# 6th graders may get birth control pills in school?



## Ceicei (Oct 17, 2007)

One school system may soon be providing the pill for middle school students. Videoclip link from CNN Prime News.  [The clip shows a short ad before the topic story.]

Thoughts and opinions?  Pros and cons?  Agree or disagree?

- Ceicei


----------



## newGuy12 (Oct 17, 2007)

One the one hand, it will be a good thing if it stops the students from being pregnant.

On the other hand, it seems very strange that 6th graders would be having sex to begin with.  In this day in age, with such long life spans, it should be put off until later in life.


----------



## JWLuiza (Oct 17, 2007)

newGuy12 said:


> One the one hand, it will be a good thing if it stops the students from being pregnant.
> 
> On the other hand, it seems very strange that 6th graders would be having sex to begin with.  In this day in age, with such long life spans, it should be put off until later in life.



Strangely, even with longer lifespans, puberty is occurring earlier now than in centuries past.  So the urge to have sex is also occurring earlier.  There is some research on environmental estrogens.

I hope, when I have a daughter, she waits till she's 18... and if not, I hope she knows enough to be safe.  (Same thing for my son... but I think there's a double standard based on gender...)


----------



## CoryKS (Oct 17, 2007)

Tax dollars... is there nothing they can't do?


----------



## MA-Caver (Oct 17, 2007)

CoryKS said:


> Tax dollars... is there nothing they can't do?


 What tax dollars can or can't do depends (it seems) on the morality of the law makers at the time. 

It's a double standard based on gender true, but it's a double edged sword more than anything else. 1 in that it could help cut down on teenage and pre-teen pregnancy but it also can encourage teens to have sex because they're misunderstanding the message and misguided to think that they'll "...be safe, because she's on the pill...". It also can bring rise to more occurrences of acts of pedophilia and child rape if the perps have an idea that the girl they've got their eye on cannot get pregnant because she's on the pill. Not that it probably wouldn't stop them anyway but it raises their justification and broadens their rationalization and narrows their "gotta be careful" margins. 

I'd be against it, truth be told because of the morality issue of it. 6th graders should be given contraceptives and should be taught abstinence instead. Oh sure once they're alone it's gonna be difficult to stop them if they're going to do it anyway so might as well give them the pill to keep (her) in school. That kind of rationalization is misguided thinking and shows a skewed sense of justifying the need to impliment such a program. 
It also sends the wrong message.


----------



## CoryKS (Oct 17, 2007)

MA-Caver said:


> I'd be against it, truth be told because of the morality issue of it. 6th graders should be given contraceptives and should be taught abstinence instead. Oh sure once they're alone it's gonna be difficult to stop them if they're going to do it anyway so might as well give them the pill to keep (her) in school. That kind of rationalization is misguided thinking and shows a skewed sense of justifying the need to impliment such a program.
> It also sends the wrong message.


 
I don't see it as a morality issue at all.  Whether you want to give 6th graders birth control, condoms, or really ugly glasses, knock yourself out.  But take the money out of your own wallet, mmkay?


----------



## JBrainard (Oct 17, 2007)

I think it's overdue, although condoms would be better.
While parents should be teaching their children how to be responsible sexually, many don't. Many other parents are simply are out of touch and don't realize that you have to have "the talk" *much* earlier in a child's life these days. Sad fact is, it's not _that_ uncommon to see girls getting pregnant as early as age 12.


----------



## tshadowchaser (Oct 17, 2007)

I am split mentally on this one. On the one hand I do not like to think of 6th graders having sex nor do I wish to condone or encourage such but if they are I would rather they be provided some sort of protection from birth and disease
as for our tax dollars paying for it well its better than spending the money on some of foolishess that the goverment dose


----------



## Kacey (Oct 17, 2007)

As a middle school teacher, I have a real problem with it from a moral perspective.  Schools were originally established to teach reading, writing, and arithmetic - not morality, which should come from the home.  The school I work at teaches everything from bicycle safety to health (including contraception and a unit on suicide) to manners... all sorts of things that should be taught at home and aren't.  I didn't have time to watch the entire clip (I have 10 minutes left of my lunch break) - but this is something that I don't think is the responsibility of the schools.  _Teach_ them about contraception as part of Health class... okay.  More education on why sex at that age might be a bad idea... okay.  _Provide_ them with contraception... no.

If the parents are so irresponsible as to not be preventing such activity, then perhaps it is an issue for Social Services to decide on a case-by-case basis - but this is outside the purview of the public schools.


----------



## tshadowchaser (Oct 17, 2007)

I may have seen some physically impressive 6th graders but I have yet to meet one that had the mental comprehension to realize the responsibilities of being pregnant or having a child. 
Dose giving birth control products to a person of this age violate or go against the statutory rape laws of most states


----------



## tellner (Oct 17, 2007)

Not good. They shouldn't be distributed without a thorough physical exam by an OB/GYN or at least GYN Nurse Practitioner. They are definitely not appropriate for some women, particularly without careful followup care. And I am not happy about pharmaceuticals being distributed without parental involvement. Barrier methods? They don't have the same risk of side effects.

On the plus side, a lot of young women are sexually active but simply can not talk to their parents about these matters. Considering the horrendous cost of birth control these days (thank you Congress, Bush and Big Pharma!) anything that makes it easier and less expensive for them to prevent unwanted pregnancy is not entirely bad. It's obvious that the current program of just saying "Don't do it!" doesn't work. It's time to inject reality back into the process.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Oct 17, 2007)

Nanny State at its "finest".


----------



## Ceicei (Oct 17, 2007)

tellner said:


> Not good. They shouldn't be distributed without a thorough physical exam by an OB/GYN or at least GYN Nurse Practitioner. They are definitely not appropriate for some women, particularly without careful followup care. And I am not happy about pharmaceuticals being distributed without parental involvement. Barrier methods? They don't have the same risk of side effects.



I have to agree with you.  I discovered early in my marriage that I was severely allergic to birth control pills.  Schools/government cannot just assume that birth control are safe with minimal side effects for young people.  How do they know whether there will be problems later down the road for those who start on birth control really early?

I'd rather leave this under the responsibility of parents, who ideally know the medical history of their own children better and keep in close communication.

- Ceicei


----------



## tellner (Oct 17, 2007)

Kacey said:


> As a middle school teacher, I have a real problem with it from a moral perspective.  Schools were originally established to teach reading, writing, and arithmetic - not morality, which should come from home


That's not entirely true. They were also intended to create good citizens who were prepared for life as Americans. If you look at period teacher instruction manuals there's a fair bit of that. I don't want someone else's religion crammed down my child's throat nor mine down theirs. But there is certainly room for teaching basic civic virtues. 

The problem is that a lot is not being taught at home. The schools are left having to take up the slack where nobody else will. I don't like it. I know teachers don't like it. But that's the hand they've been dealt. They have to play it as best as they can.



> The school I work at teaches everything from bicycle safety to health (including contraception and a unit on suicide) to manners... all sorts of things that should be taught at home and aren't.  I didn't have time to watch the entire clip (I have 10 minutes left of my lunch break) - but this is something that I don't think is the responsibility of the schools.  _Teach_ them about contraception as part of Health class... okay.  More education on why sex at that age might be a bad idea... okay.  _Provide_ them with contraception... no.


It's not an easy problem to solve, but take a look at what we have now. We have a law against comprehensive, factual sex education. All sex education must say "Don't have sex." It is forbidden to discuss birth control except to state that it is not reliable (which is not what an honest person would call true) and that condoms do not help prevent AIDS (another, emm, lie).

Honestly, we were better off with the sex ed I got twenty five years ago. There was a discussion of how the bits worked, the changes with maturation, how pregnancy happened, how contraceptives worked and what amounted to "Ask your parents about morals. Remember to make responsible decisions. You can't support a wife and baby." _[Sex Ed was segregated by gender back then]_ There was also some frank question and answer - Yes, you can get pregnant first time standing up. No, you can't get pregnant from oral sex. No, you won't turn gay if you get an erection in the gym shower. Yes, girls get horny, too. No, you're not the only sixteen year old virgin. Most of your classmates are. The rest are worried about being pregnant."

The best approach I heard was a lot like the one towards self defense: Know what you're doing and why you're doing it. Make decisions based on your own values. Be prepared for the consequences of your actions. Don't do anything you wouldn't care to explain to the other person's family or in court. 

Unfortunately, people get very stupid around emotionally charged issues. And the power hungry are always looking for another political football.



> If the parents are so irresponsible as to not be preventing such activity, then perhaps it is an issue for Social Services to decide on a case-by-case basis - but this is outside the purview of the public schools.


I wish it were so. Since the social safety net has been shredded the police and the schools have been forced to take on the roles formerly filled by public health, mental health, suicide prevention, social welfare and other agencies that used to be specifically trained and charged with them. Until common sense is given the vote again they are stuck with those jobs. The question is how best to deal with the truckload of responsibility that has been dropped on them.


----------



## CoryKS (Oct 17, 2007)

I might be able to get behind the idea of providing birth control for 6th graders, provided that the parents of each child to whom it is administered also receive birth control.  If the rationale behind doling out contraceptives is that the kids can't accept responsibility for the outcome of their (potential) actions, then there's no reason why the standard can't be applied to the parents who have already proven their failure in this regard.

And yes, I am aware that the shots for men have not become available yet.  It's just a matter of time.


----------



## tellner (Oct 17, 2007)

I'd be overjoyed if the government would provide birth control at some sort of reasonable cost to parents. Do you know how much the price has gone up in the last year or so? It's appalling. Insurance companies will gladly cover Viagra, but not Ortho Novum. It would make a lot of families somewhat smaller, a bit richer and a lot less worried if they could space their children without paying through the nose.

I know that's not the point you were trying to score. But it is, perhaps, a better one


----------



## Andrew Green (Oct 17, 2007)

I think giving any kind of pill to kids without parental permission and medical examination is asking for trouble.  Condoms would be a much better option, however being a middle school they'd probably get used as balloons...

Teenagers are going to have sex.  Nothing anyone says will change that.  Sex is one of our strongest natural urges and something we relly on for survival, telling people its bad and they shouldn't do it is not going to work.

However I think it is rather ignorant to say that they should be responsible for there actions unless they are given the means with which to be responsible and the knowledge to go with it.  That means teaching what birth control is, how effective it is, and making it easily accessible.

Kids are going to learn about sex, just a matter of where.  Tell them nothing but "don't do it" and there only source of information will be other kids and porn.  Which probably won't work out well.


----------



## Kacey (Oct 17, 2007)

tellner said:


> Not good. They shouldn't be distributed without a thorough physical exam by an OB/GYN or at least GYN Nurse Practitioner. They are definitely not appropriate for some women, particularly without careful followup care. And I am not happy about pharmaceuticals being distributed without parental involvement. Barrier methods? They don't have the same risk of side effects.



This is a very valid point that I overlooked while trying to read, type, and eat lunch - which is why I frequently don't post from work, as I only get 30 minutes for lunch, and often don't have time to read everything I'd like - then I forget what I read have to go back to the 24 hour search instead of the new items search.



tellner said:


> On the plus side, a lot of young women are sexually active but simply can not talk to their parents about these matters. Considering the horrendous cost of birth control these days (thank you Congress, Bush and Big Pharma!) anything that makes it easier and less expensive for them to prevent unwanted pregnancy is not entirely bad. It's obvious that the current program of just saying "Don't do it!" doesn't work. It's time to inject reality back into the process.



This is also true - but simply because children cannot talk to their parents does not make it the schools' responsibility to take over - that's what lead to the current issues with the schools teaching things that go so far beyond what was originally intended.



tellner said:


> That's not entirely true. They were also intended to create good citizens who were prepared for life as Americans. If you look at period teacher instruction manuals there's a fair bit of that. I don't want someone else's religion crammed down my child's throat nor mine down theirs. But there is certainly room for teaching basic civic virtues.



