash, it just reminds them to be safe as they drive.

I first picked yes, but then saw Cinders first comment and had to agree.

Schools have been preaching abstinence for a long time in the past and guess what? People got pregnant back then! So that tactic does not work. Let us make sure that if teens engage in sex, they do so safely instead of being a bunch of prudes and letting young people ruin their life by getting pregnant too young.

XD - Sappp, if this were Facebook, I'd "like" your comment.

Hmm well I agree schools shouldn't preach abstinence, but I don't think they should advertise and promote sexual things either, that's not really the point of school. I just mean they shouldn't go to the extent of having condom vending machines everywhere or something. But maybe having a basket of free condoms in the school nurse's office would be the sort of low-key compromise I think would be good.

If you are in school (high school and under), that would usually mean that you don't have a decent paying job and aren't married why would you give a student a condom because here is how I see it.
Condoms are supposed to prevent the guy from the getting the girl pregnant. I feel as though if you give condoms to kids in school then you are basically saying that

" i am ok with you guys having sex, forgetting the part where she could still get pregnant, she has an abortion, or the guy has to bust he butt to provide for the girl and his kids, not to mention the government assistance they will need to help them start fresh. All this could be prevented but just not giving them the condom...but then someone esle could give them one....at least you aren't responsible.

No. For a start, selling them to school kids just wouldn't work... Secondly, I don't think it is necessary, that is what free clinics are for. I don't think it is really setting a good example for school kids to have access to condoms. They should only be given away if the teenager requests them, or by sex education teachers.

For one thing that's almost, almost giving students permission to go out and have sex. Schools usually aim to teach teens not to have sex so early on. And to make them free is even worse, because now they don't even have to work to get them. And the ones whose parents already have money, well it's a bit odd to be like 'Hey mom, I'm gonna go buy a condom' so the kid my resort to stealing the money from the parent or using their lunch money and going without food for one.

blackpanther666: "They should only be given away if the teenager requests them, or by sex education teachers."

Where else would they give out condoms, the school cafeteria? No, most condoms in schools ARE provided in health classes, although it's not required to ask the teacher. Usually, there's a bowl of them either in the class, or in the health/physical education offices where students can take them discretely without fear of judgment. And that's how I think it should be.

zanhar: "For one thing that's almost, almost gibing [sic] students permission to go out and have sex."

This sounds like the argument against comprehensive sex education in high school: "But if we tell them how to do it, it's like we're giving them permission!" Sex education and the provision of condoms doesn't encourage kids to have sex. Sex education always argues an "abstinence first" method, but the reality of the situation is, encouraged or not, students are going to have sex.

I work in a developing country and while it's not my primary purpose, sometimes I teach sexual education to the students here in a wider effort of my organization (Peace Corps) to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS and other STDs. We use the ABC method of teaching. To prevent the spread of HIV, we tell students to employ three methods:

A - Abstinence! Practice abstinence until you are ready.
B - Be faithful! If/when you do choose to have sex, BE FAITHFUL to your partner
C - Condoms! If/when you do choose to have sex, USE CONDOMS during intercourse EVERY TIME!

Schools in the United States use a similar method of education. Abstinence always comes first, but abstinence-only education and the lack of access to condoms has proven to be ineffective, and teens end up having unsafe and perhaps not-monogamous sex because the only message they are hearing from their schools and elders is "Sex is bad, don't do it!"

As such, "sex" absorbs the taboo effect of drugs and alcohol. How many times have you gotten the "Don't do drugs speech," and yet how many teens do drugs at your school? Unlike sex, drugs actually ARE bad all of the time - sex, on the other hand, is not. But when you treat it like it is, kids get the wrong message.

Sex is bad if:
You are underage and your partner is not
You are of age, but your partner is not
You do it unsafely
You aren't ready to do it
You are forced to do it
You force someone else to do it

Sex is good if:
Both partners are consenting
Both partners are of age
You do it safely (condoms, diaphragms, birth control pills, etc)
You are in a healthy, monogamous relationship
You are ready for it

THIS is what we need to teach kids. The last thing we need to do is propagate the societal message that sex is dirty and wrong. History shows this only leads to kids engaging in sexual activities without the proper education, knowledge and tools (like condoms) to do it safely, which leads to more teen pregnancies.

Providing condoms to students in high school for free does not "give them permission" to have sex. It sends the message that, "We tell you not to do it yet because you are young and we want you to reconsider until you are a bit older, but we know you never listen to grownups anyway, so if you DO choose to do it - and remember, only YOU can make that choice, not your boyfriend, girlfriend, or even us - then do it SAFELY and SMARTLY. Take a condom."

