The level of sexual activity and number of partners may be lower than people in the early 20s (btw, that's certainly not universally true). But that's only one part of the transmission story. The other part of the story is asymptomatic transmission due to a lack of regular STI testing and access to adequate treatment.
In other words, high schools are particularly high risk environments not so much because high schoolers are more sexually active or have a greater number of parnters per se, because also and perhaps primarily because high school kids typically have a higher barrier to accessing regular STI testing and receiving STI treatment.
Excellent plan; if availability is universal it removes the perceived meaning from 'owning a condom' because if you have one it no longer has to be 'because you had some plans', it can purely be 'because everyone is prepared' (on top of the: simple health benefits due to removing barriers to availability is pretty significant).
Meh. Maybe this would have been a bigger deal when birth control was difficult to acquire, but the price has dropped so drastically it’s practically free these days. Also, I thought the narrative was that High Schoolers were having less sex than ever anyway.
Relying on birth control pills and other primarily woman-oriented techniques leaves 100% of the downsides to the woman (from health risks to emotional challenges and beyond). Comparatively, a condom has barely any downside for anyone involved.
70% is a bit dramatic. The pills do not protect against STDs. Also, when I was a teen, I did the math. Having 70% "worse" sex was actually 100% better than having 0% sex.
It's at least $1 per condom (if buying last minute, at a convenience store) and requires going out of the way to get them. As another comment noted, if having a condom wasn't a signal of intention then I think it would help with usage.
You must have missed the news that a certain group in the USA enjoys attempts at specifically controlling (genetically) female sexual activity, and people who want to do normal human things are sometimes legally forced to put as many compensating controls on the (genetically) male part of the population. And then there's the collection of non-pregnancy related issues that are mitigated when using a condom, so perhaps birth control is both more relevant and less relevant than you might think.
In a magical universe where everyone's parents are health-literate and willing to take their 16 year old daughter to the doctor's office to get birth control, maybe this line of reasoning might make sense. But in reality, you have a lot of teenagers who are going to have sex but live in a situation where getting birth control is not feasible. This goes a long way toward making sure they stay safe.
Purely anecdotally, I think the problem is less about the financial burden and more about high-school students being socially awkward and afraid to admit they might have sex, especially to adults at the cash register.
Of course we could also install vending machines, but it's unclear if putting a vending machine in every school, in multiple discrete places where students wouldn't be embarrassed to access it, would recoup the cost.
How is not that a thing already ? Especially in California, isn't it supposed to be a "progressive state" ? As a french person, the US seems totally bonkers about everything related to pregnancies and sex in general.
Like all US states, California is a collection of dense progressive islands in a sea of sparsely populated and variously conservative space. Any progressive policy still has to get buy-in from moderates and conservatives.
Indeed that's more or less what it looks like, thanks for the explanation though.
Reading the article, what seems even more bonkers is the fact that pharmacies refuse to sell condoms to "underage kids", is that a legal thing or just very conservative using their (admittedly very broken) personal sense of moral duty to not comply ?
An influential study finds that legalized abortion following Roe v. Wade accounts for a large portion of the decline in U.S. crime rates since the 1990s. But some economists are not convinced. [1]
The original freakonomics chapter on the topic talks about this as well, I believe.
They said (if I'm remembering this correctly) that there is some correlation to the decline of leaded gas, but the decline in crime occurred at different times in different states- and the states the legalized abortion sooner saw drops in crime sooner.
So if it's just the leaded gas, which changed for all of the US at once, why would there be any correlation to abortion laws at all?
The counterpoint here is that if you view abortion as murder (as many people in US do) then the utilitarian tradeoff is obviously balanced in the wrong direction. Whats worse, 600k murders (via abortion) or tens of thousands of general crimes (including regular murder, but mostly not murder such as burglary)?
Again, this is if you start with the assumption that abortion is wrong/murder.
Going further, if abortion is murder then doctors and pharmacists are part of a giant assembly line of baby murder and ought receive extreme penalty, such as the death sentence where available.
> All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
-14th Amendment, United States Constitution.
Whatever you think about fetuses, they haven't been born yet.
A fun party trick is to ask the gathered crowd if they'd prefer that abortion were legal, but unnaturalized residents have no rights, or that abortion isn't legal but all rights are extended to non-citizens.
It's almost certainly based on the dominant puritan culture. You know, abstinence-only people. Based on some quick googling, it seems like it's not too uncommon.