Teachers were expected to _demonstrate_ appropriate morals, which is much more what the rules were about.  Certainly, they were expected to teach by example - but in times past (time frame varies by location)  teachers were _enforcing_ the moral values taught at home - not presenting them as the primary source of instruction.



tellner said:


> The problem is that a lot is not being taught at home. The schools are left having to take up the slack where nobody else will. I don't like it. I know teachers don't like it. But that's the hand they've been dealt. They have to play it as best as they can.



And yet, this is the conundrum we run up against:  it's not being taught at home, so the schools must teach it instead... so the parents don't teach it because the schools are teaching it - which works until the schools teach something the parents object to, at which point the parents pull their children from the lessons - but still don't provide instruction at home.



tellner said:


> It's not an easy problem to solve, but take a look at what we have now. We have a law against comprehensive, factual sex education. All sex education must say "Don't have sex." It is forbidden to discuss birth control except to state that it is not reliable (which is not what an honest person would call true) and that condoms do not help prevent AIDS (another, emm, lie).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## MJS (Oct 17, 2007)

I have to agree with those that suggest a medical exam.  I don't see how someone could prescribe something like that without one.  Personally, if anything should be handed out, it should be condoms.  Of course, sex ed. is an important part of education as well.

I realize that some may think that handing things out like this in school but the fact remains that kids are going to have sex.  IMO, it seems like the more people steer kids away, the more it sparks their interest.  Personally, I'd rather see kids properly edicated and condoms handed out, than a young child getting pregnant.  

Mike


----------



## Andrew Green (Oct 17, 2007)

MJS said:


> I realize that some may think that handing things out like this in school but the fact remains that kids are going to have sex.  IMO, it seems like the more people steer kids away, the more it sparks their interest.  Personally, I'd rather see kids properly edicated and condoms handed out, than a young child getting pregnant.
> 
> Mike




I don't think it's as much sparks curiosity as sets off there ******** detectors, kids aren't stupid.  If they are being lied to, they'll realize it and reject the information completely.  Without another source, they got nothing.


----------



## MJS (Oct 17, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> I don't think it's as much sparks curiosity as sets off there ******** detectors, kids aren't stupid. If they are being lied to, they'll realize it and reject the information completely. Without another source, they got nothing.


 
True,  this is why, IMHO, I don't think its a good idea to hide anything, or feel like we have to 'protect' them from something.  Like I said, they're going to experiment, its a fact of life.  Not educating them is IMO, causing more harm than good.


----------



## CoryKS (Oct 17, 2007)

MJS said:


> True, this is why, IMHO, I don't think its a good idea to hide anything, or feel like we have to 'protect' them from something. Like I said, they're going to experiment, its a fact of life. Not educating them is IMO, causing more harm than good.


 
And yet this entire thread and the article which spawned it are predicated on the belief that we must protect them from something, and that they are indeed stupid or, at the least, as capable of willpower and forethought as are the monkeys in the trees.


----------



## Andrew Green (Oct 17, 2007)

CoryKS said:


> And yet this entire thread and the article which spawned it are predicated on the belief that we must protect them from something, and that they are indeed stupid or, at the least, as capable of willpower and forethought as are the monkeys in the trees.



And that thought is predicated on the belief that they should resist there natural urges.  Which is applying a sense of morality that not everyone agrees on to the situation.

No one said that they should have sex, just that if they choose too, they can do so safely.


----------



## MJS (Oct 17, 2007)

CoryKS said:


> And yet this entire thread and the article which spawned it are predicated on the belief that we must protect them from something, and that they are indeed stupid or, at the least, as capable of willpower and forethought as are the monkeys in the trees.


 
I'm not a parent, so I can only speak for how I was raised.  My parents didn't try to 'protect' me from anything.  Instead, they educated me, asnwered any questions about anything, and most importantly, educated me on the use of good old common sense.  Of course, this lesson also contained examples from their own life experiences.  

This thread isn't about me, so enough rambling on that.   I guess my point of view is...this is 2007.  Kids are not dumb.  Turn on the tv pretty much any time of day, and you'll see people kissing, in bed, hints of sex, etc.  

I'd rather have my child, if/when the time comes to have one, educated properly, than pretend teen sex doesnt happen.  

Just my .02


----------



## grydth (Oct 17, 2007)

Uh, folks..... girls in the 6th grade are generally 10 to 11 years old. That isn't sex at that age, but child molestation. (For reference, the age of legal consent is usually 16 to 17.) Handing out pills at age 11 isn't realism, but an acceptance of rape on a massive scale.

If I find anyone messing with my 9 or 12 year old daughters, they won't need pills, but instead bullet proof armor.


----------



## MJS (Oct 17, 2007)

grydth said:


> Uh, folks..... girls in the 6th grade are generally 10 to 11 years old. That isn't sex at that age, but child molestation. (For reference, the age of legal consent is usually 16 to 17.) Handing out pills at age 11 isn't realism, but an acceptance of rape on a massive scale.
> 
> If I find anyone messing with my 9 or 12 year old daughters, they won't need pills, but instead bullet proof armor.


 
Yes, thats actually a very good point.  Now, I suppose if two 12 yr olds had sex.....

Here is something that happened here in CT recently.
http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-ctwhdsexbust1005.artoct05,0,84223.story



> West Hartford police Thursday arrested an 18-year-old man on charges that he had sex with a 15-year-old


 


> The age of consent in Connecticut is 16, and a person who has consensual sex with someone under 16 can be charged with sexual assault, commonly called statutory rape.
> 
> An exception to the law makes the sex legal if the birthdates of the two teens are within a certain span. On Monday, a revised version of that law increased the allowable age gap from two to three years.
> 
> Armstrong, according to the affidavit, is three years and 15 days older than the girl.


 
Obviously, the people in question here are older than someone in the 6th grade, however, I would not be fooled into thinking that 6th graders are not smoking, drinking or having sex.  Against the law?  Yes, everything I mentioned is against the law.  Again, doesn't stop people though.


----------



## Kacey (Oct 17, 2007)

grydth said:


> Uh, folks..... girls in the 6th grade are generally 10 to 11 years old. That isn't sex at that age, but child molestation. (For reference, the age of legal consent is usually 16 to 17.) Handing out pills at age 11 isn't realism, but an acceptance of rape on a massive scale.





MJS said:


> Yes, thats actually a very good point.  Now, I suppose if two 12 yr olds had sex.....
> <snip>
> Obviously, the people in question here are older than someone in the 6th grade, however, I would not be fooled into thinking that 6th graders are not smoking, drinking or having sex.  Against the law?  Yes, everything I mentioned is against the law.  Again, doesn't stop people though.



It's very rare that a year goes by in which at least one student at the middle school where I teach becomes pregnant (for those not familiar with middle school, that's grades 6-8, ages 11-14)... and the father is usually another student at the school.  Does it happen?  Yes.  Can anything the school does stop it?  No... at least, not once they're off the school grounds.  Do their parents blame the school?  Most definitely yes... as otherwise they'd have to blame themselves.


----------



## MJS (Oct 17, 2007)

Kacey said:


> It's very rare that a year goes by in which at least one student at the middle school where I teach becomes pregnant (for those not familiar with middle school, that's grades 6-8, ages 11-14)... and the father is usually another student at the school. Does it happen? Yes. Can anything the school does stop it? No... at least, not once they're off the school grounds. Do their parents blame the school? Most definitely yes... as otherwise they'd have to blame themselves.


 
Heres some sad numbers.
http://teenpregnancyhartford.org/statistics.htm


----------



## grydth (Oct 18, 2007)

There's a major difference between providing sex education to an 11 year old girl and equipping her to do something she has no business doing.

I immediately signed my daughter up for the sex ed classes at school when she was 11. Both my ex wife (her mother) and my current wife also had long talks with her.... and I have spoken with her. I told her what some of those popular song lyrics really meant - and asked if that was all she thought she was worth? (NO WAY!). I told her how great a complete relationship between a man and a WOMAN (not a child) can be - and what some of the life consequences could be for her. How would she like to give up many of her dreams to do baby care 24/7.... and I've had her help some new moms with their infants - its great knowledge to have, but she doesn't need to be doing it at age 13. I told her about diseases, and the killer with AIDS who went around seducing young girls.... and asked if she'd like to be 16 and going to the prom, or dead being buried?

There's a reason why ages of consent are set at 17 - not just olde morality, but a serious understanding that an 11 year old girl isn't able to make a decision like that... anymore than she should be driving an SUV or drinking whiskey.

We need to protect and preserve their childhood. 25+ years in my line of work and you see examples of EVERYTHING - but that doesn't mean its okay. Rather than shrug my shoulders, I'll do what I have to to protect my children. 

You want to debate kids just shy of 17 doing it, fine. But girls at 11 or 12, its just child molestation and rape. If we won't protect them, then what do we stand for? Any society that fails to protect its children will not survive and does not deserve to survive....and anyone I find molesting my girls will not survive.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Oct 18, 2007)

This just frighten's me as I have a fifth grader. :erg:


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Oct 18, 2007)

Ceicei said:


> One school system may soon be providing the pill for middle school students. Videoclip link from CNN Prime News. [The clip shows a short ad before the topic story.]
> 
> Thoughts and opinions? Pros and cons? Agree or disagree?
> 
> - Ceicei


 
This is a terrible idea. All they are doing is sending the kids the message that it is ok for them to have sex. Im all for education on these topics at an early age but to actually hand out birth to middle school are you ****ing kidding me. Are they gonna hand out condoms and karma surta books to the boys?

Ok so that may have been a little harsh but seriously I under why kids need to be educated and like I said Im all for that but to actually give these girls these pills is just astounding. This shows a lack of interest in thE subject and makes me think that they have just given up

B


----------



## CoryKS (Oct 18, 2007)

Given the number of teachers that have been arrested for having sex w/ students over the past few years, it may be that putting the kids on pills is just a matter of CYA.


----------



## Kennedy_Shogen_Ryu (Oct 18, 2007)

Add me to the list of people who is quite taken aback and disgusted at the idea of giving birth control to kids that are so young.  I remember at that age, I was still of the thought that girls carried life threatening cooties!  Whatever happened to that wonderful line of thought?

Cheers!​


----------



## tellner (Oct 18, 2007)

According to an article in today's WaPo:



> Students treated at the centers must first get written parental permission


----------



## crushing (Oct 18, 2007)

Kennedy_Shogen_Ryu said:


> Add me to the list of people who is quite taken aback and disgusted at the idea of giving birth control to kids that are so young. I remember at that age, I was still of the thought that girls carried life threatening cooties! Whatever happened to that wonderful line of thought?​
> 
> Cheers!​


 
The pill does not prevent the spread of cooties.  The pill should be combined with a barrier method to lower the risk of getting cooties.

I'm not sure what to think about this.  I'm concerned that everthing I've ever known has been wrong.


----------



## Andrew Green (Oct 18, 2007)

KempoGuy06 said:


> This is a terrible idea. All they are doing is sending the kids the message that it is ok for them to have sex. Im all for education on these topics at an early age but to actually hand out birth to middle school are you ****ing kidding me. Are they gonna hand out condoms and karma surta books to the boys?
> 
> Ok so that may have been a little harsh but seriously I under why kids need to be educated and like I said Im all for that but to actually give these girls these pills is just astounding. This shows a lack of interest in thE subject and makes me think that they have just given up
> 
> B



No, it's giving them the ability to do so safely, if they choose too.  The choice is still up to them, and will be influenced by there parents to some extent.  But not giving them protection is kind of like not installing seat belts and air bags as a preventive measure to keep people from crashing IMO.

