# Now extra small condoms for 12-yr-olds



## abcd (Mar 4, 2010)

> *Now extra small condoms for 12-yr-olds*
> London: Switzerland has probably become the first country in the world to sell extra small condoms for boys as young as 12 years, though the official age of consent in the land-locked nation is 16.
> 
> Called 'Hotshot', the condoms -- with a diameter of 4.5 cm as compared to a standard cap's 5.2 cm -- have been produced after a Swiss government research revealed that 12 to 14-year-olds didn't use sufficient protection when having sex.
> ...




 News of the day


----------



## Zaru (Mar 4, 2010)

Considering the ego issues of 12 year olds, nobody will buy "the smallest possible condom". That's like admitting your dick is tiny.


----------



## blue berry (Mar 4, 2010)

bhahaha. I'm pretty sure they won't buy it


----------



## Sunuvmann (Mar 4, 2010)

@Zaru: Though considering they're getting laid at 12, it apparently doesn't matter


----------



## Kathutet (Mar 4, 2010)

if a 30 year old male purchases this, you know you'll need to... 
have a seat with him

_*YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHH*_


----------



## Zaru (Mar 4, 2010)

Kenneth said:


> if a 30 year old male purchases this, you know you'll need to...
> have a seat with him
> 
> _*YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHH*_



You realize that doesn't make sense  ?


----------



## Kathutet (Mar 4, 2010)

yes.

after carefully thinking about it for one minute, yes.

edit: oh fuck you and your "now he can't delete it and hide his idiocy" quoting 
edit: don't neg me bro

edit: but I STILL HATE YOU


----------



## Aster The Megalomaniac (Mar 4, 2010)

Maybe they should sell "big condoms with secret hidden adjustable strap at the edge that only 12 year olds know about" for ego's sake.

Btw, how do you get an obama icon for the thread title?


----------



## Mintaka (Mar 4, 2010)




----------



## Dalis (Mar 4, 2010)

LOL That would be embarassing.


----------



## Nawheetos (Mar 4, 2010)

Oh

Well uh, OK... I seriously doubt kids are going to want to go out and buy mini condoms.  

Guh, kids having sex is disturbing


----------



## Mr Serenity (Mar 4, 2010)

I used to buy condoms around 14 (I was already having sex). The liquor store guy would be like "have fun". It always embarrassed me just a bit.


----------



## QwertyoPIZ (Mar 4, 2010)

Because we need to promote sex of 12 year olds by giving them condoms.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Mar 4, 2010)




----------



## Y (Mar 4, 2010)

If you can't beat them, troll them with tiny condoms


----------



## Meshach (Mar 4, 2010)

No teenagers in that age have the guts to buy a condom, I'm sure they'll be just embarrass.


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Mar 4, 2010)

Lord this is just........necessary but stil kinda shocking .



Zaru said:


> Considering the ego issues of 12 year olds, nobody will buy "the smallest possible condom". That's like admitting your dick is tiny.



Well duh .


----------



## dummy plug (Mar 4, 2010)

now old pencil-dicks men have a reason to buy one: "For my 12 y/o son"


----------



## @lk3mizt (Mar 4, 2010)

oh, the pope wont like this!


----------



## Miss Fortune (Mar 4, 2010)

They go on about how bad it is that kids are having sex at a young age and yet they put out condoms for 12 year olds.

It's pretty stupid.

But, it's commercial advertising. Money is power after all... eckk..


----------



## Elim Rawne (Mar 4, 2010)

Hey,Mael can wear condoms now


----------



## Hand Banana (Mar 4, 2010)

Men in India have been using those size condoms for years.



Diceman said:


> Hey,Mael can wear condoms now when we have gay sex together




:LMAO ewwwww man thats gross. LOL Mael.


----------



## Vanity (Mar 4, 2010)

Creepy.

It might promote more kids that age to have sex although I guess if they're going to do it anyway it's best that they use protection. :S

There are some adult guys with really small penises though so does this mean that nothing fit them before? :S


----------



## Akatou (Mar 4, 2010)

I can't look at 12 year olds here in the eyes anymore now, thx


----------



## Hand Banana (Mar 4, 2010)

Kyasurin Yakuto said:


> Creepy.
> 
> It might promote more kids that age to have sex although I guess if they're going to do it anyway it's best that they use protection. :S
> 
> There are some adult guys with really small penises though so does this mean that nothing fit them before? :S



How is that gonna promote more sex jurst because they released it for them? If anything it'll make them not want to use it. Kids that age be on some reverse psychology shit.


----------



## Lapidouce (Mar 4, 2010)

Thinking that 12 years-old teenager is quite disturbing. Was that really needed ? It doesn't help education at all. But at least, as someone said, they are protected right ?


----------



## Psycho (Mar 4, 2010)

it's a trick, the barcode on all the packages is malprinted on purpose, if you take one to the cashier he'll have to scream out "HEY, STEVE, GET ME THE PRICE ON THE XXS CONDOMS" and make sure every single girl in the place hears it


----------



## QwertyoPIZ (Mar 4, 2010)

Psycho said:


> it's a trick, the barcode on all the packages is malprinted on purpose, if you take one to the cashier he'll have to scream out "HEY, STEVE, GET ME THE PRICE ON THE XXS CONDOMS" and make sure every single girl in the place hears it



I wonder why it would matter the size of the condom when you are going to show your dick to the girl anyways


----------



## Psycho (Mar 4, 2010)

QwertyoPIZ said:


> I wonder why it would matter the size of the condom when you are going to show your dick to the girl anyways



condoms are funny until they burst... then they're hilarious


----------



## ragnara (Mar 4, 2010)

What are they going to call them? 

Tiny child condoms? No one will buy them.
Special condoms without the size printed on them? They risk adults buying them who don't know about the size.


----------



## Tkae (Mar 4, 2010)

Ok, two things.