It's not a real option if you want to have sex, and lots of humans want to have sex. So if you want to have sex, but do not want to risk an STD or pregnancy, a condom is a highly effective tool.
Yes. It's really important that teenagers get to learn everything they can about the world. And sex is a huge part of it. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be guided or counseled about it, but they should be free to experience it within boundaries. Healthy humans will arise from that.
It’s not, because like compliance with taking say a contraceptive pill, people don’t manage to abstain. They get caught up in the heat of the moment, or pressured, or a thousand other things.
When you compare to other methods of birth control, it’s not effective for teens.
No one is arguing with you over you repeatedly pointing out that abstinence is 100% effective, because you're correct. It is 100% effective.
Using it as an argument against providing free condoms to high schoolers is just annoying and not constructive.
It's like arguing that cars don't need seatbelts by saying "we don't need seat belts, after all, not driving is a solution that's 100% effective in preventing vehicle collision injuries." True, but not even remotely useful as an argument for whether or not cars should have seatbelts.
I've seen two comments where you mention condoms in this thread. Perhaps there are more, but I have not seen then, nor replied to them.
The relevant sentences from those two comments:
> teaching abstinence as the ideal doesn’t mean you have shun condoms.
Ok.
> Abstinence is a 100% effective. Note that I explicitly acknowledged that kids will have sex sometimes and think they should use condoms if they do.
This is the only comment I've seen where you've acknowledged that kids will have sex, and that they should you use condoms. If you've said it elsewhere in this thread, I haven't seen it.
While it's true you haven't argued against condoms, it's hard to imagine you support schools providing free condoms when your response to the idea is consistently "abstinence is 100% effective."
> If you agree with everything I said why are you opposing me?
What I am opposing is the repetition of "abstinence is 100% effective."
Why is stating this important to you? Are you suggesting it as an alternative to handing out condoms? Are you suggesting that abstinence education is preferable?
Fasting is a real option. Sure, not everyone will practice it. But it remains the best way to avoid food poisoning and should be recognized as such. /s
While technically true, asking people to actively suppress biological motivations doesn't work.
I think expecting high schoolers to abstain from sex is about as realistic as asking them to abstain from eating.
I'm saying nothing about whether either of those biological impulses is necessary or not, only that they're both very influential motivators for humans.
Then it’s a bad analogy, because eating is necessary. Sex is not. Some amount of sex is inevitable but it does not preclude you from teaching abstinence as the ideal. And teaching abstinence as the ideal doesn’t mean you have shun condoms. What motivates people to create this false dichotomy?
Perhaps the worst possible thing we could teach kids about their biological urge to have sex is that they can’t control it.
The kind of subtly you're by implication asking for - "we don't think this is a good idea but here's a tool to make it safer" - is the kind of thing that parents struggle with. Schools? That's impossible for them. They can barely manage saying yes(and here're some condoms) or No.
The question isn’t why they shouldn’t. The question is why they should.
Free for instance means over consumption and waste. Either it will be at the schools discretion, which is bad, or bad actors will take everything resulting in some not having access to a condom until a refill.
The delinquents at my high school commonly repurposed Condoms as balloons and had them laying around the school as a prank. And condoms were never free at my school.
Just blow them up with your breath, tie up the ends and watch people get disgusted as you leave them around.
I mean, yeah, delinquents are gonna be a pain in any case but free anything is just asking for trouble.
How many condoms is acceptable for one to take at once? Regardless of the number, unless it is infinity, who are you, or me to decide?
The issue with free is it puts no cost to taking more than necessary, so inevitably people will take more than necessary. You can’t realistically stock an infinite amount so the end result is temporary shortages.
Worked out fine for my college. The free condoms were amazing for students at a time when the prices in retail were absolutely insane and many of us didnt have disposable income.
well with college you already have to pay so the situation is different. and I'm sure the free condoms were not always available, which is effectively the issue here.
Your options are 1) to have set times when everyone has to lineup to get a water bottle, or 2) have a bunch of water bottles available at all times for anyone to come take when they want.
Option 2 works pretty well since kids know when they are thirsty. (Obviously. Otherwise the kids would all die of thirst under option 1 as well)
A strange phenomenon emerges however when you start with option 1 and then halfway through the summer another counselor attempts to implement option 2. The kids have been preconditioned to expect that they NEED to get a bottle when the bottles are available or they won't have access to water later. It takes some time for the kids to figure out that the waterbottles are now available at all times and they don't need to carry one around all the time "just in case". Till then you have a small riot around the cases of water bottles for a few mornings.