Kama Sutra books might not be a bad idea though, beats having them learn how to do it from porn


----------



## CoryKS (Oct 18, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> No, it's giving them the ability to do so safely, if they choose too. The choice is still up to them, and will be influenced by there parents to some extent. But not giving them protection is kind of like not installing seat belts and air bags as a preventive measure to keep people from crashing IMO.
> 
> Kama Sutra books might not be a bad idea though, beats having them learn how to do it from porn


 
Then why not take up a collection among those parents who wish to support this program?  Further up the thread you derided the concept of "applying a sense of morality that not everyone agrees on to the situation."  Why is this consideration not extended to those who are expected to pay for the program but may disagree with it on moral or other grounds?


----------



## MJS (Oct 18, 2007)

grydth said:


> There's a major difference between providing sex education to an 11 year old girl and equipping her to do something she has no business doing.
> 
> I immediately signed my daughter up for the sex ed classes at school when she was 11. Both my ex wife (her mother) and my current wife also had long talks with her.... and I have spoken with her. I told her what some of those popular song lyrics really meant - and asked if that was all she thought she was worth? (NO WAY!). I told her how great a complete relationship between a man and a WOMAN (not a child) can be - and what some of the life consequences could be for her. How would she like to give up many of her dreams to do baby care 24/7.... and I've had her help some new moms with their infants - its great knowledge to have, but she doesn't need to be doing it at age 13. I told her about diseases, and the killer with AIDS who went around seducing young girls.... and asked if she'd like to be 16 and going to the prom, or dead being buried?
> 
> ...


 
I certainly see your point, and in no way am I advocating a young person to run out and have sex.  Despite the laws, people are going to do what they want.  There are laws against DUI and people get into their cars every day drunk.  There are laws about illegal drugs, yet every day, there are people who engage in that activity.  There are laws about minors buying alcohol, yet I'd bet every weekend, liquor stores have people who come in with fake IDs.  Prostitution is illegal, yet I can drive to the downtown area of the city in which I work, and find a prostitute.  

Again, my point is not to advocate a 13yo girl, running out, and having sex, but the fact remains that kids may do this, despite the talks, lectures, stats, etc.  I don't think handing out pills is the answer, but condoms and sex ed classes instead.  

Trust me, I'm the first one to have my blood boil when I see a young girl, probably still in school, pushing a baby carriage, thinking, "Yup, there is another kid I'm paying for!"  

I just don't think people should assume it can't/won't happen to their child.  Anything is possible.  

Mike


----------



## Ceicei (Oct 18, 2007)

For those who want to read the article rather than view the videoclip in the original post.  

- Ceicei


----------



## Arizona Angel (Oct 18, 2007)

It's not very hard to get written parental permission without the parents knowledge.  Not a good idea.  I think it needs to be an in person deal.


----------



## CoryKS (Oct 18, 2007)

It's not clear that they need permission from the article that Ceicei provided:



> Students need parental permission to access the school's health center. But treatment is confidential under state law, which allows the students to decide whether to inform their parents about the services they receive.


 
So in order to use the health center at all, they need parental permission.  But once they are in, the parents have no say at all.  Is this a sexual health center or what used to be the nurse's office?  If a parent doesn't give permission to use the center, does that mean the kid can't get looked at for cold/flu symptoms?

I guess it's the second one:



> The other "no" vote Wednesday night came from Ben Meiklejohn, who said a parental consent form, which allows students to receive any kind of treatment at the school health center, does not clearly define the services being offered.


----------



## Seeking Zen (Oct 18, 2007)

Ok...

Wrong...period!  There is no rationalization of this.  Why don't we just put a target on our 10-11yr olds head?  Yes, what message does this send hormone raging 14-18 yr olds boys?  Is this not saying it's ok to have sex with 10-11yr olds???   What message is this sending to pedophiles?  It must be ok, there giving them birth control. If you think that is far fetched youre dreaming!

Onto health, birth control doesn't prevent disease. So why, why pills...there is NO point, contraceptives prevent pregnancy and disease. So what possible validation can be used for the pill? Other than to encourage sexual behaviour.

As for parental permission. From the research I have done.  The child needs permission to see the counsellor, however not to receive the prescription. In fact the school is forbidden to inform the parents of the prescription.  Soooo at what point did we cede control of our children to strangers. Not just Teenagers"...but CHILDREN!  

Questions ....Providing a 11yr old child with alcohol: Illegal (you would be charged in a snap)
Can an 11yr vote: no
Would you let your 10-11yr old wander the streets alone, go on transit alone:  I hope not.  
Is an 11yr old responsible enough to decide for themselves to drop out of school, leave home...would you allow someone else to make the decision for them and support being forbidden from that discussion and decision etc:

THERE IS NO REASONABLE ARGUMENT FOR THIS!!!! PERIOD its a child!

Finally WHERE ARE THE PARENTS???????!!!!!!! That this could possibly be and issue?


----------



## Andrew Green (Oct 18, 2007)

Seeking Zen said:


> What message is this sending to pedophiles?  It must be ok, there giving them birth control. If you think that is far fetched youre dreaming!



So you would deny kids that are likely going to do it with or without the means to do it safely because of a few sick adults?  

You make it sound like they are giving them to everyone and telling them to take them, not having to go and request them.

It's also a middle school, 11 is the very youngest, there will also be 14 year olds there.  And yes, some 14 year olds have sex, and in a good many places they are legally allowed to do so.  

I'd guess that very few if any of the grade 6 students use them, but some of the grade 8 students might.  If they are going to have sex, then why should they be unable to do so safely?



> Onto health, birth control doesn't prevent disease. So why, why pills...there is NO point, contraceptives prevent pregnancy and disease. So what possible validation can be used for the pill? Other than to encourage sexual behaviour.



Pregnancy at that age is not really a good thing, and the pill is a good way of preventing it.  Condoms would be better, but maybe they tried that and found them all getting turned into balloons.  I don't know there reasoning.




> As for parental permission. From the research I have done.  The child needs permission to see the counsellor, however not to receive the prescription. In fact the school is forbidden to inform the parents of the prescription.  Soooo at what point did we cede control of our children to strangers. Not just Teenagers"...but CHILDREN!



Which is good.  If a child can't confide in a parent for whatever reason, best that they have someone they can talk to that won't tell there parents.

11-14 is a pretty big range at that age.  Some people here seem to be looking only at the bottom end of it and getting worked up, look at the range.  Also it is still something they have to ask for.  If they ask then they probably should get, because at that point they've likely made there decision regardless.


----------



## Kacey (Oct 18, 2007)

tellner said:


> According to an article in today's WaPo:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Arizona Angel said:


> It's not very hard to get written parental permission without the parents knowledge.  Not a good idea.  I think it needs to be an in person deal.



Written permission is absurdly easy to fake... on the other hand, the students I have the most trouble with are those whose parents can never be reached for school-related issues - good or bad - and I suspect that they are the parents of the children most in need... which takes us back 'round the circle again.


----------



## Arizona Angel (Oct 18, 2007)

Kacey said:


> Written permission is absurdly easy to fake... on the other hand, the students I have the most trouble with are those whose parents can never be reached for school-related issues - good or bad - and I suspect that they are the parents of the children most in need... which takes us back 'round the circle again.


Yes, I have to say I agree.  If we all just actively parent maybe there wouldn't be such issues on the table.


----------



## tellner (Oct 18, 2007)

I was listening to an interview clip with the nurse who started the whole thing. She came forward and asked the school board to take action because girls were coming to her already sexually active, and she believed that the ones who were willing to talk to her were just the tip of the iceberg. 

She didn't want to brush them off. 
She didn't want to do something illegal. 
She wanted some official policy on how she was supposed to help these girls.
So she went to the people in charge and said "You make the tough decisions. Make this one."

I think she did exactly the right thing.

But it got me to thinking. A lot of people will say "The girls should talk to their parents about this. If they can't, parents have gotten incompetent and lazy." That got me thinking a little more. 

When my mother in law was in her early twenties - married with a toddler and with a baby (my wife) on the way she took her younger sister to see the  doctor. The sister was going away to college and wanted a "just in case" diaphragm. In those days she couldn't get one legally, so she went with her to convince the doctor that her sister was engaged and about to be married. A transparent piece of deception that fooled nobody but satisfied the forms. We were less upfront about such things as a society half a century ago. Over a third of marriages (cf. _The Way We Never Were_) resulted in "premature" births in those days, so we were *much* more moral :shrug: 

Was it the Bard who said that "An eager young bride can do in six months where a cow or a countess takes nine" ?

That was the same conversation where my wife talked about "Camp". It was something girls in the area she lived in did when they were in their early teens. She was a foreigner, so she didn't go. But girls talk. At Camp the girls spent days or a week or so with older women. They went through some ceremonies, but mostly it marked the official beginning of being an adult woman. They got frank talk from the aunties and grandmothers about boys, babies, how the two were related, hard work, being a wife and other Sacred Female Mysteries What Men Wot not What Of.

That led to discussions about how young women get advice on important matters - sex, but not just sex - in other traditional cultures. It's not always, or even almost always through a girl's mother. Older sisters, younger aunts, grandmothers and "aunties" really are the backbone of this sort of thing. Before the Industrial Revolution and so on destroyed the extended family and turned community into a political bludgeon that was how things were. Young women look to older women they trust for advice and help at just the time when they're beginning to experiment with independence from their parents. It doesn't matter how much they love their mothers and fathers any more than it means a toddler who has learned a two year old's favorite word doesn't love them. It doesn't mean the parents are bad at their job. It's just the way people are.

These days we are short of aunties and uncles. The nuclear family and the State are all most of us have. So the school nurse, an older woman in a position of respect who a girl can trust to listen and not tell becomes the repository for the confidences that would have been entrusted to her grandmother, an older brother's wife or the compassionate wise-eyed old widow who lives across the way in ages past. 

I really noticed this when we taught at the local urban public university. The median freshman is 23 and has a family and job. You get everything from 17 year old exchange students to grandparents who always wanted to finish a degree but never had the time. We were always ecstatic when there was a strong older woman in the class.

Much of the tone of these things depends on finding trend setters in the class, women who provide a good example that encourages the rest of the class to believe it's possible and that they can leave their inhibitions and doubts behind. Whenever there was a grandmother in the crowd we didn't have to look any further. The younger women all tended to defer and follow her example. And the grannies tended to be a lot more matter of fact about everything from hitting people to body shyness than the most worldly eighteen year old. 

I remember one who grabbed the biggest guy in the class (we had to teach mixed classes which was mixed good and bad), got down on her back and had him straddle her so she could practice a modified bridge to escape. He was really shy about the whole thing. She said "Come on, son. I've raised four boys. You don't have anything I haven't seen." After that the girls (by comparison I just had to think of them that way) did a lot better.

The way we live now, there just plain aren't enough tough old grannies. It's a shame the school nurse has to fill that role.


----------



## BrandiJo (Oct 18, 2007)

From what i gather... its the parents who sign up for the health care, its the parents who can opt out of any sort of treatment, and if they want their kids to have this option open they can. My parents would have signed me up for it, not because they did not trust me, not because they thought i was sleeping around but because they wanted me to be protected when and if i had sex if i felt i could not get reasonable advice from them. Do i think 11-13 year olds should be having sex, no, but if they are then they need protection. 

Is it wise, healthy, and safe to know that a child is having sex and turn a blind eye because its awkward? no, but at the same time it is not good to just hand out the pills, i think they should get the pills when and if they want them but also have to take a class or have a talk with the health care worker handing out the pills to know how to properly take them, and how to avoid risky behavior. 

A lot of children feel they cannot talk to their parents about sex, heck im married and i still blush and turn red when my mom asks if we are wanting a family or "being safe" now try that at 13 when you are sure your mom would freak out and tell your dad who would (and rightly so ) want to kill the guy... would you really wanna be like hey mom can i have BC pills? 

Its not the greatest idea... but its better then nothing. ​


----------



## Seeking Zen (Oct 18, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> It's also a middle school, 11 is the very youngest, there will also be 14 year olds there. And yes, some 14 year olds have sex, and in a good many places they are legally allowed to do so.
> 
> I'd guess that very few if any of the grade 6 students use them, but some of the grade 8 students might. If they are going to have sex, then why should they be unable to do so safely?
> 
> ...


