Good luck with controlling your (or anyone’s) college kids in that regard.
You use “so” in an undefined way. But they are far more effective than nothing, regardless of your definition.
Well, the idea might be to not have sex … but I knew quite a few girls in my hometown who were pregnant in high school because they had no preparation to handle the situations and feelings that they encountered in their lives. Saying, “Don’t have sex” is not adequately preparing young people. Talk early, talk often, talk openly.
You are entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts.
This wouldn’t work for everyone, but it worked for me. When I was growing up, I never, ever discussed current issues in my personal life with my mother, but we had extensive “philosophical” discussions with no details from me and no “this is what you should do” from her. Just discussing problems we saw in the world.
With my kids, the closest I ever came to that was watching the movie “Before Sunrise” with them when they were in high school. It was almost perfect for providing situations that let us talk about the whole range of issues in a nuanced way without ever intruding into anyone’s privacy or threatening anyone.
I did not push any false facts. If so - please point that out specifically with evidence.
Yeah, but you didn’t say that. You made a blanket statement:
They are very effective when applied correctly. Not 100% of course, but they “work” most of the time. When used in combination with another method, that’s about as good as it gets.
One could say if you apply your seat belt but don’t push it until it clicks into place, that it won’t work. But that doesn’t mean that “seat belts don’t work.”
@Nrdsb4 You left off the following sentence from that quote, about how I need not go into details about how condoms can fail mechanically.
Also, I had a follow-on post:
“Also, when people disagree with my statement that condoms are ineffective, the impasse results from our difference of opinion on “ineffective.” Condoms may reduce risk, but they don’t eliminate risk. And if you want the lab-proven 99% effectiveness, I hope your child chooses to have sex in a lab.”
There are two major risks here: 1) improper application and/or failure, and 2) they cannot protect against skin-to-skin STD’s.
It is so dangerous to give kids the impression that condoms equal safe sex. Additionally, it is bizarre to encourage relationships where people are so distrusting of the other that they have sex without actually touching the other person.
It’s not obvious to me, reading that definition and your links, that a person with a BAC of 0.15 would be likely to fail either prong of that test. This is a complicated issue, and if you haven’t read some of the case law, it’s difficult to understand how the courts have interpreted the statutes. And obviously, the definition of consent at a college, according to their code of conduct, can differ from the legal definition of consent in the state, for criminal law purposes.
Quite frankly, I find this to be the most bizarre post in the thread.
Both kids knew the nuts and bolts. Hubby bought them both condoms and put them in their first aid kit.
We always stressed the easiest path to a good outcome was education, self sufficiency, marriage, baby in that order.
My biggest concern for them is anything surrounding assault and being safe. I also gave my opinion on hook ups, but having sex in a relationship was not my business.
I’ll throw out my comment on “condoms don’t work, the only safe sex is no sex.”
I wish I could cite the study, because it is a real peer reviewed study, maybe about 10 years old. But since it’s conclusions are pretty obvious to anyone who’s ever been a horny 18 year old (almost everyone) I didn’t bother to commit the citations down to memory and now I don’t know how to track it down. The study was checking on the outcome differences between abstinence only programs and safe sex programs. Basically the abstinence only programs did succeed in getting kids to hold off, but only for a few more months. The real difference was in condom usage. The abstinence only kids were MUCH less likely to be prepared when their hormones overwhelmed them. So when they did give in, which they by and large did do, they were much more likely to have unprotected sex. Which presumably also meant more unwanted pregnancy and STD’s.
Not sure which specific study you’re referring to @dadof4kids but there have literally been thousands of studies that show the exact same thing.
Seat belts also fail mechanically from time to time. Knowing that fact, do we say “seat belts don’t work”?
MODERATOR’S NOTE:
And on that note, I think it’s time to close the thread. The OP has some good feedback,but now the discussion is just a circular debate/