Option 2 distributes the water in a more efficient manner. The kids who spend time playing soccer will take more water than the kids who stay inside playing chess.
This is my own experience as that other counselor. You can work out the analogy, I'm sure.
Yes. This is a better wording of the point I was making in a comment below—which somehow everyone is criticizing as “males need to share in the responsibility”. Putting that aside as a separate debate, I am worried about unintended consequences as well as the generally small effect size when the price of all birth control is so cheap these days.
How much does a vending machine cost? Would you even make your money back? Also it's a pain to install, and would likely be placed somewhere central where everyone sees you using it.
The barrier isn't the financial cost. It's the social stigma.
You have to walk up to that machine, where others can see you, and purchase it. People talk, maybe your parents find out, etc. I grew up in a super conservative area- the only way I bought condoms was by being the clerk at the gas station and buying it when literally no one was around. Because that was the only way.
But if everyone gets handed them handed out for free, well, there's no stigma because everyone has them.
And the cost to the government is peanuts compared to the cost of all the teenage pregnancies by kids who sure as heck can't afford to raise kids.
In addition to the social stigma mentioned by others, easy availability is a key factor as well. When I was an RA in college, condoms were available for free from our health center. In addition, RAs also got condoms to give out as needed and we stocked them nightly in our RA office by the front entrance. I let everybody know they could ask for them anytime, privately and without any conversation aside from could I get protection, here ya go, thank you, sure thing. The occasional late night wake-up was worth ensuring folks were safe.
They did this at my college years ago, and they were the industrial strength, extra-thick, completely lack of any sensation type that was only to be used as a last resort. I hope this has changed since.
>>Free products are distributed at local businesses, community-based organizations and health care facilities. The Health Department's NYC Condom Availability Program gives away more than 30 million free safer sex products every year to over 3,500 locations throughout the five boroughs. These free products include male NYC Condoms, internal condoms (FC2) and lubricant.
What, you don't hand out free condoms in High school? I had to ask the school nurse, but we had them available in middle school. Weird moment, but the school nurse took a moment to explain basic stuff I didn't know at the time.
90 comments
[ 0.17 ms ] story [ 182 ms ] threadIn other words, high schools are particularly high risk environments not so much because high schoolers are more sexually active or have a greater number of parnters per se, because also and perhaps primarily because high school kids typically have a higher barrier to accessing regular STI testing and receiving STI treatment.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2022/12/13/23505459/...
Let the guy share some of the responsibility.
They should share 100% of the responsibility for their ejaculate
Plus birth control pills have side effects
I thought so too until I moved to a small town in Ohio, and learned about teen pregnancies.
May be less teen having sex but more teens having unprotected sex because they wanted to get their noodle wet.
Of course we could also install vending machines, but it's unclear if putting a vending machine in every school, in multiple discrete places where students wouldn't be embarrassed to access it, would recoup the cost.
When I was in school in another state, many moons ago, they had free condoms available.
It is and has been for a long time, but not everywhere in the state, hence the mandate.
Here's a news story about opposition to the existing program in the state's largest district having evaporated... in 1993.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-07-06-me-10392-...
Abortion and Crime, Revisited -podcast [2]
https://journalistsresource.org/economics/abortion-crime-res...
https://freakonomics.com/podcast/abortion-and-crime-revisite...
They said (if I'm remembering this correctly) that there is some correlation to the decline of leaded gas, but the decline in crime occurred at different times in different states- and the states the legalized abortion sooner saw drops in crime sooner.
So if it's just the leaded gas, which changed for all of the US at once, why would there be any correlation to abortion laws at all?
Again, this is if you start with the assumption that abortion is wrong/murder.
> All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
-14th Amendment, United States Constitution.
Whatever you think about fetuses, they haven't been born yet.
A fun party trick is to ask the gathered crowd if they'd prefer that abortion were legal, but unnaturalized residents have no rights, or that abortion isn't legal but all rights are extended to non-citizens.
When you compare to other methods of birth control, it’s not effective for teens.
Using it as an argument against providing free condoms to high schoolers is just annoying and not constructive.