 
Another thought...how many of these young girls now having the pill will
ensure there "partner" is using a condom.  I would guess next to none.  Providing the pill is pointless.  I stops pregnacy, that's it. So I fail to see where this policy is about protecting anyone or solving any problem.  Other than a young girls worry of getting caught.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Oct 18, 2007)

Let me get this straight. In most states, if my daughter went to the ER, they would need my permission before doing anything short of a life saving proceedure, but a school can provide a perscription w/o my knowledge or consent?

My daughter cant take a Midol to school w/o an act of congress, but THEY can give her a pill w/o telling me?

I am legally responsible for my childs actions because she isnt old enough to make good decisions, but she could make this decision w/o me? Providing condoms is one thing, giving my kid a perscription is entirely another.

I think that middle school is WAY to early for this. If the child is of an age where he/she is legally responsible for their actions (i.e. old enough to get arrested and charged as an adult) then perhaps they should be able to make these decisons. 11-12-13 yo? I dont think so.


----------



## Seeking Zen (Oct 18, 2007)

I was just watching this debate on the news....and apparently if you do provide persmission for your child to use the health centre they cannot use the centre for standard medical purposes...scrapped knee, Tylenol ect...


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Oct 18, 2007)

Seeking Zen said:


> I was just watching this debate on the news....and apparently if you do provide persmission for your child to use the health centre they cannot use the centre for standard medical purposes...scrapped knee, Tylenol ect...


 

So its all (pills) or nothing (no band-aids)???


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Oct 18, 2007)

All my dad had to do was utter one sentence to keep me out of trouble at that age:

"You make me a grandfather, I'll kill you".


----------



## MJS (Oct 18, 2007)

Seeking Zen said:


> Ok...
> 
> Wrong...period! There is no rationalization of this. Why don't we just put a target on our 10-11yr olds head? Yes, what message does this send hormone raging 14-18 yr olds boys? Is this not saying it's ok to have sex with 10-11yr olds??? What message is this sending to pedophiles? It must be ok, there giving them birth control. If you think that is far fetched youre dreaming!




But what message is smoking and drinking sending?  What about the sexual content we see daily on public tv?  Like I have said...not advocating 13 yr olds jumping into the bed, but a) education and b) having the protection.




> Onto health, birth control doesn't prevent disease. So why, why pills...there is NO point, contraceptives prevent pregnancy and disease. So what possible validation can be used for the pill? Other than to encourage sexual behaviour.


 
I don't think anything is being encouraged.  The pill, like condoms are preventing pregnancy.  I've also said that I don't think its wise for the school to get involved with pills.  That, IMHO, should be coming from a doctor.





> Questions ....Providing a 11yr old child with alcohol: Illegal (you would be charged in a snap)





> Can an 11yr vote: no
> Would you let your 10-11yr old wander the streets alone, go on transit alone: I hope not.
> Is an 11yr old responsible enough to decide for themselves to drop out of school, leave home...would you allow someone else to make the decision for them and support being forbidden from that discussion and decision etc:
> 
> ...


 
You're right.  The parents should be taking some responsibility.  However, look at the stats.  If the parents were doing their job, perhaps there wouldn't be so many people with kids they can't support.  But like I said, not educating, pretending that things like this won't/don't happen, is a mistake as well.



Seeking Zen said:


> Another thought...how many of these young girls now having the pill will
> ensure there "partner" is using a condom. I would guess next to none. Providing the pill is pointless. I stops pregnacy, that's it. So I fail to see where this policy is about protecting anyone or solving any problem. Other than a young girls worry of getting caught.


 
Well, we don't know if they'll use both, we can only speculate.


----------



## grydth (Oct 18, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Let me get this straight. In most states, if my daughter went to the ER, they would need my permission before doing anything short of a life saving proceedure, but a school can provide a perscription w/o my knowledge or consent?
> 
> My daughter cant take a Midol to school w/o an act of congress, but THEY can give her a pill w/o telling me?
> 
> ...



You have to love the quality of life in the coming NAMBLA Nation. If we send a Motrin to school with the kid, she'll get suspended under the same 'zero tolerance' as an illicit drug dealer... but it's okay for the school itself to give her a pill that facilitates a felony. Make sense?

Speaking of the "they're going to do it anyway" philosophy, why indeed not have the school nurse also 'prescribe' pot or meth? The girls are probably much safer smoking a joint than they are having sex with Lord knows what. You can't get AIDS, syph or pregnant from pot. What else should be given out to pre teens under this nutty philosophy - guns? alcohol? car keys?

Should the schools have a staff pederast to break these tender young girls in the right way? Can they get gym credit for sexual acrobatics? Will photos make the year book?

If we who would defend our 12 year olds are prudish, with outdated morals... then pray tell what age *is* too early.... if any? When should my 9 year old start learning how to perform oral sex? Before or after all her baby teeth fall out? I mean, she's "going to do it anyway", right?

I wonder if the schools will be providing anyone to simply tell the girls - Do not do it! You are way too young! 

I suspect our much maligned legal system will put a stop to this. When some 11 year old shows up pregnant and with AIDS, I'm guessing a record setting lawsuit (hopefully with parents on the jury) will discourage this abomination via punitive damages. I'm thinking ye olde skool nurse may just find herself getting arrested for facilitating child abuse in a few jurisdictions. 

Well, you know angry parents, aggressive police and predatory lawyers - when it comes to something like this, well - THEY'RE GOING TO DO IT ANYWAY.


----------



## grydth (Oct 18, 2007)

Well, I just received an *anonymous* negative rep! Imagine that.

Yeah, I'd want to be unknown if I had to say what you did, you coward.

If "distorted views" are protecting my 9 and 12 year old daughters from sexual predation and exploitation, then give me a red star.


----------



## MJS (Oct 18, 2007)

grydth said:


> Well, I just received an *anonymous* negative rep! Imagine that.
> 
> Yeah, I'd want to be unknown if I had to say what you did, you coward.
> 
> If "distorted views" are protecting my 9 and 12 year old daughters from sexual predation and exploitation, then give me a red star.


 
If you're having a rep issue, feel free to contact an Admin to look into it for you. 

As far as the thread goes...IMO, I think its human nature to think that things won't happen to them.  I don't see how sheltering a child is going to protect them from the bad things in the world.  Again, I'm not advocating teens jumping into bed, but are you going to follow your children around anytime they leave the house?  Do you leave your kids alone in your house for any extended period of time?  

In your opinion, what is the right age to educate them?


----------



## grydth (Oct 18, 2007)

Oh, I'm not asking Admin for help. I not only want the despicablr thing left there, but I'd like all others of this individual's low ilk to add their neg reps as well. It shows 'em for what they are.

Please see post#29, where I made it quite clear that I have not "sheltered" my 12 year old from sex eduaction. Quite the opposite. But teaching them about life is a far, far thing from equipping - and encouraging - them to commit acts which are felonious and which could ruin or end their life. They deserve a chance to enjoy childhood... and to be protected.

Unlike any of you, I suspect, I have prosecuted child molesters. So please don't patronize me with the "I don't imagine" stuff.... No sir, I don't imagine, I don't need to - because I have seen the real thing. 

There's another side of this, which I haven't seen mentioned, and that is the sexual exploitation of (too) young girls. Men have all sorts of pressure tactics to coerce girls into bed. How the Hell do you all know "the girl would do it anyway"? More likely. if some people would step up and be parents and 'school nurses', they'd react with, " He said/did WHAT to try to get you to sleep with him?"....... and teach the young girl she's way too valuable to be exploited like that.

The day standing up for the rights of preteens not to be sexually and illegally exploited is "distorted values" is the day I hope to die.


----------



## MJS (Oct 18, 2007)

grydth said:


> Oh, I'm not asking Admin for help. I not only want the despicablr thing left there, but I'd like all others of this individual's low ilk to add their neg reps as well. It shows 'em for what they are.


 
Thats fine.  Just trying to explain the proper channels to take, as complaining about it in the thread is not the option to take.



> Please see post#29, where I made it quite clear that I have not "sheltered" my 12 year old from sex eduaction. Quite the opposite. But teaching them about life is a far, far thing from equipping - and encouraging - them to commit acts which are felonious and which could ruin or end their life. They deserve a chance to enjoy childhood... and to be protected.


 
Encouraging?  Who is encouraging?  And I'd rather have my child 'equipped' and never need it, than to need it and not have it.  You know your children better than I, but I get the impression that you feel as if all kids are going to be raised like yours.  Sorry, but thats not the case.



> Unlike any of you, I suspect, I have prosecuted child molesters. So please don't patronize me with the "I don't imagine" stuff.... No sir, I don't imagine, I don't need to - because I have seen the real thing.


 
No, you're right, Im not a lawyer or prosecutor.  However, it is my impression that you're letting your profession get the better of you and its certainly showing in this thread.  Additionally, we're not talking about child molesters, we're talking about 2 teens having sex.  Someone forcing a child to have sex, and 2 15 yr olds fooling around is 2 different things.  



> There's another side of this, which I haven't seen mentioned, and that is the sexual exploitation of (too) young girls. *Men have all sorts of pressure tactics to coerce girls into bed.* How the Hell do you all know "the girl would do it anyway"? More likely. if some people would step up and be parents and 'school nurses', they'd react with, " He said/did WHAT to try to get you to sleep with him?"....... and teach the young girl she's way too valuable to be exploited like that.


 
Bold part mine.  All the more reason to make protection available to them.  If the guy is going to say things to the girl to make her think that he really likes her, when in reality hes interested in only one thing, I'd rather her have a condom, than end up having sex with this guy, get pregnant, and theres another kid being raised by a kid.


----------



## grydth (Oct 18, 2007)

You're making an assumption that it's "two teens" having sex. Most often in my experience, its a significantly older boy.... and sixth and seventh grade girls are commonly preteens, way below the legal age of consent.

Instead of pharmaceuticals and devices, why don't we instead provide them good guidance? How about female counselors to assure them they need not give in to slick lines, they need not be pressured into becoming 11 year old sexploitation objects. Anybody else think their daughters are worth just a little more than that?


----------



## tellner (Oct 18, 2007)

I referred to a radio interview with the nurse who started the whole controversy. Another thing which was significant is that the school board vote was almost unanimous in approving the final measure. The school nurse's clinic, according to the piece, is the only medical care to which many (most?) of the students have access. 

This is not just a matter of some over-bearing government agency stepping beyond the bounds of reason. It's a facility which has been burdened with more health care responsibilities than it ought which made a decision as how best to serve its students. From what the nurse said it was not easy, but it reflected the reality she has to deal with - sexually active girls who have no other access to health care advice or contraception. It is true that permission can be faked, but as someone pointed out the students most likely to do that are the ones without active parents. We will see what safeguards they put in place to help insure against that.


----------



## Kacey (Oct 18, 2007)

grydth said:


> Unlike any of you, I suspect, I have prosecuted child molesters. So please don't patronize me with the "I don't imagine" stuff.... No sir, I don't imagine, I don't need to - because I have seen the real thing.



Prosecuted?  No.  Reported for mental/emotional/physical/sexual abuse... quite a few, I'm sorry to say.  Kids will tell teachers all sorts of things.



grydth said:


> There's another side of this, which I haven't seen mentioned, and that is the sexual exploitation of (too) young girls. Men have all sorts of pressure tactics to coerce girls into bed. How the Hell do you all know "the girl would do it anyway"? More likely. if some people would step up and be parents and 'school nurses', they'd react with, " He said/did WHAT to try to get you to sleep with him?"....... and teach the young girl she's way too valuable to be exploited like that.



