Is buying your child birth control supporting/encouraging sex?

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

If you let the kid know you expect them to have sex, then this thread has no meaning. I had expected that a parent would not admit that to their kid.

Well, there is a big difference between expecting your kid having sex, and admitting this expectation to the kid.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[quade 4]

Quote

Analogies aren't needed, and aren't useful for this subject. Analogies should be reserved for subjects that are hard to understand because of a technological complexity or something like that.

You don't think this subject is difficult to understand?

I suppose if a person has already made up their mind about a topic, then perhaps it isn't difficult (for them), but for the more open minded, analogy and correlation are not just ways to help others understand our positions, but help us understand our own.

In fact, according to a lot of texts on learning, correlation is one of the ways you can tell if somebody actually understands a subject.

A parrot can repeat words via rote memory, but that doesn't mean it understands any of them.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[HeadCone 0]

Quote

I know that a lot of analogies have already been used in this thread; some are valid some are a little far fetched.

Here's mine;

Q: Is buying your child birth control supporting/encouraging sex?
A: No more so than buying a reserve parachute would encourage them to have cutaway.

If a person is predisposed to perform an activity (and let's be realistic here if you're talking about young adults and their hormones), then to me it only makes sense to encourage them to be as safe as reasonably possible, because sooner or later, like it or not, they're going to perform the activity.

The problem with some of the analogies in this thread is that they don't properly relate to the thread topic. The thread topic is "Is buying your child birth control supporting/encouraging sex?" Add to that the *reason* the BC is given. We are not talking about providing the pill to a young girl to regulate her period nor are we talking about giving boys condoms because they ran out of balloons to make water balloons. We *are* talking about providing BC to prevent pregnancy.

So, the topic is about one person providing to another person an item to use as protection from the consequences of a certain activity. Reserves are gifted as protection from the consequences of skydiving. As such, one person providing to another person a reserve is support for (even encouragement of) that person skydiving. Also, one person providing to another person a reserve to use as a third parachute in an intentional cutaway is support for (even encouragement of) that person cuting away (note, the reason for the gift is important like it is for the thread topic).

Can you not see how this reserve gift (or my AAD gift) analogy demonstrates that the act of giving is the act of support/encouragement? It should be easy since there's no real stigma associated with supporting skydiving.

--Head

--
Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety!

http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

The problem with some of the analogies in this thread is that they don't properly relate to the thread topic. The thread topic is "Is buying your child birth control supporting/encouraging sex?"

And I still do not understand whether the original thread author meant the classification of your action (i.e. what would you religious neighbors said about this), or cosequences of your action (i.e. whether your action affects the child decision to have sex).

I understand you're explaining the first point - i.e. what would someone say about your actions, when you tell them you're buying your child birth control. However I don't think it was really the question.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[HeadCone 0]

Quote

And I still do not understand whether the original thread author meant the classification of your action (i.e. what would you religious neighbors said about this), or cosequences of your action (i.e. whether your action affects the child decision to have sex).

I understand you're explaining the first point - i.e. what would someone say about your actions, when you tell them you're buying your child birth control. However I don't think it was really the question.

After rereading through the OPs posts in this thread it actually doesn't seem explicitly clear to me one way or the other. I obviously assumed it was about the former.

But let's talk about the latter. I believe there are situations where kids will make the decision to not have sex because they don't have any BC. When does this decision occur? It doesn't necessarily have to be after they're already parked at Lover's Lane and all charged up after alot of heavy petting. It can come before that. "I'm out of condoms, we better not even go there." is not an impossible statement for a teen to make.

In my own life, I lost my virginity, in part, because I had a condom. If I didn't have a condom, I wouldn't have gone to the girl's house in the first place. I also have decided to not have sex (to even get started) because of lack of BC. And, I recall one incident where I noticed that the condom broke and was able to actually stop and put another one (after some discussion about what the hell happened). Point being, I wasn't so hormonally charged that I couldn't control myself.

I realize that all kids aren't always going to act that way. But, the fear of creating a pregnancy *can* be powerful enough for some kids in some situations to stop the act of sex. Admittedly, how much is up for debate.

--Head

--
Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety!

http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

[Nightingale 0]

I figure that if your child is

1. responsible enough to ask for birth control, and
2. comfortable enough talking to you to ask you for help getting it

You've probably been a damn good parent.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

But let's talk about the latter. I believe there are situations where kids will make the decision to not have sex because they don't have any BC. When does this decision occur? It doesn't necessarily have to be after they're already parked at Lover's Lane and all charged up after alot of heavy petting. It can come before that. "I'm out of condoms, we better not even go there." is not an impossible statement for a teen to make.

Looks like very unrealistic scenario for me. "I'm out of condoms, let's get them in nearest Safeway" would be more realistic.

Quote

In my own life, I lost my virginity, in part, because I had a condom.

So by backtracking it could we say that you was ready to lost your virginity - because there are really no more reasons to keep a condom with you?

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[HeadCone 0]

Quote

Looks like very unrealistic scenario for me. "I'm out of condoms, let's get them in nearest Safeway" would be more realistic.

Not if Safeway is closed. I'll concede one thing: The act of a parent giving their child BC will have zero influence on the number of times the kid has sex if and only if the kid has unrestricted and immediate access to BC through other means.

Do you think it is ever at all possible for two underage teens to make the decision to not have sex because they don't have any BC?

Quote

So by backtracking it could we say that you was ready to lost your virginity - because there are really no more reasons to keep a condom with you?

I'm honestly not quite sure what you're asking here.

--Head

--
Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety!

http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Not if Safeway is closed. I'll concede one thing: The act of a parent giving their child BC will have zero influence on the number of times the kid has sex if and only if the kid has unrestricted and immediate access to BC through other means.