1.) This is insulting to the size of 12-year old penis.

2.) This is TMI as to the size of 12-year old penis.


----------



## Psycho (Mar 4, 2010)

ragnara said:


> What are they going to call them?
> 
> Tiny children condoms? No one will buy them.
> Special condoms without the size printed on them? They risk adults buying them who don't know about the size.



i don't know about there, but every single pharmacy i've ever been into around here separates condoms by specifications

top left are regulars, middle top are XL, top right are flavoured, bottom left are S and XS, middle bottom are textured and right bottom are female condoms

EDIT: thinking about it again, it's the same layout in every single pharmacy i've ever been into... weird


----------



## Petenshi (Mar 4, 2010)

Psycho said:


> i don't know about there, but every single pharmacy i've ever been into around here separates condoms by specifications
> 
> top left are regulars, middle top are XL, top right are flavoured, bottom left are S and XS, middle bottom are textured and right bottom are female condoms
> 
> EDIT: thinking about it again, it's the same layout in every single pharmacy i've ever been into... weird



You sure know a lot about pharmacy condom layouts O.o

I think these are great for practice.


----------



## Tkae (Mar 4, 2010)

ragnara said:


> What are they going to call them?





> *Called 'Hotshot'*, the condoms -- with a diameter of 4.5 cm as compared to a standard cap's 5.2 cm -- have been produced...



Take your Riddlin


----------



## ragnara (Mar 4, 2010)

Psycho said:


> i don't know about there, but every single pharmacy i've ever been into around here separates condoms by specifications
> 
> top left are regulars, middle top are XL, top right are flavoured, bottom left are S and XS, middle bottom are textured and right bottom are female condoms
> 
> EDIT: thinking about it again, it's the same layout in every single pharmacy i've ever been into... weird



I honestly don't know about pharmacy layouts, haven't been to one in about 15 years.



Tkae said:


> Take your Riddlin



Is the size printed on them? I doubt these layouts exist in every pharmacy/gas-station/grocery store in Switzerland.


----------



## Psycho (Mar 4, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> You sure know a lot about pharmacy condom layouts O.o
> 
> I think these are great for practice.



i remember how i reach out my hand to grab certain types


----------



## Tkae (Mar 4, 2010)

ragnara said:


> Is the size printed on them? I doubt these layouts exist in every pharmacy/gas-station/grocery store in Switzerland.



Well, considering these are the only condoms being sold for 12 year olds -- thus is why this is news -- I'm guessing it should be a common sense sort of thing.

But you could always take a trip to Switzerland to find out


----------



## Emigan (Mar 4, 2010)

Oh c'mon


----------



## Psycho (Mar 4, 2010)

Ends With A Bang said:


> Oh c'mon



we have our first customer!


----------



## ShiningStar (Mar 4, 2010)

Can you imagine a 40 year old guy asking a 12 year old boy to buy condoms for him!!  

Yo kiddo if you buy me this 12 year old condoms then I'll buy you a bottle of Johnny walker!


----------



## E (Mar 4, 2010)

great job keep encouraging the little creeps to keep fucking like rats


----------



## T7 Bateman (Mar 4, 2010)

Wow that's just.... I don't think they will buy them and it sad to think that it has come to this. I don't believe 12 year olds should be having sex but the truth is they are. You could bury our heads in the sand and act like it's not having or we could take steps to try to protect them. I just hope parents are talking to their children so that they will not be having sex underage.


----------



## samnas (Mar 4, 2010)

They really care about their young ones ...


----------



## Akatou (Mar 4, 2010)

I'm off to look for them now  I'll tell you guys what they look like and exactly where they're positioned on the shelves. I might stalk around for few nervous 12 year olds, who knows~


----------



## Hinako (Mar 4, 2010)

E said:


> great job keep encouraging the little creeps to keep fucking like rats


your sig ain't helping


----------



## Kefka (Mar 4, 2010)

A diameter of 4.5? I hope they mean perimeter...


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Mar 4, 2010)

We need some for 9 year olds next. Extra extra small ones. And birth control pills for 7 year old girls. Maybe we can start up a decent porn industry out of it while we're at it.


----------



## impersonal (Mar 4, 2010)

Kefka said:


> A diameter of 4.5? I hope they mean perimeter...



They mean diameter. Standard condom diameter is between 5.2cm and 5.6cm depending on the brand. Maybe you're confusing with inches?


----------



## Kefka (Mar 4, 2010)

That's 6 cm, it seems rather wide for a condom, but yeah, too small to be perimeter, so I guess you're right.


----------



## Zhariel (Mar 4, 2010)

If I were 12, getting laid somehow, and had the choice between baby dick condoms or pulling out...I'd have to pull out. It's ego, like everyone else said. These little condoms may accidentally promote unsafe sex.

But no worries, the company will make it's money in Asia


----------



## MunchKing (Mar 4, 2010)

I have just now recovered from the laughing fit the title gave me.



Kids these days.


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Mar 4, 2010)

Awww aren't young couples sweet?


----------



## Mintaka (Mar 4, 2010)

I do like the idea behind it since they are trying to promote safe sex.


To bad it won't work.


----------



## MunchKing (Mar 4, 2010)

I'm going to Switzerland this weekend (Geneva), perhaps I will ask the locals how they feel about this. 

Still can't believe it. Who in their right mind would think this is a good idea?


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Mar 4, 2010)

I can think of someone but he ain't around the White House anymore .


----------



## Hand Banana (Mar 4, 2010)

samnas said:


> They really care about their young ones ...



I know. Its a shame isn't it? Countries that care about their children.


----------



## Utopia Realm (Mar 4, 2010)

nanagonana said:


> LOL That would be embarassing.



Only if your out of high school and have a job. This seems to be leading to a very big problem.


----------



## Deleted member 174958 (Mar 4, 2010)

HOLY. CA-RAP.