It's like arguing that cars don't need seatbelts by saying "we don't need seat belts, after all, not driving is a solution that's 100% effective in preventing vehicle collision injuries." True, but not even remotely useful as an argument for whether or not cars should have seatbelts.
If you agree with everything I said why are you opposing me?
The relevant sentences from those two comments:
> teaching abstinence as the ideal doesn’t mean you have shun condoms.
Ok.
> Abstinence is a 100% effective. Note that I explicitly acknowledged that kids will have sex sometimes and think they should use condoms if they do.
This is the only comment I've seen where you've acknowledged that kids will have sex, and that they should you use condoms. If you've said it elsewhere in this thread, I haven't seen it.
While it's true you haven't argued against condoms, it's hard to imagine you support schools providing free condoms when your response to the idea is consistently "abstinence is 100% effective."
> If you agree with everything I said why are you opposing me?
What I am opposing is the repetition of "abstinence is 100% effective."
Why is stating this important to you? Are you suggesting it as an alternative to handing out condoms? Are you suggesting that abstinence education is preferable?
While technically true, asking people to actively suppress biological motivations doesn't work.
I think expecting high schoolers to abstain from sex is about as realistic as asking them to abstain from eating.
I'm saying nothing about whether either of those biological impulses is necessary or not, only that they're both very influential motivators for humans.
Perhaps the worst possible thing we could teach kids about their biological urge to have sex is that they can’t control it.
So while it is indeed a real option, it's one of the worst available options.
The first (of many) study reports backing this up: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/08/23/5452891...
What you linked is about abstinence only education. I explicitly acknowledged that kids having sex was inevitable.
Those that abstain don’t have to pick them up, but could still practice I guess
Surely a bubble gum style vending machine and selling them at cost (or quarter or less) would be possible as well?
I think I’m mainly jaded of the government giving away things and the generally negative outcomes it creates sometimes.
Why do you think they shouldn't be?
> I think I’m mainly jaded of the government giving away things and the generally negative outcomes it creates sometimes.
What are your predicted bad outcomes of more-freely available condoms?
Free for instance means over consumption and waste. Either it will be at the schools discretion, which is bad, or bad actors will take everything resulting in some not having access to a condom until a refill.
Cheap is better than free imho
It must be extraordinarily scary to live with such suspicion and paranoia.
Just blow them up with your breath, tie up the ends and watch people get disgusted as you leave them around.
I mean, yeah, delinquents are gonna be a pain in any case but free anything is just asking for trouble.
It really costs next to nothing, and prevents both teen pregnancies and STDs.
The issue with free is it puts no cost to taking more than necessary, so inevitably people will take more than necessary. You can’t realistically stock an infinite amount so the end result is temporary shortages.
Goal: you want all the kids to stay hydrated.
Your options are 1) to have set times when everyone has to lineup to get a water bottle, or 2) have a bunch of water bottles available at all times for anyone to come take when they want.
Option 2 works pretty well since kids know when they are thirsty. (Obviously. Otherwise the kids would all die of thirst under option 1 as well)
A strange phenomenon emerges however when you start with option 1 and then halfway through the summer another counselor attempts to implement option 2. The kids have been preconditioned to expect that they NEED to get a bottle when the bottles are available or they won't have access to water later. It takes some time for the kids to figure out that the waterbottles are now available at all times and they don't need to carry one around all the time "just in case". Till then you have a small riot around the cases of water bottles for a few mornings.
Option 2 distributes the water in a more efficient manner. The kids who spend time playing soccer will take more water than the kids who stay inside playing chess.
This is my own experience as that other counselor. You can work out the analogy, I'm sure.
I (incorrectly) thought that was obvious.
You have to walk up to that machine, where others can see you, and purchase it. People talk, maybe your parents find out, etc. I grew up in a super conservative area- the only way I bought condoms was by being the clerk at the gas station and buying it when literally no one was around. Because that was the only way.
But if everyone gets handed them handed out for free, well, there's no stigma because everyone has them.
And the cost to the government is peanuts compared to the cost of all the teenage pregnancies by kids who sure as heck can't afford to raise kids.
>>Free products are distributed at local businesses, community-based organizations and health care facilities. The Health Department's NYC Condom Availability Program gives away more than 30 million free safer sex products every year to over 3,500 locations throughout the five boroughs. These free products include male NYC Condoms, internal condoms (FC2) and lubricant.