That's a nice thought... but our school nurse has 14 schools to cover, and shows up perhaps 1 time every 2-3 weeks; the health aide is a nice lady, but she's a paraprofessional who's taken extra training so she can hand out medication as prescribed by a doctor - other than that, she can use antiseptic soap, bandaids, take temperatures, and call home - and that's all she's _allowed_ to do; she's not a nurse or even a nurse's aide - she's a member of the classified staff with 3 hours of training in how to be a health aide.  I'm not putting her down - she does the best she can with the training and experience she's got - but she is most decidedly *not* a nurse.



grydth said:


> The day standing up for the rights of preteens not to be sexually and illegally exploited is "distorted values" is the day I hope to die.



Can't really argue with that one.


----------



## MJS (Oct 18, 2007)

grydth said:


> You're making an assumption that it's "two teens" having sex. Most often in my experience, its a significantly older boy.... and sixth and seventh grade girls are commonly preteens, way below the legal age of consent.


 
And you're making an assumption that its going to be an older person.  While that may be the case in your experience, it may not be the case across the board.  



> Instead of pharmaceuticals and devices, why don't we instead provide them good guidance? How about female counselors to assure them they need not give in to slick lines, they need not be pressured into becoming 11 year old sexploitation objects. Anybody else think their daughters are worth just a little more than that?


 
Well sir, if you go back and read some of my posts, you will see that I have said that proper education is important.


----------



## grydth (Oct 18, 2007)

What, exactly, do you consider "proper education"? Does it include the counselling I cited? Simple sex education - or maybe individual counselling tailored to support and protect these underage girls

No, I am not assuming the ages of the participants... because its *wrong* and needs to be discouraged whether the male having sex with the sixth grade girl is 11, 21, 51 or 101. I am saying that girls who are 10 or 11 should not be having sex with anybody. 

There are reasons legislatures set ages of consent - think about what those might be. Could it be a societal judgment that 11 year old girls are way too young to decide this, to understand the grave consequences?

A society which meets a young girl in this situation with simply giving her pills is a failing society. As for your prior, "better to have and not need...", well that's dandy when speaking of an adult having a firearm to use in legitimate self defense... it loses some luster when one speaks of equiping preteens to engage in dangerous and illegal conduct.


----------



## MJS (Oct 18, 2007)

grydth said:


> What, exactly, do you consider "proper education"? Does it include the counselling I cited? Simple sex education - or maybe individual counselling tailored to support and protect these underage girls


 
IMO, I think a group class would be more productive than trying to fit in every teen girl in the entire school into seperate sessions.  Education on diseases would be a good start.  I think the responsibilities of being a parent and having a child are important as well.  I'm willing to bet kids don't realize what having a baby entails.  I also think that the discussion of safe sex and the methods available are important as well.



> No, I am not assuming the ages of the participants... because its *wrong* and needs to be discouraged whether the male having sex with the sixth grade girl is 11, 21, 51 or 101. I am saying that girls who are 10 or 11 should not be having sex with anybody.


 
And its wrong to smoke and drink, but I'd be willing to bet if you went to the local middle school, you'd be surprised at the number that do both.



> There are reasons legislatures set ages of consent - think about what those might be. Could it be a societal judgment that 11 year old girls are way too young to decide this, to understand the grave consequences?
> 
> A society which meets a young girl in this situation with simply giving her pills is a failing society. As for your prior, "better to have and not need...", well that's dandy when speaking of an adult having a firearm to use in legitimate self defense... it loses some luster when one speaks of equiping preteens to engage in dangerous and illegal conduct.


 
I'm watching the news right now.  Looks like they passed that bill approving the distribution of the pills.  

As for the comment of mine you made reference to, illegal or not, as I said, and I know you probably cringe every time I say it, but kids are going to do this sooner or later.  We can preach until we're blue in the face, but we can't know every move our child does.  We can do our best to educate them, teach them right from wrong, etc. and hope for the best.


----------



## grydth (Oct 18, 2007)

Yeah, well that "sooner or later" looms very large in this dicussion. There is an enormous difference between *too soon* - an 11 year old girl - and 'later' - a young woman who can make an informed and intelligent decision about whether to consent to sex. 

I've met an awful lot of women who've paid dreadful prices for acts committed early in life. A lot of these women wonder what they could have been and have very low self esteem. Protecting that sixth grade girl at 11 will yield a stronger, more confident 21 year old woman... and maybe it'll teach a few boys that she's worth more than a quick roll in the back seat. 

Every girl - and boy, too - should have counselling available. Just making pills available pushes them towards the wrong choice. Can't we do better?

I'm not talking about preaching, I'm talking about teaching... and protecting until the young ones can learn and then decide for themselves.


----------



## MJS (Oct 18, 2007)

grydth said:


> Yeah, well that "sooner or later" looms very large in this dicussion. There is an enormous difference between *too soon* - an 11 year old girl - and 'later' - a young woman who can make an informed and intelligent decision about whether to consent to sex.


 
You're right, it does loom large.  IMO though, I think we need to be able to seperate fantasy land from reality.  Sure, we all wish that kids would wait to do this or that..reality, unfortunately many don't.  We can all wish for the world to be a better place.  Sadly, I don't think it'll happen.



> I've met an awful lot of women who've paid dreadful prices for acts committed early in life. A lot of these women wonder what they could have been and have very low self esteem. Protecting that sixth grade girl at 11 will yield a stronger, more confident 21 year old woman... and maybe it'll teach a few boys that she's worth more than a quick roll in the back seat.


 
And I'm sure or would hope that proper education would've prevented some mistakes.  Maybe if that 15 yr old girl who had sex with her boyfriend who never seems to be around, used a condom, she wouldn't be stuck with a child, when shes a child herself, and you and I and the rest of the world wouldn't be paying to support it.



> Every girl - and boy, too - should have counselling available. Just making pills available pushes them towards the wrong choice. Can't we do better?
> 
> I'm not talking about preaching, I'm talking about teaching... and protecting until the young ones can learn and then decide for themselves.


 
And we educate kids on the dangers of smoking.  We, unfortunately, see young people light up though.


----------



## Kacey (Oct 18, 2007)

grydth said:


> Yeah, well that "sooner or later" looms very large in this dicussion. There is an enormous difference between *too soon* - an 11 year old girl - and 'later' - a young woman who can make an informed and intelligent decision about whether to consent to sex.
> 
> I've met an awful lot of women who've paid dreadful prices for acts committed early in life. A lot of these women wonder what they could have been and have very low self esteem. Protecting that sixth grade girl at 11 will yield a stronger, more confident 21 year old woman... and maybe it'll teach a few boys that she's worth more than a quick roll in the back seat.
> 
> ...



I'll say it again:  *this is not the school's responsibility *- certainly, it is not the school's _*sole*_ responsibility.  Teachers are supposed to teach _academics_ - that is what schools were originally intended to do.  Should teachers _demonstrate_ moral values?  Of course they should.  Should schools provide medical care for students who could not otherwise access it?  It's a nice concept - but the school I'm at doesn't have a nurse, just a health aide, who had 3 hours (!?!) of training in how to pass out medication.  Who is going to examine these girls?  Who is going to perform their annual exams?  Who is going to monitor if they are taking the pill daily as they should?  Watch for side effects?  Ensure they are taught to use barrier methods to reduce the risk of disease transmission?

Students spend an average of 13% of their waking time in school - when did the schools become responsible for what those students do with the remaining 87%?

Schools exist to _teach_ - not preach, not medicate.  Parents are constantly approaching me, as special education teacher, to diagnose medical conditions in their children:  ADD/ADHD, autism, dyslexia, etc. - but _I am not a doctor_ - I *cannot* diagnose *medical* conditions.  That was pounded into me during my teachers' certification program:  my job is to help students work within and around their academic/social/emotional difficulties, not diagnose them from a medical perspective.  When, then, did schools become eligible to prescribe and dispense medications?

Health care centers on school grounds - for the convenience of parents and students who do not have health care - not a problem.  But it should be clear from the instant such a program is conceived that it is *not part of the school* - like the mental health services offered on the school grounds by our local county mental health program, this should be - if anything - a program offered on the school grounds by an *outside provider* - NOT a school service, and most definitely *NOT* a replacement for proper parenting.

Too many people are willing to abrogate their responsibilities as parents, as employees, as members of society in general - to the schools, to law enforcement, and so on.  If you dislike a trend within society, by all means, stand up and protest it!  But _please_, quit placing the responsibility on the schools, the police, the firefighters - anyone but those who _should_ be responsible.

"It takes a village" is trite... it's been over-media-ized... it's become a catchphrase rather than the truism that it should be - nonetheless, it is the *community's* responsibility as a _whole_ - not that of a part of the community that has already had every other social ill dumped on it, to the extent that its original purpose has been subsumed into parenting those whose parents cannot be bothered to do so themselves.

Sorry for the rant - but I just spent 7 1/2 hours at parent/teacher conferences over the last 2 days - as the teacher - so that I could talk to *6* parents... none of them parents of children who have behavioral problems in school (as a special education teacher, they all have academic difficulties); rather, they were all parents of children who work hard, help their children with their school work as best they can, and most of all - pay attention to their kids... not the parents of the kids who run wild outside the school and think that they can run wild within it as well.


----------



## grydth (Oct 19, 2007)

MJS said:


> You're right, it does loom large.  IMO though, I think we need to be able to seperate fantasy land from reality.  Sure, we all wish that kids would wait to do this or that..reality, unfortunately many don't.  We can all wish for the world to be a better place.  Sadly, I don't think it'll happen.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, as a parent of 4, to include girls ages 9 and 12, I feel we need to affirmatively act to ensure that an 11 year old's "fantasy land" does not become a terminal nightmare. I am not "wishing", with respect to my girls, I am demanding. Heaven help anyone who ever molests - and that is precisely what this is - any of my kids.

To me, it ultimately is simple: Is it ever right for a Jr High age girl to be having sex? Ever?     N-O.     

Should a school ever be in the practice of facilitating the criminal act of an 11 year old having intercourse? N-O.

Should a school do something like this and hide it from parents? N-O.

No, never, not ever.

I have to be away for a few days, and have said all I need to anyway.


----------



## MJS (Oct 19, 2007)

grydth said:


> No, as a parent of 4, to include girls ages 9 and 12, I feel we need to affirmatively act to ensure that an 11 year old's "fantasy land" does not become a terminal nightmare. I am not "wishing", with respect to my girls, I am demanding. Heaven help anyone who ever molests - and that is precisely what this is - any of my kids.


 
I think you misunderstood.  I was not talking about the fantasies of kids, I was talking about the fantasies of the parents of these kids who think that the world is perfect and their kids will be perfect little angels and nothing bad will ever happen.  Of course we never want anything bad to happen to our kids, but I think some people are kidding themselves if they think their kids will 'stay pure' until they get married.  Are there kids like that out there?  I'm sure there are.  But I'd be willing to bet the numbers of pure and innocent are lower than those who have had a sexual encounter.



> To me, it ultimately is simple: Is it ever right for a Jr High age girl to be having sex? Ever? N-O.


 
But it happens.  Is it right for a Jr. High school girl to drink or smoke?  Nope, but it happens.  We can wish all day long that it didn't but fact remains it does, more often than not.



> Should a school ever be in the practice of facilitating the criminal act of an 11 year old having intercourse? N-O.
> 
> Should a school do something like this and hide it from parents? N-O.
> 
> ...


 
No, schools should not run around saying its ok to have sex, drink and smoke, but they need to help with the education, in addition to the parents of these kids.  

Looking forward to your replies when you return.

Mike


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Oct 19, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> No, it's giving them the ability to do so safely, if they choose too.  The choice is still up to them, and will be influenced by there parents to some extent.  But not giving them protection is kind of like not installing seat belts and air bags as a preventive measure to keep people from crashing IMO.
> 
> Kama Sutra books might not be a bad idea though, beats having them learn how to do it from porn


I think they need to just scare the crap out the kids, with made up facts about how easy it is to get STD's. I have a 12 yrs old cousing who is like a little sister to me, if I ever found out that they were doing this in her school I might have to beat someone's ***. Middle school is to young, I think they will view this the wrong way and not take the matter seriously. 

I do agree karma sutra books would be a better substitute for porn

B


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 19, 2007)

This article ... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/abigail-jones-and-marissa-miley/on-providing-birth-contro_b_69055.html ... offered up these facts ... from the 'Journal of Adolescent Health'. 

One in eight youth are sexually experienced, having engaged in intercourse, oral sex or both before the age of 14
9 percent reported ever having sexual intercourse...and 8 percent ever had oral sex (active or receptive)
Of those who reported intercourse, 36 percent were age 11 or younger at first sex, 27 percent were 12, 28 percent were 13, and 9 percent were 14 or older
43 percent of sexually experienced participants reported multiple sex partners.
Wishing these facts to not occur will not change the existance of these facts.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Oct 19, 2007)

Kids cant take asprin in school without parental consent but THEY can give kids BC without it? There are plenty of free sources for BC out there already. Why not just educate the kiddos on where to go? 

This is about the school pushing another social/political agenda and separating the authority of a parent over their children a bit further so they can place themselves in the gap. And using our tax dollars to do it.

Ive dealt with enough educational experts to realize that some (many? I dont know) believe that its their duty to improve society through indoctronating (sp?) the kiddies with their agendas. Regardless of what the parents believe. Its all whats "best for society"though right?

Having condoms available is one thing. Circumventing the parents authority over a childs medical care by allowing perscriptions w/o consent? Thats a different ball game IMO. Espically with 11-12 yo's.


----------



## MJS (Oct 19, 2007)

KempoGuy06 said:


> I think they need to just scare the crap out the kids, with made up facts about how easy it is to get STD's. I have a 12 yrs old cousing who is like a little sister to me, if I ever found out that they were doing this in her school I might have to beat someone's ***. Middle school is to young, I think they will view this the wrong way and not take the matter seriously.
> 
> I do agree karma sutra books would be a better substitute for porn
> 
> B


 
But do the scare tactics work though?  I mean, how many times around prom and graduation, we see groups like MADD as well as the local PD and FD, doing a re-enactment of a serious MVA.  This is in hopes to show the kids the reality of drinking and driving.  Yet I have to wonder if the message is really being received.

I'm not saying that its a bad idea to use this method, just wondering its effectiveness.


----------



## MJS (Oct 19, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> This article ... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/abigail-jones-and-marissa-miley/on-providing-birth-contro_b_69055.html ... offered up these facts ... from the 'Journal of Adolescent Health'.
> 
> One in eight youth are sexually experienced, having engaged in intercourse, oral sex or both before the age of 14
> 9 percent reported ever having sexual intercourse...and 8 percent ever had oral sex (active or receptive)
> ...


 
Thank you for posting this.  I agree with your last paragraph.  This is what I've been trying to say all along, and here we see some actual facts and numbers.


----------



## Andrew Green (Oct 19, 2007)

MJS said:


> But do the scare tactics work though?  I mean, how many times around prom and graduation, we see groups like MADD as well as the local PD and FD, doing a re-enactment of a serious MVA.  This is in hopes to show the kids the reality of drinking and driving.  Yet I have to wonder if the message is really being received.
> 
> I'm not saying that its a bad idea to use this method, just wondering its effectiveness.




Scare tactics don't work because kids aren't stupid.


----------



## CoryKS (Oct 19, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> Scare tactics don't work because kids aren't stupid.


 
Not sure what you're saying here.  Somebody shows kids the twisted, burnt remains of a drunk driver's vehicle.  Of something that could happen to them if they engage in this behavior.  The kids fail to learn from this, and you think it's because they are _not_ stupid?


----------



## Marginal (Oct 19, 2007)

CoryKS said:


> Not sure what you're saying here.  Somebody shows kids the twisted, burnt remains of a drunk driver's vehicle.  Of something that could happen to them if they engage in this behavior.  The kids fail to learn from this, and you think it's because they are _not_ stupid?


How many adults fail that particular bit of mental math every day?


----------



## CoryKS (Oct 19, 2007)

Marginal said:


> How many adults fail that particular bit of mental math every day?


 
I don't know how many adults fail that check every day.  More importantly, I don't know how many _didn't_ fail it.  I don't see how one can determine how many potential accidents were averted because somebody made a better choice based on information they received about prior accidents.  You can't say something doesn't work at all because it doesn't work 100%

I don't see how this is relevant to the question of how failing to learn from someone else's mistakes means they are _not_ stupid.


----------



## tellner (Oct 19, 2007)

The scare tactics demonstrably don't work. We've had years of officially sanctioned scare tactics. Countries which give straight, factual information notice declines in early intercourse and teen pregnancy as well as lower STD rates. One side effect of our country's stupid approach is that teens are less likely to take precautions, act responsibly and protect themselves when they do have sex. If it's all bad, it's all bad. They don't distinguish. They tend not to use any sort of prophylaxis or contraception compared to, say, their European counterparts. Of course, the European kids have been given the facts about their options. By law - Thanks, Chimpy! - schools are not allowed to do that, just talk about how much these measures fail.

Lies are *not* truth.
Ignorance is *not* strength.


----------



## CoryKS (Oct 19, 2007)

tellner said:


> One side effect of our country's stupid approach is that teens are less likely to take precautions, act responsibly and protect themselves when they do have sex.


 
Or maybe it's because people keep trying to put safeguards in place to protect them from their own dumbass decisions.  People take more chances when you make things safer, not fewer.


----------



## Andrew Green (Oct 19, 2007)

So on that note, I move for a banning of seatbelts and air bags from all vehicles.  People are more inclined to crash if they think they are safe.


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Oct 19, 2007)

Whether scare tactics would work...I dont know. They didnt work on me. I would drink and drive all the time until I put my car into a ditch, mailbox and then a tree. I took that from me, and totaled truck (2 weeks after he bought it) and a DUI for my friends to learn.

It took the loss of friends for me to figure out what drugs will do to you. 

But because they didnt work for me doesnt mean they wont work at all. I just think something other than handing out BC pills needs to be done. Whats the difference between this and and being able to get a morning after pill from the school nurse?

B


----------



## CoryKS (Oct 19, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> So on that note, I move for a banning of seatbelts and air bags from all vehicles. People are more inclined to crash if they think they are safe.


 
That has been considered.  But it strikes me as a reductio ad absurdium.  I don't see dying in a violent car crash - possibly as a result of someone else's dumbass decision - as comparable to having your life choices limited by unintended parenthood.  Though I will say that I have a problem with _mandatory_ wearing of seat belts.


----------



## Ray (Oct 19, 2007)

CoryKS said:


> I don't see dying in a violent car crash - possibly as a result of someone else's dumbass decision - as comparable to having your life choices limited by unintended parenthood. Though I will say that I have a problem with _mandatory_ wearing of seat belts.


The glaring ironic example of laws, choices and what we as a society foister upon our own is this: The law requiring the use of seat belts because it saves lives while, at the same time, having no helmet law for motorcyclists because it infringes upon our freedom.


----------



## CoryKS (Oct 19, 2007)

Weird that this article would pop up now.  Kinda goes with what I was saying.  If you let kids accept the outcomes of their behavior, especially when they're young enough that the risks aren't too great, they gain a better understanding that their actions have consequences.  

Plus, you're less likely to face the sad spectacle of them growing into "adults" who whine about how life isn't fair and go all Harrison Bergeron with the legal system or tax codes.


----------



## Marginal (Oct 21, 2007)

CoryKS said:


> I don't know how many adults fail that check every day.  More importantly, I don't know how many _didn't_ fail it.  I don't see how one can determine how many potential accidents were averted because somebody made a better choice based on information they received about prior accidents.  You can't say something doesn't work at all because it doesn't work 100%
> 
> I don't see how this is relevant to the question of how failing to learn from someone else's mistakes means they are _not_ stupid.


My point's summed up in your first paragraph. 

Kids die in a drunken driving accident, it means all kids are stupid. Adults die in drunk driving accident, it leads to a null set?


----------



## grydth (Oct 22, 2007)

MJS said:


> I think you misunderstood.  I was not talking about the fantasies of kids, I was talking about the fantasies of the parents of these kids who think that the world is perfect and their kids will be perfect little angels and nothing bad will ever happen.  Of course we never want anything bad to happen to our kids, but I think some people are kidding themselves if they think their kids will 'stay pure' until they get married.  Are there kids like that out there?  I'm sure there are.  But I'd be willing to bet the numbers of pure and innocent are lower than those who have had a sexual encounter.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't believe there is any disagreement that some children do terrible things - and have horrible things done to them. A cursory look shows that the rest of the world is even worse  - - - children used as drug couriers down south, human bombs in the Middle East, 'soldiers' in Africa and sex toys in the Far East. Nothing I can do will end all of this.

But the thread question deals with 10 year olds considering sex, and what schools should do about it. Will some kids go ahead no matter what? Sadly, sure they will. And don't kid yourselves, it isn't a "choice" because a 10 year old doesn't yet have the reasoning and judgment necessary to make a choice..... it's exploitation and it's rape. Period.

While some kids will always take the wrong path, many more can be saved from possibly deadly consequences if adults step up and protect them. Schools should never facilitate rape and child abuse. The primary duty belongs to the parent - and no school should be acting beyond the knowledge of the parent. You want schools to have no involvement, fine. But don't hand out the material a 17 year old with AIDS or herpes needs to bang my 12 year old daughter..... and then keep it a big secret from ole dad. That's despicable, and I believe, criminal.

To me, there's no comparison between a kid covertly puffing on a cigarette - or even a joint, grabbing a few gulps of beer..... and being sexually exploited with consequences of pregnancy and disease. 

Saying "it will always happen" is no good reason not to do everything we can to stop it from happening.


----------



## MJS (Oct 23, 2007)

grydth said:


> I don't believe there is any disagreement that some children do terrible things - and have horrible things done to them. A cursory look shows that the rest of the world is even worse - - - children used as drug couriers down south, human bombs in the Middle East, 'soldiers' in Africa and sex toys in the Far East. Nothing I can do will end all of this.
> 
> But the thread question deals with 10 year olds considering sex, and what schools should do about it. Will some kids go ahead no matter what? Sadly, sure they will. And don't kid yourselves, it isn't a "choice" because a 10 year old doesn't yet have the reasoning and judgment necessary to make a choice..... it's exploitation and it's rape. Period.
> 
> While some kids will always take the wrong path, many more can be saved from possibly deadly consequences if adults step up and protect them. Schools should never facilitate rape and child abuse. The primary duty belongs to the parent - and no school should be acting beyond the knowledge of the parent. You want schools to have no involvement, fine. But don't hand out the material a 17 year old with AIDS or herpes needs to bang my 12 year old daughter..... and then keep it a big secret from ole dad. That's despicable, and I believe, criminal.


 
Maybe I'm missing something, but how did this thread go from talks of 6th graders going on the pill to sexual molestation and exploitation?  Do you think that 2 15yr old, who are making out in the girls bedroom are thinking, "Oh, this is exploitation or molestation?"  I really find that hard to believe.



> To me, there's no comparison between a kid covertly puffing on a cigarette - or even a joint, grabbing a few gulps of beer..... and being sexually exploited with consequences of pregnancy and disease.


 
Cigarette: Cancer. Drugs: could very well lead to experimenting with other drugs.  Beer: Could lead to harder liquor, DUI.  But these things are not as bad as having sex?  Okay.



> Saying "it will always happen" is no good reason not to do everything we can to stop it from happening.


 
Please explain to me sir, how you propose to stop it from happening?  How will you monitor what your kids do when they leave your house?


----------



## grydth (Oct 23, 2007)

MJS said:


> Maybe I'm missing something, but how did this thread go from talks of 6th graders going on the pill to sexual molestation and exploitation?  Do you think that 2 15yr old, who are making out in the girls bedroom are thinking, "Oh, this is exploitation or molestation?"  I really find that hard to believe.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Always happy to assist in times of confusion + discord.... 1) The thread title refers to *6th graders* receiving birth control at school. 2) In this region, 6th graders are customarily 10 to 11 years old - (If the 6th graders in your locale are usually 15, I shall refrain from commentary upon that fact) 3) Children aged 10 do not have the maturity or legal ability to consent to sex.... if they are doing it, it is called statutory *rape*. That is how I got there. Most 10 year old girls haven't even reached puberty yet - and you wonder how I call it molestation and abuse to involve them in a sex act?!

Second.... An eventually "could lead to" is clearly, on its face, not nearly as dangerous as a single act which can kill you. A child sneaking a beer may *eventually* move on to Jack Daniels and still more *eventually* might die of something related to alcoholism. There need be no eventually when speaking of a 10 year old girl being exploited for sex - just the once can get her AIDS, herpes, syph.... and pregnant. One dose is all it takes! Course, that's just the physical side of exploited children. It does not take into account the immense and possibly permanent psychological damage. Last I checked, just having a beer did not make girls feel cheap, dirty and worthless.

Again, recall the exact situation posed by the thread it was not how to end all teen sex, but rather should schools be handing out material that facilitates 10 year old girls having sex. I say "no".

What have I done as a parent? Had my daughter take the class in sixth grade - - - and then had both her mother and step mother have personal discussions.  I let them know they can bring things to us and that I love them no matter what. I reinforce my girls' self esteem every day - girls and women with low self esteem are far easier to prey on. I've told them of some of the tactics that men use to prey upon girls, and pointed out examples of dirtbags to them. I keep track of where my girls are, and sacrifice a ton of personal time to be with them (not a martyr - I love the family time) Don't be so selfish as to consign your kids into dangerous situations before they are ready. Half the battle is giving the kids the values, the other half is giving them the judgment and confidence to handle things on their own.


----------



## bydand (Oct 23, 2007)

This whole situation is in "my" State. (Note: I do not claim Maine, but am living here for another 9 or so months)  Maine is a completely different animal than you can even think of when it comes to State, School, Agency interference in family life.   The whole problem stems from a "God complex" of most authority figures.  Right now there is a little used statute that makes it "OK" for a girl as young as 11 to obtain birth control pills without consent of her parents or guardians, and they do NOT have to inform the parents of the situation.   This is just an extension of that to a school system.  The amount of incest and family abuse here in the State is staggering, this was a way for the kids to at least protect themselves from becoming preggers.  It is your typical band-aid approach to a real problem that is not being dealt with at the level it should be.  They are addressing the symptom and not the problem.  There has been little uproar over this except that most people you ask will say it is wrong, but nobody speaks up.    This is going to do nothing good for this school or the State, the students are still going to continue with their hazardous lifestyle, with the false security that the pill is going to stop the "bad" from happening.  It address' nothing about STD's and mental/emotional issues these kids are going to have later in life, if not right now.  A better choice to spend MY tax dollars on would be more/better counseling services for the school to find out the WHY.  (NOTE:  I know this is address kids having sex with kids, but I thought the background of WHY this is even thought to be OK would fill in a bit of the holes.)

Can you tell, this just burns my shorts!  Giving minors a prescription drug that alters their bodies hormones, and feel you don't have an obligation to inform parents.  The whole lot of them should be removed from the school board!


----------



## MJS (Oct 23, 2007)

grydth said:


> Always happy to assist in times of confusion + discord.... 1) The thread title refers to *6th graders* receiving birth control at school. 2) In this region, 6th graders are customarily 10 to 11 years old - (If the 6th graders in your locale are usually 15, I shall refrain from commentary upon that fact) 3) Children aged 10 do not have the maturity or legal ability to consent to sex.... if they are doing it, it is called statutory *rape*. That is how I got there. Most 10 year old girls haven't even reached puberty yet - and you wonder how I call it molestation and abuse to involve them in a sex act?!


 
1) True

2) Yup, probably shouldn't have brought 15yr olds into it.  However, the issue of sex as a whole, is not limited to just 6th graders.  This thread has jumped all over the place with various ages.  I've seen some posts saying that 16 or 17 is the age of consent.  In your opinion, regardless of that fact, I highly doubt a 17yr old is capable of raising a child on her own.

3) So you're saying that the molestation is happening by a boy the same age as the female?  As I said, I doubt, regardless of age, molestation/exploitation is going thru their minds.



> Second.... An eventually "could lead to" is clearly, on its face, not nearly as dangerous as a single act which can kill you. A child sneaking a beer may *eventually* move on to Jack Daniels and still more *eventually* might die of something related to alcoholism. There need be no eventually when speaking of a 10 year old girl being exploited for sex - just the once can get her AIDS, herpes, syph.... and pregnant. One dose is all it takes! Course, that's just the physical side of exploited children. It does not take into account the immense and possibly permanent psychological damage. Last I checked, just having a beer did not make girls feel cheap, dirty and worthless.


 
I get the impression that the whole exploitation/molestation thing is being taken out of context in this thread.  As I said above, I doubt that is whats going thru their minds.  It also seems as if the male is the one that is stereotyped as being the one to pressure the girl into sex, making her as you said, cheap, dirty and worthless.   



> Again, recall the exact situation posed by the thread it was not how to end all teen sex, but rather should schools be handing out material that facilitates 10 year old girls having sex. I say "no".


 
Well, if people were that against it, did they protest?  Did they petition against it?  Unless I've missed it, I havent heard anything in my area about schools doing this at that age.  



> What have I done as a parent? Had my daughter take the class in sixth grade - - - and then had both her mother and step mother have personal discussions. I let them know they can bring things to us and that I love them no matter what. I reinforce my girls' self esteem every day - girls and women with low self esteem are far easier to prey on. I've told them of some of the tactics that men use to prey upon girls, and pointed out examples of dirtbags to them. I keep track of where my girls are, and sacrifice a ton of personal time to be with them (not a martyr - I love the family time) Don't be so selfish as to consign your kids into dangerous situations before they are ready. Half the battle is giving the kids the values, the other half is giving them the judgment and confidence to handle things on their own.


 
Hey, sounds like you've done alot.  More parents should take the time to educate their kids.  Perhaps then we wouldn't have so many teen pregnancies.  However, let me ask you this.  While I understand you keep track of your daughters, how do you know exactly whats going on at their destination?  Example:  They can tell you they're going to their friends house to study.  Little do you know, their friend has 3 boys at the house.  That was my point.  Unless you follow them 24/7, its impossible to know everything they're doing.


----------



## grydth (Oct 23, 2007)

To bydand:    Heavens no! Don't tell the parents ahead of time! They might spoil it!

No, we'll let Dad know when his child is infected with herpes, has a pregnancy and is a mental wreck.


----------



## MJS (Oct 23, 2007)

grydth said:


> Heavens no! Don't tell the parents ahead of time! They might spoil it!
> 
> No, we'll let Dad know when his child is infected with herpes, has a pregnancy and is a mental wreck.


 

Is this directed at anyone or a specific post, or just a rant?


----------



## bydand (Oct 23, 2007)

MJS said:


> Is this directed at anyone or a specific post, or just a rant?



Yeah, a response to my post, last one on page 6.


----------



## grydth (Oct 23, 2007)

MJS said:


> 1) True
> 
> 2) Yup, probably shouldn't have brought 15yr olds into it.  However, the issue of sex as a whole, is not limited to just 6th graders.  This thread has jumped all over the place with various ages.  I've seen some posts saying that 16 or 17 is the age of consent.  In your opinion, regardless of that fact, I highly doubt a 17yr old is capable of raising a child on her own.
> 
> ...



You know, I wouldn't personalize this - you never struck me as being the type who'd be wildly in favor of pre-teen orgies. 

Yes, the case is much different when you have 2 sixteen year olds who believe they are in love.... but that's not what the originator gave us.... and 10 year olds should not be having sex.... and the only proper reaction from adults is putting a stop to it - not facilitating it.

As to what can one do about the phony destination ploy: Teach the kids early on not to lie. If the kids do not have basic values instilled early, there will be trouble later. Check out your kids' friends. Make contact with the parents at the destination before your kid heads over. get to know those families. If need be, sacrifice some more of your time to chaperone.


----------



## Kacey (Oct 23, 2007)

Since I don't live in Maine, I can't speak for their laws - but in Colorado an age range of up to 4 years is acceptable if both partners are minors, so 2 12 year-olds - or a 12 year-old and a 16 year-old - is a legal situation from that standpoint.  Outside that age range, it becomes statutory rape, no matter the "consent" of the participants.  For those who want more information by state, I found this site:  *STATUTORY RAPE LAWS BY STATE.  *I will note that this site is from 2003 - so things may have changed.

To return to the original topic, and keeping bydand's comment about Maine laws in mind - I still have a problem with providing medication (especially medication that modifies hormonal balances) to children under 18 for any reason without their parents' knowledge.  There are times when I could see it being necessary - incest is an example that comes immediately to mind - but in that case, it is in response to a much bigger problem, for which this policy on contraceptives is, IMHO, a badly-conceived bandaid rather than any type of reasonable response to the issue bydand discussed above in post 90.


----------



## bydand (Oct 23, 2007)

Statutory Rape in Maine is based not only on overall age of the persons, but also age difference.  If there is 4 or more year difference then it is persecuted as statutory rape.   So if an 11 year old and a 16 year are having sex, the 16 year old can be prosecuted.


----------



## Grenadier (Oct 24, 2007)

_*ATTENTION ALL USERS:*

_Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.

-Ronald Shin
-MT Senior Moderator-


----------



## MJS (Oct 24, 2007)

grydth said:


> You know, I wouldn't personalize this - you never struck me as being the type who'd be wildly in favor of pre-teen orgies.


 
Hmmm..not quite sure how to take this comment.  Hopefully you're being sincere about this, considering I've never said anything of that nature.  Or this could be a hidden shot at me, hinting that I am in favor of this, which of course would be a flat out lie.  Care to clarify for me?



> Yes, the case is much different when you have 2 sixteen year olds who believe they are in love.... but that's not what the originator gave us.... and 10 year olds should not be having sex.... and the only proper reaction from adults is putting a stop to it - not facilitating it.
> 
> 
> As to what can one do about the phony destination ploy: Teach the kids early on not to lie. If the kids do not have basic values instilled early, there will be trouble later. Check out your kids' friends. Make contact with the parents at the destination before your kid heads over. get to know those families. If need be, sacrifice some more of your time to chaperone.


 
I honestly think that you are wishing, dreaming, hoping for things that probably won't happen.  But hey, if you are making it work for your kids, thats great.


----------



## CoryKS (Oct 24, 2007)

You may not be able to stop them, but you can make it awfully difficult for them.  Hey, maybe that's why parents are getting their kids into so many activities?  "I'm sorry, my son cannot get bizzay with you right now.  He has soccer practice.  And then riding lessons, and after that it's karate and then..."


----------



## MJS (Oct 24, 2007)

CoryKS said:


> You may not be able to stop them, but you can make it awfully difficult for them. Hey, maybe that's why parents are getting their kids into so many activities? "I'm sorry, my son cannot get bizzay with you right now. He has soccer practice. And then riding lessons, and after that it's karate and then..."


 

You're right, there are things put into play in everyday life, that are meant to prevent or slow things from happening, but unfortunately, things still happen.  Lets see:  Seed bumps designed to slow vehicles, yet people show no regard for the suspension of their vehicle and drive right over them.  Bouncers at the door of clubs and bars checking IDs, yet people sneak in with fake IDs all the time.  LEOs conduct radar set ups, which they do catch speeders and are a visual deterrant, yet once they leave, people go right back to speeding.