Just keep leading our kids to think it's okay to start screwing people at twelve. I swear to god, when people do crap like this they just prove how much of  a stupid shit they are.


----------



## Hand Banana (Mar 4, 2010)

Ishinoue said:


> HOLY. CA-RAP.
> 
> Just keep leading our kids to think it's okay to start screwing people at twelve. I swear to god, when people do crap like this they just prove how much of  a stupid shit they are.



Way to be uneducated. They are trying to promote children to have sex safely and not spread stds or increase the teen pregnancy stats. If you were educated you would understand that. Its hard to try and prevent children from not having sex especially when they are constantly exposed to it. But apparently you have no clue about it.


----------



## hehey (Mar 4, 2010)

> The study, conducted on behalf of Federal Commission for Children and Youth, interviewed 1480 people *aged 10 *to 20. It showed more 12 to 14-year-olds were having sex as compared with the 1990s, The Daily Telegraph reported.


Get the hell out of here, you really expect kids age 10 to 14 to answer these questions honestly, interview my ass, i bet the Switzerland government would believe anything if thats the case.


----------



## Hand Banana (Mar 4, 2010)

hehey said:


> Get the hell out of here, you really expect kids age 10 to 14 to answer these questions honestly, interview my ass, i bet the Switzerland government would believe anything if thats the case.



And how does this hurt them? How is this a bad thing?


----------



## Sen (Mar 4, 2010)

I think that's smart that they are at least putting out some sexual protection for them.  Hopefully if they are having sex, they'll make sure to use something that will prevent pregnancy/STDs since it's for their own protection.

Kind of shocking too though since they're so young.


----------



## ScorpioNN (Mar 4, 2010)

If you cant beat them join them.


----------



## Time Expired (Mar 4, 2010)

I can hear it now - "What...I'm buying them for a friend."


----------



## RoguefanAM (Mar 4, 2010)

Eww. 12 year olds should not be having sex in the first place (imo).

Rationally, it makes sense to offer them protection since most find a way to do it anyway, but it still rubs me the wrong way.

Hm, do Swedish schools also teach sex ed at around that age? Knowing of sex, and knowing the _risks_  (besides pregnancy) that can come with sex don't always correlate, especially at young ages.


----------



## Sun Kai (Mar 4, 2010)

what is this i dont even


----------



## On and On (Mar 4, 2010)

lol babydick


----------



## saprobe (Mar 5, 2010)

Maybe it'll work as long as the packaging doesn't give away the fact that they're for minidicks. Call them something virile like Lance or Tower Condoms and have the smaller diameter part in tiny print.


----------



## g_core18 (Mar 5, 2010)

Is this the politically correct way of making condoms for asians?


----------



## Proxy (Mar 5, 2010)

Zaru said:


> Considering the ego issues of 12 year olds, nobody will buy "the smallest possible condom". That's like admitting your dick is tiny.



/this

Who would own up to needing a "hotshot" sized condom? 

And it's all the more funny that they picked a name like hotshot, thinking the kid would run out to get it.


----------



## Red (Mar 5, 2010)

Men with small penises will be the biggest customers


----------



## Elias (Mar 5, 2010)

[sarcastic comment / joke goes here]


----------



## abcd (Mar 5, 2010)

@ ppl saying that 12 yr olds shouldn't be having sex ...

They are having sex ... U can't stop them ... Atleast give them protections .


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 5, 2010)

RoguefanAM said:


> Eww. 12 year olds should not be having sex in the first place (imo)..



This. Of course I know so many of you think this is totally appropriate. Not that I actually care about what you think. But I think its a true show of something inherently wrong with us.


----------



## Subarashii (Mar 5, 2010)

I would say at least they're promoting condom use but I'm too busy throwing up.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 5, 2010)

abcd said:


> @ ppl saying that 12 yr olds shouldn't be having sex ...
> 
> They are having sex ... U can't stop them ... Atleast give them protections .


"Oh yeah, people are already robbing stores. We can't stop them so lets just give them better guns to make it safer on them!"


----------



## abcd (Mar 5, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> "Oh yeah, people are already robbing stores. We can't stop them so lets just give them better guns to make it safer on them!"



I tried a lot but failed to understand this comparison


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 5, 2010)

abcd said:


> I tried a lot but failed to understand this comparison


I don't see how, its not really all that hard.


----------



## abcd (Mar 5, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I don't see how, its not really all that hard.



So having sex is like robbery and giving them condoms is like increasing their attacking power  ... Thats a nice strawman u got there


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 5, 2010)

abcd said:


> So having sex is like robbery and giving them condoms is like increasing their attacking power  ... Thats a nice strawman u got there



No its not a strawman, you need to look up the term. 

It's called an analogy and what you're doing right now is a strawman, the analogy makes perfect sense. You don't enable someone when they do something wrong, you stop them.


----------



## Psych (Mar 5, 2010)

Do they honestly think that 12 year olds would be buying them?


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Mar 5, 2010)

Yes because two kids having sex is just as bad as armed robbery. As a matter of fact they're the same thing. 

Seriously all this means is that the 12 year old boys aren't going to be getting the 12 year old girls pregnant. Then the girl doesn't need to have an abortion to get on with her life. 

As a pro-lifer you should be for this.


----------



## Pilaf (Mar 5, 2010)

My cock was actually just about as big then as it is now. And no it wasn't extra small.


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Mar 5, 2010)

Extra small for a 12 year old anyway.


----------



## QwertyoPIZ (Mar 5, 2010)

What these guys are doing is advertising illegal sex, under aged sex, and who knows what else? 

Sure its normal to want sex even before puberty, but we don't need pregnant 12 year olds.

Who knows maybe this is a trap to catch them 
Let's punish them all by searing their cocks every time they get caught buying condoms.


----------



## Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (Mar 5, 2010)

Rob` said:


> Yes because two kids having sex is just as bad as armed robbery. As a matter of fact they're the same thing.
> 
> Seriously all this means is that the 12 year old boys aren't going to be getting the 12 year old girls pregnant. Then the girl doesn't need to have an abortion to get on with her life.
> 
> As a pro-lifer you should be for this.



Well obviously not. Just look at all people claiming twelve year olds should not be having sex, with no actual arguments. Just the statements that they shouldn't have it and that it is wrong by default.

This is the background behind the pro-abstinence crowd as well. They preach of abstinence as the ultimate contraceptive because they don't want to have people fucking except to make babies.


----------



## QwertyoPIZ (Mar 5, 2010)

Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki said:


> Well obviously not. Just look at all people claiming twelve year olds should not be having sex, with no actual arguments. Just the statements that they shouldn't have it and that it is wrong by default.
> 
> This is the background behind the pro-abstinence crowd as well. They preach of abstinence as the ultimate contraceptive because they don't want to have people fucking except to make babies.



A 12 year old girl is 9/10 times able to get pregnant, and while condoms do protect 99% of the time - in reality would kids really buy them?

I'm not going to say it is wrong to want to have sex at 12, its puberty. I am going to say they are having sex for the wrong reasons. A 12 year old doesn't understand real love and passion, nor do they understand that sex can mean a lot to their partner.

Doing sex just because it feels good, or to show off to other people is the wrong reasons. Sex shouldn't be flung around as a meaningless act, it creates life and it connects people in a way that kids wouldn't understand.


----------



## Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (Mar 5, 2010)

QwertyoPIZ said:


> A 12 year old girl is 9/10 times able to get pregnant, and while condoms do protect 99% of the time - in reality would kids really buy them?



Well. There are two options:

Either you sell or you don't sell, but is NOT selling to them going to make them stop having sex? Likely not. What is likely to happen, though, MORE TEENAGE PREGNANCY.



QwertyoPIZ said:


> Doing sex just because it feels good, or to show off to other people is the wrong reasons.



I assume the only approved reason for having sex is making babies?


----------



## Hinako (Mar 5, 2010)

Rob` said:


> Yes because two kids having sex is just as bad as armed robbery. As a matter of fact they're the same thing.
> 
> Seriously all this means is that the 12 year old boys aren't going to be getting the 12 year old girls pregnant. Then the girl doesn't need to have an abortion to get on with her life.
> 
> As a pro-lifer you should be for this.


Hell no, it shows people how lazy parents are.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 5, 2010)

Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki said:


> Well obviously not. Just look at all people claiming twelve year olds should not be having sex, with no actual arguments. Just the statements that they shouldn't have it and that it is wrong by default.
> 
> This is the background behind the pro-abstinence crowd as well. They preach of abstinence as the ultimate contraceptive because they don't want to have people fucking except to make babies.



What's your argument for doing it? Absolutely nothing. 

I don't need to give an argument because the argument is a given. Twelve year olds are too young to make vital choices and handle the problems that can arise when something if sex goes wrong and are too young to shoulder responsibility on their own. They're too young to be emotionally and mentally developed enough to have sex. 

They can't be parents, they can't take care of themselves let alone another kid and they can't be made to understand the dangers to their health and be trusted to wear condoms for the same reason some people three times their age can't 

Look at you, claiming that anything goes and there's nothing wrong with this without any proof or anything to say besides "well they're already doing it anyway".

That's a weak fucked up argument for the reasons I've already described. Just because someone is doing something stupid and dangerous doesn't mean we should enable them. The proper thing to do is to *tell them to stop.*

If you can't be trusted to wear a condom, don't have sex. If you can't take care of a fucking kid on your own or pay for an abortion on your own, don't have sex. If your sole source of care is your parents and you couldn't even start to work for even a little bit of money, guess what? There's no reason for you to be having sex. Because if anything goes wrong your parents have to shoulder the bullshit you cause. If you get sick, if you get pregnant if you have an complications you're just being a drain on them. 

Go on and say "but they're already doing it," because that's only sorry ass argument I hear all over this thread.


----------



## Angel (Mar 5, 2010)

Wow. Encouraging children to have sex. This world is a sad, sad place. Instead of using money to make and market these condoms, they should be using it to fund ads or classes of why kids shouldn't be having sex in the first place.


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Mar 5, 2010)

You know I just realised CTK has given up arguing against making these condoms available and has instead gone for making arguments against having sex at that age while centring his arguments around the consequences of sex without protection.

Am I the only one who finds this deliciously ironic?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 5, 2010)

Rob` said:


> You know I just realised CTK has given up arguing against making these condoms available and has instead gone for making arguments against having sex at that age while centring his arguments around the consequences of sex without protection.
> 
> Am I the only one who finds this deliciously ironic?



Condoms only worked when used correctly. Am I the only one who realizes that being a 12 year old you can't do everything right?

The package says as much and you can act as if you just throw it on there but that's not the case. Maybe you don't know any twelve year olds but in a family as large as mine I deal with them constantly and let me tell you *they're horribly incapable of fucking responsibility. *


----------



## 0ne Winged Angel (Mar 5, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> What's your argument for doing it? Absolutely nothing.
> 
> I don't need to give an argument because the argument is a given. Twelve year olds are too young to make vital choices and handle the problems that can arise when something if sex goes wrong and are too young to shoulder responsibility on their own. They're too young to be emotionally and mentally developed enough to have sex.
> 
> ...



quoting to re-state what I was thinking so that I don't have to make another huge ass post =D

seriously though, how the hell can so many of you have no problem with this?


----------



## Oldy (Mar 5, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I don't need to give an argument because the argument is a given.


No you didn't, you gave your opinion about why 12 years old kids shouldn't have sex which is completely beside the point.
There is what happens, and what does not happen. There is no should.
What happens is that those kids have sex. We may not like it, we may take actions to help prevent it but at the end of the day that won't stop many kids to do it anyway. And no, telling them not to isn't a solution, it doesn't work.
That's not a "sorry ass argument", that's called reality and making condoms available for those cases is just dealing with reality instead of doing nothing because you don't like the situation.


----------



## QwertyoPIZ (Mar 5, 2010)

Oldy said:


> No you didn't, you gave your opinion about why 12 years old kids shouldn't have sex which is completely beside the point.
> There is what happens, and what does not happen. There is no should.
> What happens is that those kids have sex. We may not like it, we may take actions to help prevent it but at the end of the day that won't stop many kids to do it anyway. And no, telling them not to isn't a solution, it doesn't work.
> That's not a "sorry ass argument", that's called reality and making condoms available for those cases is just dealing with reality instead of doing nothing because you don't like the situation.



Condoms is not really going to improve this situation since maybe 1 or 2 out of thousands of 12 year olds might TRY to even buy them.

What would improve this situation is punishing these little bastards for underaged sex, by sentencing them to juvenile jail when caught. Both girls and boys.


----------



## kazuri (Mar 5, 2010)

> Wow. Encouraging children to have sex. This world is a sad, sad place. Instead of using money to make and market these condoms, they should be using it to fund ads or classes of why kids shouldn't be having sex in the first place.



They aren't encouraging anything.

Saying they are encouraging underage sex is like saying car companies promote bad driving by developing more safety features for their cars.

Also, why would it be the condom industries responsibility to pay for classes for kids? Why dont you spend your money on that?


----------



## Roy (Mar 5, 2010)

Only in America


----------



## kazuri (Mar 5, 2010)

> Only in America



Try reading the article next time.


----------



## Kaiyx (Mar 5, 2010)

Wow... just wow.


----------



## Supergrunt8 (Mar 5, 2010)

Those little idiots don't deserve condoms. If they're having sex at such a young age let them suffer the consequences, If they know where to stick the cock in, then thy should know what happens next.


----------



## 0ne Winged Angel (Mar 5, 2010)

Oldy said:


> No you didn't, you gave your opinion about why 12 years old kids shouldn't have sex which is completely beside the point.
> There is what happens, and what does not happen. There is no should.
> What happens is that those kids have sex. We may not like it, we may take actions to help prevent it but at the end of the day that won't stop many kids to do it anyway. And no, telling them not to isn't a solution, it doesn't work.
> That's not a "sorry ass argument", that's called reality and making condoms available for those cases is just dealing with reality instead of doing nothing because you don't like the situation.



no, those are pretty much facts save for a few exceptional 12 year olds that are far more mature than their age would normally warrant. 

you make the kids afraid of the consequences by actually punishing them and showing them the consequences and they will learn rather quickly not to do it. Believe it or not, disciplining children (yes, even spanking if the kid won't listen) DOESN'T hurt them and it DOES in fact help them to not make the stupid fucking decisions that seem to be becoming more of a trend.

children are not mature enough to make life-altering decisions, which is why parents are the ones who should be making those decisions for the kids. This means keeping a closer eye on what your kid is doing, teaching him/her that you should not be having sex until you accept the responsibility that goes along with it (and no, a 12 yr. old is not ready), and until you are both mentally and financially able to support another person in addition to yourself. 

And no, abortion should not be an option for 12 yr. old, I'm sorry but it just shouldn't be. I'm against it already but for 12 yr. old kids it's literally just an "oh shit" button because they made a mistake. I'm sorry, they and their parents need to live with the consequences. Somewhere along the line people gotta start owning up to their own shit and making some serious changes rather than just falling back on abortion or handouts to "get them out of a tough spot". 

Call me an asshole or whatever, but there's a point where shit is just too much, and making condoms (which in the eyes of the kids will encourage sex) for little kids is just far too much. The people responsible for producing these should be thrown in jail for promoting illegal behavior. 



Roy said:


> Only in America



would have been a decent dig at America but...this isn't happening in America. GO GO READING COMPREHENSION!


----------



## ninjaneko (Mar 5, 2010)

> "The result that shocked us concerned young boys who display apparently risky behaviour. They have more of a tendency not to protect themselves. They do not have a very developed sexual knowledge.
> 
> They do not understand the consequences of what they are doing and leave the young girls to take care of the consequences."


It's _shocking?_ "*Adolescent Brains Show Lower Activity in Areas that Control Risky Choices*,"  

Since that's typical of older teenagers, it would only make sense that it be even worse for 12 under crowd ( Is disturbed and grossed out that there even _is _a sexually active "12 and under crowd"). 

Of course kids should not being having sex: they're neither emotionally nor mentally mature enough, nor educated, nor able to handle the responsibility on several fronts. 

And I know they're trying to help, but as others have said, how many 10-13 year olds are going to buy/ask their parents to buy them condoms, much less have the knowledge and restraint to use them correctly and consistently? Simply selling them in a smaller size is probably not going to do much to encourage use. 

I think what kids really need is a real education on the subject, including the human relations aspect, not simply a biology or STI lesson, "how to use a condom," or abstinence-only. None of these are adequate. People even in their twenties believe the craziest things about sex and fertility. It's frightening.


----------



## Momoka (Mar 5, 2010)

What?! 

This is ridiculous...  

(they're actually sending out the wrong message here)


----------



## Shiron (Mar 5, 2010)

0ne Winged Angel said:


> no, those are pretty much facts save for a few exceptional 12 year olds that are far more mature than their age would normally warrant.
> 
> you make the kids afraid of the consequences by actually punishing them and showing them the consequences and they will learn rather quickly not to do it. Believe it or not, disciplining children (yes, even spanking if the kid won't listen) DOESN'T hurt them and it DOES in fact help them to not make the stupid fucking decisions that seem to be becoming more of a trend.
> 
> ...


That's nice... but what does an attitude like this accomplish? To explain, I must ask what should be a question with an obvious answer: _why do we consider it bad for children these young to have sex?_ The answer: they're in no way ready for what could be the consequences of such an action... namely, unwanted pregnancies and STD's. Now then, back to the first question: How does simply yelling "DON'T HAVE SEX!", and providing no protection or anything help to prevent such consequences? The thing is, it doesn't. The sentiment may be good at heart, but there will still be some doing it regardless, making such a one-sided approach very ineffective. Condom's however do help to prevent such consequences... as that's what they're made for. Thus, as long as they are getting at least some use, even if it does encourage them to have sex more often (which is an unsubstantiated claim and may not happen at all), it's worth it to me, as it's actually doing something to help prevent what we really need to worry about (the consequences of sex, and not so much the sex itself) in those cases where the kids do wind up doing it anyway, unlike the zero-tolerance, pure-abstinence stance, which does nothing to help and leaves it *completely* up to luck in such a situation.

Abstinence of course should be the default and should be heavily emphasized as the way to go. But for those few that end up having it regardless, it doesn't do anything to stop the possible consequences once the pants come off. Similarly, yelling your head off at them after they've done it isn't going to make the baby or any STD's they have gotten vanish. Condoms may not be perfect themselves, but they're certainly much better than nothing at all, and are much better at preventing such problems than yelling after the fact can. And I'm not sure about you, but _that's_ what matters to me here: making sure that even if the kid's are idiots that they don't take it to the level of pure retardation and are quite likely to be safe after everything's said and done.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 5, 2010)

Shiron said:


> That's nice... but what does an attitude like this accomplish? To explain, I must ask what should be a question with an obvious answer: _why do we consider it bad for children these young to have sex?_ The answer: they're in no way ready for what could be the consequences of such an action... namely, unwanted pregnancies and STD's. Now then, back to the first question: How does simply yelling "DON'T HAVE SEX!", and providing no protection or anything help to prevent such consequences? The thing is, it doesn't. The sentiment may be good at heart, but there will still be some doing it regardless, making such a one-sided approach very ineffective. Condom's however do help to prevent such consequences... as that's what they're made for. Thus, as long as they are getting at least some use, even if it does encourage them to have sex more often (which is an unsubstantiated claim and may not happen at all), it's worth it to me, as it's actually doing something to help prevent what we really need to worry about (the consequences of sex, and not so much the sex itself) in those cases where the kids do wind up doing it anyway, unlike the zero-tolerance, pure-abstinence stance, which does nothing to help and leaves it *completely* up to luck in such a situation.
> 
> Abstinence of course should be the default and should be heavily emphasized as the way to go. But for those few that end up having it regardless, it doesn't do anything to stop the possible consequences once the pants come off. Similarly, yelling your head off at them after they've done it isn't going to make the baby or any STD's they have gotten vanish. Condoms may not be perfect themselves, but they're certainly much better than nothing at all, and are much better at preventing such problems than yelling after the fact can. And I'm not sure about you, but _that's_ what matters to me here: making sure that even if the kid's are idiots that they don't take it to the level of pure retardation and are quite likely to be safe after everything's said and done.



You automatically assume that their lack of responsibility will lead them to responsibly wear a condom? 

Twelve year olds are well capable of driving, do we make exceptions for the ones that we assume are ready? No, we tell them not to. We could just make all cars go slower for them and out stronger materials, but the truth of the matter is that we instead just tell them they aren't ready. 

Is there anything wrong with driving? No.

Is there a possibility some twelve year old could drive better than someone twice their age? Yes.

Do we let them drive? Fuck no.


----------



## 0ne Winged Angel (Mar 5, 2010)

Shiron said:


> That's nice... but what does an attitude like this accomplish? To explain, I must ask what should be a question with an obvious answer: _why do we consider it bad for children these young to have sex?_ The answer: they're in no way ready for what could be the consequences of such an action... namely, unwanted pregnancies and STD's. Now then, back to the first question: How does simply yelling "DON'T HAVE SEX!", and providing no protection or anything help to prevent such consequences? The thing is, it doesn't. The sentiment may be good at heart, but there will still be some doing it regardless, making such a one-sided approach very ineffective. Condom's however do help to prevent such consequences... as that's what they're made for. Thus, as long as they are getting at least some use, even if it does encourage them to have sex more often (which is an unsubstantiated claim and may not happen at all), it's worth it to me, as it's actually doing something to help prevent what we really need to worry about (the consequences of sex, and not so much the sex itself) in those cases where the kids do wind up doing it anyway, unlike the zero-tolerance, pure-abstinence stance, which does nothing to help and leaves it *completely* up to luck in such a situation.
> 
> Abstinence of course should be the default and should be heavily emphasized as the way to go. But for those few that end up having it regardless, it doesn't do anything to stop the possible consequences once the pants come off. Similarly, yelling your head off at them after they've done it isn't going to make the baby or any STD's they have gotten vanish. Condoms may not be perfect themselves, but they're certainly much better than nothing at all, and are much better at preventing such problems than yelling after the fact can. And I'm not sure about you, but _that's_ what matters to me here: making sure that even if the kid's are idiots that they don't take it to the level of pure retardation and are quite likely to be safe after everything's said and done.



well, glad we agree on the abstinence being the primary choice. However I differ in that I'm more than willing to let the kids and parents suffer the consequences. The more kids see their friends screwing up their lives, and the more the parents are forced to take responsibility for their children (as they should) then the fewer people are going to want to have sex at an early age. 

That's what me an CTK are saying; If there's a problem (underaged sex and pregnancies) you don't enable the problem by eliminating the consequences. Consequences exist for a reason, and they should be learned from rather than simply ignored or gotten rid of.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 5, 2010)

0ne Winged Angel said:


> well, glad we agree on the abstinence being the primary choice. However I differ in that I'm more than willing to let the kids and parents suffer the consequences. The more kids see their friends screwing up their lives, and the more the parents are forced to take responsibility for their children (as they should) then the fewer people are going to want to have sex at an early age.
> 
> That's what me an CTK are saying; If there's a problem (underaged sex and pregnancies) you don't enable the problem by eliminating the consequences. Consequences exist for a reason, and they should be learned from rather than simply ignored or gotten rid of.



I'm actually saying this won't eliminate the consequences because its a precaution that they won't take and some of them might use it as a reason to start. 

"If we weren't meant to have sex, why did they make condoms for us." 

On top of that, their lack of responsibility, the main reason they shouldn't be having sex is the same thing that will assure that these probably don't get used and when they do that they're more likely to be used incorrectly.


----------



## Oldy (Mar 5, 2010)

0ne Winged Angel said:


> no, those are pretty much facts save for a few exceptional 12 year olds that are far more mature than their age would normally warrant.
> 
> you make the kids afraid of the consequences by actually punishing them and showing them the consequences and they will learn rather quickly not to do it. Believe it or not, disciplining children (yes, even spanking if the kid won't listen) DOESN'T hurt them and it DOES in fact help them to not make the stupid fucking decisions that seem to be becoming more of a trend.
> 
> ...


Textbook example of what I'm talking about with people living in their own fantasy of what things should be instead of what is.
Spank your kids preventively and they won't do things you don't want them to do! It will work believe it! 
I'm not trying to be condescending here but I am mistaken to think you're a teenager who don't have any kids of his own?
Your "method", if you can call doing nothing that, doesn't work and your answer to the problem once it happened is : Hah! That will teach them a lesson! It's not only mindblowingly stupid, it's useless in solving the existing problem.

I'm not sure if making condoms for kids this age will solve anything, honestly I doubt it will make significant changes, but at least it's trying _something_. If it works even a little in lessening unwanted teen pregnency then I'm all for it, if it doesn't work then can the project, simple as that.
But in any case it's better than what people like you propose : Cacketing abstinence! Abstinence! And wishing the problem away.


----------



## Mako (Mar 5, 2010)

Supergrunt8 said:


> Those little idiots don't deserve condoms. If they're having sex at such a young age let them suffer the consequences, If they know where to stick the cock in, then thy should know what happens next.



Agreed.

I doubt they even know where to place it. Are they trying to make little kids have sex in such an early age?


----------



## Lovely (Mar 5, 2010)

Kenneth said:


> if a 30 year old male purchases this, you know you'll need to...
> have a seat with him
> 
> _*YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHH*_



What the hell is the girl in your sig doing?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 5, 2010)

LovelyComplex said:


> What the hell is the girl in your sig doing?


They call themselves moshing, see the band in the background? But the image of Naruto was put in to insinuate they were beating his ass while he lay helpless.


----------



## 0ne Winged Angel (Mar 5, 2010)

Oldy said:


> Textbook example of what I'm talking about with people living in their own fantasy of what things should be instead of what is.
> Spank your kids preventively and they won't do things you don't want them to do! It will work believe it!
> I'm not trying to be condescending here but I am mistaken to think you're a teenager who don't have any kids of his own?
> Your "method", if you can call doing nothing that, doesn't work and your answer to the problem once it happened is : Hah! That will teach them a lesson! It's not only mindblowingly stupid, it's useless in solving the existing problem.
> ...



You're very mistaken to think I'm a teenager lol. That said, no I don't have kids of my own, however I do have 5 nieces and a nephew. I have 2 sisters and both are married with children. One of them spanks and disciplines her kids, the other is a "no" parent (being a parent that tells the kid no 20 times before doing anything and even then only gives a timeout or some bullshit). The difference is VERY noticeable and apparent. On the one hand my older sister (the one who does not spank) has 2 little brats for kids. I love them both dearly but they're obnoxious brats that don't listen and just whine about everything if they don't get their way. My younger older sister who does spank, has 4 kids ages 6, 6, 3, 1. She spanked them from about 1 year old to about 3 years old (never as the first option, more as a consequence of when they didn't listen) and now rarely ever has to spank her kids. Now that they're a bit older they understand that certain actions have bad consequences (such as not listening to your parents). 

Her kids obviously are not perfect, but they're far and above some of the most well behaved children I've run across in a long time. I love watching them because I don't have to raise my voice at all, I never have to hand time outs, or restrict them from doing an activity that I've told them we'll do because they don't behave. It's the difference between being able to enjoy your kids and having kids that never listen and just piss you off. 

That said, spanking should be a last resort kind of thing, something to use when the kids don't listen to you and should rarely be used as the first punishment. Some kids don't need to be spanked at all, I've run across a few of them here and there where they just seem to always listen lol. Those kids however are rare, as are the kids that will suddenly start listening when you give them a timeout or take away TV/computer from them. 

I would dare say you're the one who does not have children, or you're one of the lucky ones that just had children that always listened to you. Having that innate respect for authority will make their lives much better as they grow up, and will help them tremendously when dealing with bosses at work, and teachers in school. 

Sorry that I happen to have a realistic approach to the world. "they're gonna do it anyway so let's make it better for them" what a bullshit, cop-out approach. if you have a kid who's always smashing your plates and glasses, you don't go out and buy all plastic shit, you punish the kid until he learns not to do it. So the kids will have sex anyway, cool, let a few of them have a baby and see what it does to their life, guarantee you she teaches that kid not to do the same shit she did. Let the boy start losing his paycheck as soon as he starts working because he fathered a kid; guaranteed he keeps his dick in check next time or at the very least uses protection (and doesn't have sex if protection isn't available).