I actually don't mind sex education as it prepares them for sex when they are ready for it. It promotes safe sex when the time is right and it teaches teens to say no when they don't want sex. In sex education (or at least the way my school taught it) they would constantly bring up how important abstinence was.
I don't mind sex education classes, I actually think those are useful, but I think selling condoms is different than teaching about sex as there is no reminder about abstinence. Plus condoms are already being sold in stores so what's the point in selling them in school? That's just money out of the educational budget and a new way to get some parents mad.
All of this being said I do agree with I work in a developing country and while it's not my primary purpose, sometimes I teach sexual education to the students here in a wider effort of my organization (Peace Corps) to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS and other STDs. We use the ABC method of teaching. To prevent the spread of HIV, we tell students to employ three methods:

A - Abstinence! Practice abstinence until you are ready.
B - Be faithful! If/when you do choose to have sex, BE FAITHFUL to your partner
C - Condoms! If/when you do choose to have sex, USE CONDOMS during intercourse EVERY TIME!

Schools in the United States use a similar method of education. Abstinence always comes first, but abstinence-only education and the lack of access to condoms has proven to be ineffective, and teens end up having unsafe and perhaps not-monogamous sex because the only message they are hearing from their schools and elders is "Sex is bad, don't do it!" Just not the selling of condoms, as I'm not sure if the schools would still be reminding them of abstinence and what not.

I also agree with you paragraph about the goods and bads of having sex. I agree with all of those. But with condoms being sold in school I worry that, say, a person of the right age will buy a condom for his/her underage partner. there's always ways around the rules, it's inevitable. That's why I think schools should steer clear so the responsibility doesn't fall on them.
Now with proper rules such as; 'Both partners must be present during the purchase for an age check' and things like that I would not be as opposed to it. But I don't know how much real care will be put into this matter.

I think you're missing the point that despite preaching abstinence, a large number of teenagers still choose to have sex. The problem with condoms in pharmacies, and even free clinics, is you have to go in there and get them. You face scrutiny from the clerk, and a lot of teens - because they are TEENS - would rather avoid it. This doesn't stop them from having sex. This only stops them from having sex safely. Which is why if you provide condoms for free in a bowl in the health office, students are much more comfortable surreptitiously taking one.

Now one could argue if you aren't mature enough to buy condoms for yourself, you aren't mature enough for sex, and I agree, and this is a concept I preach in the Sex and Sexuality spot all the time. But this curious link shows that an alarming number of people on Fanpop who have lost their virginity did so before the age of sixteen, despite link that suggests that most of them had comprehensive sex education in their schools, which means that while perhaps 70-80% of teens may practice abstinence, up to 30% if not more do not.

Rather than ignore this figure, and pretend that no one could ever be ready before the age of 18 (it's also legal to have sex if both partners are underage, although it is ill-advised in most cases), it's better to provide access to the necessary tools to engage in sex safely, rather than recklessly. Not everyone will respond or listen to the message of abstinence only (which is why there's also the B and C of sex ed), and providing condoms makes sure that they have them in the hopefully unlikely time they may need them, rather than going about it in an unsafe manner.

We have an HIV center on campus where condoms are provided for free. They aren't expensive, and if an African school can provide them for free, then American schools can (and some do) as well. I'm friends with the woman who runs the center and she told me that they go through about one hundred condoms a week. She doesn't know if they are using them or simply making balloon animals out of them, but she's glad they are disappearing at any rate, because it shows that people are paying attention. And this in a culture that highly discourages sex before marriage to the point of it being a social taboo.

My point is - providing condoms in a sex ed classroom doesn't negate the message of abstinence only. It acknowledges that kids will be kids and disobey their elders and society, that not everyone will wait until they are eighteen, and that some people won't buy condoms because they are too nervous and would rather engage in high risk sexual behavior.

Condoms aren't the enemy. Condoms are our friends! :D

Okay got it. If they are going to have sex anyways you may as well let it be safe sex then. Though I still don't think sex that young is a good idea, but that's kind of another matter. And yeah I could understand selling them in school so the teens who are sexually active will at least go about it safely. And not being frowned upon is always a plus. Perhaps they'd even get a smile and a 'Hey thanks for being safe'.

That's pretty much how I feel, if you aren't mature enough to consider your health and your partner's health you probably shouldn't be having sex. Those are pretty interesting statistics. So in your opinion would you say sex education doesn't teach abstinence enough or would you say that teens simply don't listen to that part?

I can agree to that too. I would say that if one is gonna have sex he/she should at least do it safely.

I see your point. And you bring up some good ones. I can't really bring myself to disagree knowing about human nature. You see rebellious teens all the time. So we should at least make the sex safe sex. And I agree condoms are our friends, unwanted pregnancy is not!

@Cinders. The reason why I said that, is because, in NZ, sometimes we have machines in the school toilets, where you put the money in and then pull a lever, thus receiving the condom. I only have experience of knowing about this in NZ, unfortunately, whereas other countries evidently do things somewhat differently. I see what you mean the abstinence thing, though - You're probably right, because I think you addressed the real problem. I would fully advocate sexual education in schools, because it makes more sense to educate kids on sex, rather than leaving them uneducated about it.