----------



## grydth (Oct 24, 2007)

MJS said:


> Hmmm..not quite sure how to take this comment.  Hopefully you're being sincere about this, considering I've never said anything of that nature.  Or this could be a hidden shot at me, hinting that I am in favor of this, which of course would be a flat out lie.  Care to clarify for me?
> 
> 
> 
> I honestly think that you are wishing, dreaming, hoping for things that probably won't happen.  But hey, if you are making it work for your kids, thats great.



Yes, it is a sincere comment. When I take a slash at someone, it'll always be readily apparent. I have seen those who are so cute with words that nobody gets it - so what then is the point? 

 I do not take from your positions here that you are a NAMBLA advocate in any way or that you think sex with 10 year olds is a dandy thing. You appear to believe that another course, as Maine has adopted, will mitigate the harm that is inevitable. 

Feel free to disagree with me anytime, on any topic.

But you should be clear on one thing as well.... I do not engage in "wishing" or "dreaming". A quarter century in my line of work has shown me things that most never see, and those memories won't go away. I saw things in the Army I would not have believed possible. It is precisely because I have seen that much evil, and the horrific motives that produce those crimes, that I say we have to take a stand. I know the child predators for what they are, and I've seen what rape and sexual abuse do physically and mentally to the victims. That is why I will protect my children by any means necessary.

So now we understand each other. I am done on this thread.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Oct 24, 2007)

A 10-11 yo shouldnt be having sex. Schools should be teaching that. I have a 10 yo girl. I cant imagine how she could ever be in a situation where she would be with a boy unsupervised long enough for this to happen. 

Maybe thats the real issue. If your 10-11 yo is running around unsupervised and having sex, perhaps YOU should be looked at by child protective services.


----------



## Ceicei (Oct 24, 2007)

New article shows the middle school backtracking just a bit on their decision.  A portion of the article reads:



> PORTLAND, Maine (AP)  A local school board will consider limiting student access to birth control pills and patches at a middle school's health center.




- Ceicei


----------



## MJS (Oct 24, 2007)

grydth said:


> Yes, it is a sincere comment. When I take a slash at someone, it'll always be readily apparent. I have seen those who are so cute with words that nobody gets it - so what then is the point?


 
Thank you for the clarification.



> I do not take from your positions here that you are a NAMBLA advocate in any way or that you think sex with 10 year olds is a dandy thing. You appear to believe that another course, as Maine has adopted, will mitigate the harm that is inevitable.
> 
> Feel free to disagree with me anytime, on any topic.


 
Sir, while it seems that you and I are disagreeing, it is my opinion, that we are, in some ways, more on the same page that it appears.  I think its safe to say that we both agree that kids at the age being discussed here, is very wrong.  We agree that the parents should play a very active role in the education of our children.  Frankly, I'm not too impressed, as I've said in other posts, with having to support kids that kids have.  




> But you should be clear on one thing as well.... I do not engage in "wishing" or "dreaming". A quarter century in my line of work has shown me things that most never see, and those memories won't go away. I saw things in the Army I would not have believed possible. It is precisely because I have seen that much evil, and the horrific motives that produce those crimes, that I say we have to take a stand. I know the child predators for what they are, and I've seen what rape and sexual abuse do physically and mentally to the victims. That is why I will protect my children by any means necessary.


 
Nothing wrong with wanting to protect our kids.  However, IMO, I think that being over-protective isn't good either.  At some point in their lives, they should be given some freedom, without asking them 20 questions as to their destination.  Its possible that by keeping such tight reigns on them, that at some point, it may lead to them showing some rebelious behavior.  Maybe, maybe not, just a thought though.



> So now we understand each other. I am done on this thread.


 
Oh come on now...you know this is too good a topic to be done with.   But hey, if you really are in fact done, nice debating with you.


----------



## CoryKS (Oct 26, 2007)

Uh-oh:  School health centers didn't report underage sex

Seems that Maine already has a law about this sort of thing, and it was supposed to be reported:


> Maine law prohibits having sex with a person under age 14, *regardless* *of the age of the other person involved*, Anderson said.


----------



## MJS (Oct 26, 2007)

CoryKS said:


> Uh-oh: School health centers didn't report underage sex
> 
> Seems that Maine already has a law about this sort of thing, and it was supposed to be reported:


 
Hmmm....one would think that the people who decided to issue birthcontrol pills, would've known about this law prior.  Looks like someone messed up somewhere.


----------



## Ceicei (Oct 26, 2007)

From that article Cory linked, it says:



> MacNeal and Gardner questioned whether strict reporting requirements might have a chilling effect on young people seeking health care.
> 
> "If we're reporting to the district attorney's office, it brings it to a whole other level," Gardner said. "I don't know what that would do to the comfort level of young people coming to us for health care."



Would the decrease in comfort level give young people pause to consider their decision in having sex early?  Maybe this might give them an added incentive not to have sex if they are aware their sexual activity would be reported.  On the other hand, they're likely to go "underground" if sexual behavior is something they intend on doing.



- Ceicei


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 26, 2007)

Whoa... I think that is where the debate turns retarded, and the lawmakers take things too far.

1st off, it is my understanding that there are quite a few women (and young girls) that need the pill for health reasons, such as women with Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome, so it wouldn't be fair to prosecute these people.

But that aside, I think that there is a line. The school shouldn't be obligated to prescribe the pill to teenagers, as I do think that it becomes an enabler for those who would have underage sex for one, and for two there is too much risk involved with the pill to begin with (possible side effects ranging from hormone problems to infertility). Not to mention, ethical and moral concerns of allowing underage girls to bypass their parents through the schools. I just think that there is a line, and that the nurse and school staff and board members that condone offering the pill through the school system to underage teens have crossed it.

However, I think it is also across the line the other way to have it be illegal for underage teens to get birth control. I am of the opinion that these decisions should involve the girl and family and medical community, not the legal system.

You can't have it both ways. You can't expect teen pregnancy rates to go down while taking away the means for teens to protect against that. Sure, teach abstinence as a fundamental principle in school and at home, but preventing access to other measures in over the line.


----------



## MJS (Oct 26, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> Whoa... I think that is where the debate turns retarded, and the lawmakers take things too far.


 
Agreed.



> 1st off, it is my understanding that there are quite a few women (and young girls) that need the pill for health reasons, such as women with Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome, so it wouldn't be fair to prosecute these people.


 
Great point.  IMO, people hear the words 'birth control pill' and assume that it means that they're having or going to have sex.  



> But that aside, I think that there is a line. The school shouldn't be obligated to prescribe the pill to teenagers, as I do think that it becomes an enabler for those who would have underage sex for one, and for two there is too much risk involved with the pill to begin with (possible side effects ranging from hormone problems to infertility). Not to mention, ethical and moral concerns of allowing underage girls to bypass their parents through the schools. I just think that there is a line, and that the nurse and school staff and board members that condone offering the pill through the school system to underage teens have crossed it.


 
Agreed on both points.  As I said earlier, if anything was to be given it would make more sense for condoms, rather than something that needs to come from a doctor.



> However, I think it is also across the line the other way to have it be illegal for underage teens to get birth control. I am of the opinion that these decisions should involve the girl and family and medical community, not the legal system.


 
Funny how people, in this case the legal system, always get involved in other peoples business.



> You can't have it both ways. You can't expect teen pregnancy rates to go down while taking away the means for teens to protect against that. Sure, teach abstinence as a fundamental principle in school and at home, but preventing access to other measures in over the line.


 
Yup, and this goes back to what I said about people kidding themselves or wishing, hoping, etc. that things like this don't happen.


----------



## MJS (Nov 2, 2007)

Saw this today.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21577133/

Doesnt seem to be related to the original article posted here, but still relevant.  While skimming this, I saw a few interesting comments.



> "Kids are kids," said Danielle Kessenger, 39, a mother of three young children from Jacksonville, Fla., who supports providing contraceptives to those who request them. "I was a teenager once and parents don't know everything, though we think we do."


 


> It's not the school's place to be parents," said Robert Shaw, 53, a telecommunications company manager from Duncanville, Texas. "For a school to provide birth control, it's almost like the school saying, 'You should go out and have sex.'"


 


> "Parents should be in on it," said Jennifer Johnson, 29, of Excel, Ala., a homemaker and mother of a school-age child. "Birth control is not saying you can have sex, it's protecting them if they decide to."


----------



## Kacey (Nov 2, 2007)

This issue has now arrived in Denver as well.

Access to DPS birth control up for debate



> A proposal to provide contraceptives through six Denver high school health clinics has raised questions of what controls can be placed on students' access to birth-control drugs.
> Denver's school board is expected to consider recommendations by a 43-member task force on Tuesday.
> State statute says "no hospital, clinic, medical center, institution or pharmacy shall subject any person to any standard or requirement as a prerequisite for any contraceptive procedures, supplies or information."
> "Clearly, there needs to be some legal analysis done on that topic before we make any decisions," said school board member Michelle Moss, who was on the task force.
> "With parents' permission, it really remains a family issue," Moss said. "Without parent permission, it changes what that looks like. It would require further discussion to see what we felt comfortable recommending."


----------



## Ceicei (Apr 19, 2008)

An update to this thread:





> PORTLAND, Maine - For all the firestorm surrounding the decision to make prescription contraceptives available at King Middle School, only one girl has used the service in the six months since the program began, officials say.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24205628/

I wonder if this is a "solution to a non-existent problem" or if they are staying away for reasons not mentioned.

- Ceicei


----------



## Kacey (Apr 19, 2008)

I teach in a middle school - one where, I might add, several 8th grade girls are currently pregnant.  Nonetheless, I have a problem with this program, for several reasons:

- unless there is education prior to services, how will students that age (who are notoriously of the "it can't happen to me" mindset) even know when they are at risk for pregnancy, to know to go get contraceptions?  And yet, knowing the restrictions on sex ed in my school... I have doubts that the average middle school girl will know when to go
- there are medical conditions and medications that are contra-indicative for various types of contraceptives - but I know college students who are unaware of which medications they take or for what; how could middle school students be expected to be able to give the clinic a full medical history?
- if the child is sufficiently concerned about telling a parent that she goes to this clinic for birth control - what might happen to the child if she takes contraceptives home and the parents find them?
- granting that children this age are generally unable to raise children properly - how likely are they to recognize medical side effects of contraceptives should they occur?
- if the girl is taken to the doctor by her parent, who tells the doctor that of course the girl is not on contraceptives - the doctor could recommend a course of treatment that is contra-indicated when the person is taking contraceptives

I understand the rationale behind making contraceptives available in this fashion - but I am concerned that one of the above issues (or others) may arise, leading to more repercussions more severe than the provision of contraceptives is intended to solve.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 19, 2008)

There is no WAY the state should be handing out birth control to kids, and remember this, this was for 6th graders, thats on average, a 12 or 13 year old.

Ok, as has already been stated, these are prescription drugs. A doctors exam is required. HOW can the school give them out without an exam? What doctor would write that prescription without an exam?? 

And with liability issues being what they are, what doctor in his/her right mind is going to do an exam on a 12 year old without parental consent?

Plus, in many states, there is no such thing as "legal" sex for a 13 year old.


----------



## ArmorOfGod (Apr 19, 2008)

newGuy12 said:


> On the other hand, it seems very strange that 6th graders would be having sex to begin with. In this day in age, with such long life spans, it should be put off until later in life.


 
I work at a middle school, and they are bumping like bunnies.  Also, they are very open about it and open about having multiple partners.
Think of it: they go home to their thrice married parents and then turn on the ultra-over-sexed tv shows that is all that is on television, then they turn on the radio at any time of the day and hear amazingly sexual and graphic songs.
Challenge: google the lyrics to any r&b/rap/rock song that is popular right now.
I don't think the school system should hand the pills out though.  Let the parents deal with their failure, not the school system.

AoG


----------

