Ok I was just thinking what Denise said about JLS helping sell condoms to younger teenagers and a while back there was a campaign to get sexual health clinics into schools so teenagers (under 16s as well of course) could have a place to get free condoms, safe sex advice etc etc etc...
I had a massive debate with a friend about it because she said it encouraged them to have sex where I think kids are gonna do it WHATEVER (condom on or off) and better to arm them with all the info, a place to talk about it AND condoms so they can do it safely...
I agree with you. When teenagers decide they want sex, they're going to have it no matter what people say. I think not giving them access to condoms and the things they need is a bit stupid really. It's not going to stop most of them, so best to arm them for what's mostly inevitable.
Read a story in the paper today about them giving girls vouchers to have the cervical cancer jab. The Daily Mail was up in arms about how it was going to promote promiscuity. Erm, no? The human race has already demonstrated with it's rapidly growing population that cases of getting cancer from sex are rare. Hell, until there was all this fuss about it, I had NO IDEA you could potentially get cervical cancer from sex.
An alarming portion of teenagers go ahead and have unprotected sex regardless of the risk of pregnancy, and that's a relatively high risk. I don't think getting the risk of cervical cancer is going to change anything.
Same here. I actually did a job going around a few schools and teaching them about safe sex with a drama workshop and discussion forum, they were all around the 13/14 year old agegroup. Honestly, anyone who thinks a kid can get to 13+ without hearing about sex is naive to a pretty serious degree. But what they do hear is often half-truths and rumour, which is much more dangerous than any level of genuine education or "freebies".
Buying condoms can be intimidating. So much so that roughly half the girls in my year in school were having unprotected sex because they felt they couldn't walk into Boots and buy them. By marketting to them, and making it seem acceptable for them to pick up and carry a pack, that number will definitely reduce.
If kids are, right now, saying no to sex for whatever reason, then they're clearly strong enough to not bow to peer pressure over something so serious as it is: putting a "cool" label on the pack is not going to sway that group. The rest, who are doing it anyway, can only be helped by initiatives like this.
if you want to stop kids thinking sex is "cool" then get rid of almost every music vid thats in the charts. there was a survay that came out with over 50% of the vids shown depicted something of a sexual natuer or the song was of a sexual nature. and this is day time tv, not after the 9 o'clock watershead. Thats a lot worse than giving out free condoms
I agree with much of what has been said, it's important to protect kids because they will do it anyway... but I don't agree with the JLS thing.
I think it could encourage kids, I don't have an issue with JLS supporting the use of condoms, that is great, but I think when they plaster their face over packets it then becomes merchandise and something kids might want.
Some kids will do it what ever and if it encourages them to rubber up then great, but I also think just by being associated with JLS it might encourage some kids to do something their role models and idols do or make it more likely they are pressured in to it. It isn't necessarily a problem if teens have sex, teen sex is blown way out of proportion and 'feared' for plenty of silly reasons but from what I'm aware many of the people in to JLS are not mentally mature enough to understand all the baggage that comes with it.
I agree with the physical benefits but I am unsure about the potential negative mental impact.
if you want to stop kids thinking sex is "cool" then get rid of almost every music vid thats in the charts. there was a survay that came out with over 50% of the vids shown depicted something of a sexual natuer or the song was of a sexual nature. and this is day time tv, not after the 9 o'clock watershead. Thats a lot worse than giving out free condoms
That's an excellent point, we do live in a highly sexualised society and the benefits and costs are poorly understood however regardless of if it is worse perhaps it only adds to the problem when the same people appearing in those vids are trying to sell you condoms.
I think it could encourage kids, I don't have an issue with JLS supporting the use of condoms, that is great, but I think when they plaster their face over packets it then becomes merchandise and something kids might want.
I'm not sure I agree with it either, but I do agree with what BB said about it perhaps making them less afraid to buy them. I'd rather they buy the JLS condoms and then they're just there for when they need them, rather than not have them at all.
My own sister started having unprotected sex with her boyfriend purely because they didn't have any condoms to hand. As it was it turns out either she or her boyfriend is infertile, but she so easily could have ended up pregnant that day. I'm a smart and strong woman, I would NEVER have unprotected sex no matter how badly I wanted it, but there are people who are stupid/desperate enough to do it.
I think people need to start accepting that teens are going to have sex no matter what happens. I'd rather they be having protected sex than end up pregnant.
I agree with everyone else!! Back in the day when i was a young teen having sex condoms were quite difficult to get hold of! As was emergencey contraception!! And when i was 13 and they condom genuinly broke it took alot to get some help!!
I think it would be a great idea and i wish they had had it in schools when i was at school! I was lucky that i had a parent who understood and helped me when i needed it, as will i when my daughter is older! hat doesnt mean i want her having sex early! But at the end of the day they will do what they want when they want... But if its in her school i would feel fine with it! At least i no she would be able to be safe and no where to go should she get in trouble!
I think it could encourage kids, I don't have an issue with JLS supporting the use of condoms, that is great, but I think when they plaster their face over packets it then becomes merchandise and something kids might want.
I'm not sure I agree with it either, but I do agree with what BB said about it perhaps making them less afraid to buy them. I'd rather they buy the JLS condoms and then they're just there for when they need them, rather than not have them at all.
My own sister started having unprotected sex with her boyfriend purely because they didn't have any condoms to hand. As it was it turns out either she or her boyfriend is infertile, but she so easily could have ended up pregnant that day. I'm a smart and strong woman, I would NEVER have unprotected sex no matter how badly I wanted it, but there are people who are stupid/desperate enough to do it.
I think people need to start accepting that teens are going to have sex no matter what happens. I'd rather they be having protected sex than end up pregnant.
Well that's the thing. I don't deny it might have some net benefit but I don't think it's the right way to go about it. If you educate children properly and make condoms accessible in a non threatening environment, perhaps at schools, then you don't need their fave heart throb on a packet of rubbers.
I agree with much of what has been said, it's important to protect kids because they will do it anyway... but I don't agree with the JLS thing.
I think it could encourage kids, I don't have an issue with JLS supporting the use of condoms, that is great, but I think when they plaster their face over packets it then becomes merchandise and something kids might want.
Some kids will do it what ever and if it encourages them to rubber up then great, but I also think just by being associated with JLS it might encourage some kids to do something their role models and idols do or make it more likely they are pressured in to it. It isn't necessarily a problem if teens have sex, teen sex is blown way out of proportion and 'feared' for plenty of silly reasons but from what I'm aware many of the people in to JLS are not mentally mature enough to understand all the baggage that comes with it.
I agree with the physical benefits but I am unsure about the potential negative mental impact.
This is spot on! I think there's a difference between "endorsing" safe sex, and advertising condoms.
I'm not sure how this "marketing" is occuring but if it's a in a *JLS on the box, different face on each condom variety, collect them all* sort of fashion then yes it can be encouraging and pressuring that kids think that even JLS think it's ok and everyone else is taking part.
But if it's a *JLS says don't be silly, if you're having sex, rubber up* then that can be positive.
It all depends on how it's done - but I do agree something needs to be done for the benefit of all those misinformed/apathetic kids who don't know or care about the benefits of condoms!
Well they still sell the normal condoms too, without JLS on the packet.
People do have different ideas of a non-threatening environment though. For me at that age, I'd probably rather pop into Boots and get some condoms, rather than have to get them from someone I was likely to see around school time and time again! I know it's their job and it's all confidential and that, but teens' brains don't necessarily work that way.
Imagine for a moment being a young girl subjected to enormous vested interest pressure to have sex. The request/demand could come from a classmate or a gang member/s........ the fact that JLS or whoever has recommended safe sex could literally be a lifesaver as the girl offers it as a reason for not going along with the idea. JLS are girl magnets and thus will be listened to in those quarters......
Girls let's face it can require alll the helping input they can get at times...... the debate rumbles on!!!!
Imagine for a moment being a young girl subjected to enormous vested interest pressure to have sex. The request/demand could come from a classmate or a gang member/s........ the fact that JLS or whoever has recommended safe sex could literally be a lifesaver as the girl offers it as a reason for not going along with the idea. JLS are girl magnets and thus will be listened to in those quarters......
Girls let's face it can require alll the helping input they can get at times...... the debate rumbles on!!!!
But the fact it's JLS could increase the pressure applied along with classmates or gang members. If even JLS are encouraging sex then surely every body is doing it etc...
But JLS are promoting SAFE sex. If teens don't want sex, I don't think most of them would have it. However, for those in a position where they want sex and it's going to happen, if it really comes down to what JLS would do, at least they're doing the right thing.
Personally, I think teens who might be obsessed with JLS enough to think they're having sex so they must have sex also, they're on the bottom rungs of humanity, so we should at least stop them breeding :P
I don't think that any girl would have sex just because JLS are on the packet. The question to me is that are the kids that are going to have sex young really going to be listening to JLS? lol. I think that it is better to arm them with the facts and condoms. They need to know why it is so important to wear a condom - for STDs as well as pregnancy. There is a lot of naeivity where sex is concerned and I think that does more harm than anything else!
Oops, I just posted about this on the What's new thread.
Encouraging safe sex in teenagers is good...but JLS don't seem the right choice to me. I can imagine young girls who aren't having sex and don't want to, buying them purely because they have the band on. I think things like this can somehow lead to a very blase attitude towards sex at the age of 13/12/so on. Everyone knows that children are having sex, yes, but that doesn't mean we should necessarily accept it and let it become a norm that nobody batters an eyelid towards. Kids at that age just aren't ready imo and a sparkly pop campaign isn't the way to go about making sure they're safe.
And if it's aimed at slightly older teens then, again, JLS don't seem the right people for the job to me.
I don't think that any girl would have sex just because JLS are on the packet. The question to me is that are the kids that are going to have sex young really going to be listening to JLS? lol. I think that it is better to arm them with the facts and condoms. They need to know why it is so important to wear a condom - for STDs as well as pregnancy. There is a lot of naeivity where sex is concerned and I think that does more harm than anything else!
The problem is - things become fashionable very quickly and underage sex is already two thirds of the way there - we don't need the "good" girls thinking that it's less scary than they think (and yes I think kids should be taught that sex is wonderful but it is scary too which is why we have to me emotionally mature enough to deal with the scary side in order to enjoy the wonderful side) and feeling like the whole world plus JLS are at it!
Or the bad boys using JLS as an example of why girls should!
I think there are girls and boys who it won't make a difference too because they'll have sex when they want regardless *but* there are people who will be influenced negatively by JLS being on the packet.
I think sex education needs improving - and I certainly don't have a problem with celebs endorsing safe sex, but promoting it *is* a different matter and should be approached with caution!