I see it the following way: if the kid doesn't want sex, and a parent gives him condoms, he'll just throw them somewhere, and forget about them. If the kid wants to have sex, he goes to Safeway, buys a condom and puts it in his wallet. In both cases the access to real BC instance is somehow restricted - you have to keep it with you, no matter whether you got it from parents or from Safeway. How immediate it is - depends on the kid.

Quote

Do you think it is ever at all possible for two underage teens to make the decision to not have sex because they don't have any BC?

Yes, if by "not have sex" you mean but "not have sex right now, and probably do it tomorrow", not something like "let's wait until we're 18"

Quote

I'm honestly not quite sure what you're asking here.

I'm saying that if the person says he wouldn't have sex w/o condoms, but keeps comdoms with him, the person already made the decision about it.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[HeadCone 0]

Going back to "cosequences of your action (i.e. whether your action affects the child decision to have sex)" from a few posts back, I thought you were talking about the number of instances of having sex. I think maybe you're talking about (perhaps that plus) the kid's decision to become sexually active in general.

With that in mind, to answer this question:

Quote

So by backtracking it could we say that you was ready to lost your virginity - because there are really no more reasons to keep a condom with you?

I was ready, willing, and able to lose my virginity without my parents providing me with birth control. Even though my parents didn't support or encourage me, I did it anyway.

Are kids going to be sexually active even though their parents didn't give them BC? Sure, I didn't mean to suggest otherwise.

Is giving their kids BC an act of support/encouragement for them to have sex? Sure, if nothing else it saves them the time, trouble, and money (as little as it may be) of buying it for themselves. Plus, it helps to ensure they'll have it on them when needed.

--Head

--
Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety!

http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Going back to "cosequences of your action (i.e. whether your action affects the child decision to have sex)" from a few posts back, I thought you were talking about the number of instances of having sex.

Nope. I explicitly mentioned that number of instances doesn't really matter, as the child can get knocked up or get STD even from a single sexual contact. It is boolean - either the child is having sex (and it doesn't matter is it once a day or once a year), or he/she does not.

Quote

I was ready, willing, and able to lose my virginity without my parents providing me with birth control. Even though my parents didn't support or encourage me, I did it anyway.

So the question is, would you lose it, for example, two years earlier if your parents provide you with condoms?

Quote

Is giving their kids BC an act of support/encouragement for them to have sex? Sure, if nothing else it saves them the time, trouble, and money (as little as it may be) of buying it for themselves. Plus, it helps to ensure they'll have it on them when needed.

"Yes" to the first one, and "no" to the second one; unless the kid is having sex in his house, he personally must ensure that he'll have it on them when needed.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[HeadCone 0]

Quote

So the question is, would you lose it, for example, two years earlier if your parents provide you with condoms?

I probably would not have lost it that much earlier. I don't think that matters though. If my parents did provide me with BC and it wasn't until two years later that I actually had sex, then I would change my statement above to "Even though my parents supported my desire to have sex by buying me condoms, I didn't have the opportunity to do so until two years later."

--Head

--
Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety!

http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

I probably would not have lost it that much earlier. I don't think that matters though. If my parents did provide me with BC and it wasn't until two years later that I actually had sex, then I would change my statement above to "Even though my parents supported my desire to have sex by buying me condoms, I didn't have the opportunity to do so until two years later."

That's exactly my point:

- if your parents provide you with BC, but you do not want to have sex (for any reason, including not having an opportunity), you won't have sex.

- even if your parents do not provide you with BC, you'll get yours when you think it is time to have sex.

with conclusion that providing BC does not really affect child decision to have or not to have sex.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[HeadCone 0]

Quote

- if your parents provide you with BC, but you do not want to have sex (for any reason, including not having an opportunity), you won't have sex.

One, You went from the parents providing BC to the kid straight to the kid deciding not to have sex (i.e., become sexually active. *That's* what were talking about now right? Not, if/when they actually will have sex?). You skipped the part where the kid thinks about the decision (including using the fact that his/her parents just provided some BC to make that decision).

Two, you're "including not having an opportunity". This is misleading because it has nothing to do with the kid deciding to become sexually active. It only has to do with specifically when the kid loses their virginity.

Quote

- even if your parents do not provide you with BC, you'll get yours when you think it is time to have sex.

Again, skipping the decision making process plus one other important factor which is *why* the parents didn't provide BC. Was it because the parent's weren't asked or because they were asked but refused. The kid's decision may be more affected if they were explicitly refused the BC vs. just assuming the parents wouldn't provide it.

Quote

with conclusion that providing BC does not really affect child decision to have or not to have sex.

That doesn't follow from your previous statements since your previous statements didn't address "the decision".

--Head

--
Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety!

http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

One, You went from the parents providing BC to the kid straight to the kid deciding not to have sex (i.e., become sexually active. *That's* what were talking about now right? Not, if/when they actually will have sex?)

I thought those two are closely related. What is your definition of "being sexually active", if it is not related to "actually have sex"?

Quote

You skipped the part where the kid thinks about the decision (including using the fact that his/her parents just provided some BC to make that decision).

Personally I don't think the fact parents provide protection vs the parents do not provide protection (while maintaining the same attitude and openess) affects kid's decision.

Quote

Again, skipping the decision making process plus one other important factor which is *why* the parents didn't provide BC. Was it because the parent's weren't asked or because they were asked but refused. The kid's decision may be more affected if they were explicitly refused the BC vs. just assuming the parents wouldn't provide it.

Not necessary; they may refuse the BC for some reasons, but still support the kid's decision verbally

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[tbrown 26]

Only if you include the complete works of jenna Jameson with it.

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !