photo taken from teamsugar.com
Does the act of handing out condoms for free increase health risk and desire for sex, or is it a smart and effective health policy?
Is condom distribution smart health policy?
Note: Comments are moderated so be sure that your responses are expressed in a respectable and friendly way. We are here to express our thoughts toward controversial issues, not to scold or defame anyone. Watch what you say, and remember that by using this site, you agree to our Terms Of Use and Privacy Policy.
I think it is smart health policy because at least there will be some people who take the free condoms and then use them.
Honestly, most of these people these days are not wearing condoms because they are idiotic and don't care or understand the consequence of not protecting yourself.
Either way, at least there will be some people to accept the offer and maybe protect themselves from and unwanted child or STD.
Cheap and effective. I don't know about "smart" if it occurs in the absence of other programs that would make condom use more effective. Such as within an atmosphere promoting abstinence, it's probably almost useless then since such an atmosphere tends to denigrate condom use rather than inform.
So you 100% don't think that condoms increase promiscuity among individuals?
Yes it does. Handing out condoms for free is the same thing as free sampling. Same exact thing some drug dealers do. They hand out free products because they know they will lure them into it. You can't just have condoms flying around like that. That's why you have these little kids having sex.
No. I think promiscuity is already a given.
Yea but free condoms definitely promotes it.
Yes. So I'm saying do you think the condoms given out elevate that even more, or it stays at the same level and promotes safer sex?
I don't think "staying at the same level" is an optimal social policy to begin with (at least as a matter of law). I don't care very much if people are having consensual sex with their peers.
I would say it more or less stays at the same level as any other policy that we can pursue as an alternative, with far less of the social costs (teen pregnancy and the spread of disease).
No it doesn't. There are a number of multivariate studies that show otherwise. If condoms are a part of a larger, broad, program of sexual education there is no impact on sexual activity or promiscuity from condoms. And a larger, informative program will actually tend to reduce sexual promiscuity.
I might agree just giving them out would have some negative impacts (far outweighed by positive impacts), but this isn't what actually happens in the real world. It's bad enough that adults have to buy them in some places as though they are a prescription item where they are under lock and key. I don't see what the big deal with teens having equal access would be.
The problem is that teenage girls get pregnant, and then can go off and get the baby killed without even having parental consent.
Uh.. if you are using condoms… then it's a lot harder to get pregnant than using nothing at all (one of the principle effects of alternatives like abstinence only education). So I don't still don't see what the problem is.
They give out heroin to heroin addicts in Switzerland and the UK (not methadone). It actually results in positive societal benefits and not more heroin addicts. Giving condoms to people who are already likely to have sex and instructing them on their use or benefits is a lot smarter than pretending, or somehow demanding, that teens not have sex. That's ultimately up to them.
Thats completely absurd. Giving our heroin to heroin addicts is the last thing you should ever do. You can't instruct a teenager on sex because they don't listen. Older people, I'd say yes.
I read somewhere that like 1/100 or so are defective. That's a problem, especially if you're very young.
They do give it to heroin addicts. And it works quite well to moderate their addictions. Reality and facts seem to have fun getting in the way of opinions.
I believe this line of logic would be like saying that people die jumping out of airplanes. So they shouldn't need parachutes.
Good post Andrew. I agree with you.
Where in there does it provide evidence that it "promotes sex as just a recreation". This is a talking point. Not a factual assertion supported by academic research.
The 98% factor is useful to consider and point out (accurately, this statistic is usually not used or used in conjunction with other factors, like the proper use of a condom relative to their "failure" rates when they aren't used correctly). It is useful to be aware of this risk until it is compared to the rates of pregnancy or STD transmission in their absence. Which is essentially the alternative that the anti-condom folks give us since there is no real way to socially plan to control young people from avoiding sexual acts. It is almost entirely up to them.
I actually have some problems with condoms. They provide a false sense of security and promotes sex as just a recreation without any trust or even friendship first. If the moderators that be don't have a problem with it, I actually wrote a blog post that (sarcastically) talked about this issue:
http://omgobama.wordpress.com/2009/09/03/abstinen...
No slut shaming it doesn't have a "positive effect on reducing STDS", nor does it have much of anything positive to say for anything anywhere. There's not any evidence that this works. Nor does it make any sense that it applies to women and not men.
Limiting the number of partners actually happens because of the use of condoms. When you dig into the numbers. Look at Thailand.
Oh that’s bs. Of course you can influence young people’s sexual activities by providing them with real information. Kids want sex sure. But social pressure against being a slut certainly has an effect on deterring women from sleeping around (when it’s present) and that has a positive effect on reducing STDs. It’s not about limiting how often people have sex, just in limiting their number of partners to deter STD transmission. Yes there’s a pregnancy aspect to it too, but everyone gets told about that part, it’s the herpes that kids aren’t taught about. And the lie that condoms are a fool-proof safety net just promotes promiscuity.
Look into the numbers? Sociological studies of this sort of thing are near impossible and by nature subjective (plus you haven't offered any.) And so when I lack scientific evidence I trust my own judgment, which clearly shows me that making promiscuity social acceptable increases promiscuity.
Back in the ancient times of my youth there was a saying . . . "What good is it to take a shower with a raincoat on?"
That mentality still apply's with today's youth – it is not a question of being dumb or not, it is a question of getting the right feeling when having sex.
One minor solution to the problem is to be very choosey as to who you have sex with, even though that does not solve the problem.
There is not, and never has been a complete solution to the STD problem.
Just my not-so-humble opinion.
That is a very interesting concept that they developed. What is the scientific term for it?
Heroin assisted treatment. It's not like it's a shocking and sudden new concept to treat drugs as a medical problem rather than a criminal one.
If the site ever updates it, I linked about 9-10 studies. Some of them are gated, but they included their abstracts and results on the summary page. If you are not in a habit of reading academic research papers for your own amusement and possible enlightenment, that's not my problem.
The scientific evidence and proof you are asking for is available with a simple google scholar search if it doesn't update.
"If you are not in a habit of reading academic research papers for your own amusement and possible enlightenment, that's not my problem."
Ad hominum. I expected more from you. Claiming that I'm willfully ignorant on the subject because I'm not willing to do the research? I think I've shown myself to be fairly informed in these debate, and I expect a bti more honesty debate and respect form you concerning these things. It's not my fault if the site is making it difficult for you to bring your evidence forth. No reason to resort to crude sheap tactics like that.
I should really use a spell checker…
You have not shown yourself to be informed on this topic. So yes, it's not my problem if you don't want to look into the matter and instead want to assume you are right without proper information. Google scholar just isn't that hard to use. So from my perspective it couldn't be anything other than willful ignorance to pretend 1) that scientific rigorous investigation on this topic is impossible and 2) that there are not attempts to do just that and 3) that you will not bother looking for them.
And yes, it isn't your fault that this site isn't letting me post links. The frustration directed your way with that statement in particular was probably more properly directed at this website for not posting the data points I found with a cursory search.
Sun Tzu, this site has so many spam filters to ensure that we don't see any useless advertisements. I found yours under one filter. The only reason why it wasn't approved is because it contains more than one link in it, which spammers love to do, post lots of links.
I apologize if I was late approving it.
Yea but Sun Tzu, if you hand out condoms like that, you are pretty much saying, "Kids, you can have sex as long as you use these."
It's offering kids security in their decisions to have sex to begin with. If teenagers weren't even allowed to have condoms, they would barely have sex at all, but I know it will never happen, because of corporations and everything.
Most people will have sex with anyone that offers it, that is one of the main problems.
Drug dealers give our free samples. Department stores give our free samples. Bakeries give our free samples.
Yes, its wrong to directly take someone's tax dollars to use them on contraception for somebody else. But indirectly, it would save so many of the costs that result from unwanted children.
Of course, it would be wrong to give condoms for those who can already afford them.
I dont think people should have sex until they are ready to have a kid, because even if they do use a condom, there still is a chance that the girl might get pregnant.
the thing that gets me is that as soon as a guys sleeps around, hes a cool player, and when a chick does that, shes a slut. i dont see the logic, not that i promote it.
GAK!! ive seen that so often it makes me sick!! people should only have sex with people that they would want to have a family with. of course, thats not usually the case.