You talk about me wishing the problem away, but I'm not wishing it away. I wish it wouldn't be there sure, I think we all do, but I'm not going to simply try and hide the problem or try to lessen the damage done. If you're old enough to have sex you're old enough to take care of the child. My parents always told me that if I ever had a kid they'd kick me out as soon as I hit 18, and not give me any more help after they were no longer legally obligated. Ya know what? I knew they were serious and I made sure that there was never even a chance of that happening. Parents now are too concerned with being their kids' friend rather than being their parent. 

When I was younger I hated my parents spanking me, I hated them always yelling at me and telling me not to do things, but you know what? Now that I'm older I love them for it, and I'm so glad they did because I look at how a lot of my friends grew up, and I'm far better off than pretty much all of them. I have a better job, I've been more disciplined, I've worked harder, and my life has been of a far better quality. This bullshit about taking away consequences is ridiculous, that does far more harm to them in the long run than simply even dealing with teenage pregnancies. 

Abstinence really isn't that hard, I've done it and I still am at 22 because I'm not married yet and not ready to accept the consequences should something go wrong and I end up with a child.


----------



## Shiron (Mar 5, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> You automatically assume that their lack of responsibility will lead them to responsibly wear a condom?


Not necessarily. I recognize that a lot of them won't, as I did in that post


			
				Shiron said:
			
		

> Thus,* as long as they are getting at least some use*


However, while most won't, there will be some who do make that do (and if the schools and such actually do introduce them to the kids alongside abstinence and actually let them know they exist, that will help to increase the number--there's only so much the condom companies and such can do alone, and the same is true of the schools and parents. They have to work together and deliver a unified message in order to help a problem like this). And if that's the difference between said kids getting something like AIDS or not, that certainly makes it worth it to me.

The fact of the matter is, that these are the kids that will have sex regardless, and abstinence alone won't reach. Thus, the best thing to do is to try a multi-pronged approach and do whatever you can to prevent the consequences. Of course, just like you can't get all of them to stop having sex, you won't be able to get all of them that are doing it to practice safe sex. That's true. However, just like point of being abstinent will in fact get through the heads of some of them, by making protection available to them, some of those that do have sex regardless will begin using it, and due to that they will have a much larger chance of being safe than they would have otherwise. And if that's the case, it's more than worth it to me.


> Twelve year olds are well capable of driving, do we make exceptions for the ones that we assume are ready? No, we tell them not to. We could just make all cars go slower for them and out stronger materials, but the truth of the matter is that we instead just tell them they aren't ready.


This is a bit of a strawman here. If I'm understanding you right (and I apologize if I'm mistaking or missing the point of your analogy here), with this comparison to an action that a kid could and should be severely disciplined for, you seem to be implying that I'm saying that underage-sex/statutory-rape/whatever you want to call it shouldn't be disciplined at all when it happens and the parents shouldn't do anything just as long as it ended up alright. However, that's not true at all. I didn't touch on it directly in my previous post, but as I said and still agree with you on, of course we should be strongly stressing that they shouldn't be doing it at all. As I didn't touch on though, I do of course agree that regardless of what winds up happening, they should still be appropriately disciplined/punished if they choose to go ahead and do so. I agree with that whole-heartedly.

However,  at the same time, if the kids ignore their teachers/parents/other authority-figures' advice, in the interest of their own safety, they should be heavily encourage to at least use a form of protection such as this to make sure that they remain as safe as is possible in that case. At the same time, of course make it clear that using a condom still doesn't make it alright for them to be having sex at age, and that they'll still be chewed out for it if they do so, but make it clear that their safety is what you're ultimately concerned with and is the reason for that and why you want them to at least if nothing else make sure to use a protection.

To use my own analogy, of course kids and teens should be told to avoid parties with alcoholic drinks and if they do see the stuff unexpectedly, to not drink it and avoid getting drunk, no matter what. However, at the same time, if they or one of their friend's do wind up drinking too much, and passes out, what would you really recommend be done in that situation: a.) for those that are fine to just bail in fear of getting caught or b.) don't give a darn about what may happen later or how they may be punished, and make sure the kid who passed out is gotten to a hospital so that he doesn't die from alcohol poisoning?

For me, it would be b, which, if someday I do wind up having kids, that I will of course make a point to tell them to do should they be idiots and wind up drinking regardless of what I say. Of course, I'll still make it a point that they and their friends would be dead meat either way, but what ultimately matters is their lives, so make sure to think about that and do what you must to make sure you stay alive before you worry about any sort of punishment that may come later.

It's the same exact thing here. Of course, either way, kids having sex at a young age isn't cool, should be heavily discouraged, and should be disciplined as seen fit after the fact, should it happen. However, what ultimately matters, above all else, is their safety and well-being. Thus, just like they should be told to, if their idiots who drink and drink too much, to make their first priority to get anyone they see passing out or anything to a hospital, so should the idiots in this case be instructed to at least use condoms in that situation. Again just like in the drinking scenario, the situation should still be handled as it must afterwards, but the first step should be at least to make sure that they're being as safe as possible should they choose to be idiots. The rest can come after that.

*Edit:* To put it another way, people like you and 0ne Winged Angel definitely have to right intent and have your eyes on what we should definitely be focusing on the most: to try and make sure such situations never arise at all, and to try and keep the kids on a good, straight path. However, unfortunately, that isn't enough for some kids, and they will become idiots or delinquents regardless, and in that case, you won't have given them any ammo, so to speak, to protect themselves with--they won't know what the best course of action to keep themselves safe is and are defenseless and vulnerable, as "No" by itself can't provide them with any protection at that point. Thus, in addition to trying to keep them on the right path, they should also be given the ammo of knowledge to use should they choose to not go down the best road. That way, even if they do decide to be stupid, they at least won't be defenseless at the same time.


----------



## Frostman (Mar 5, 2010)

i guess they are making preparations for when Noah Cyrus releases her lingerie line.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 5, 2010)

Shiron said:


> Not necessarily. I recognize that a lot of them won't, as I did in that post
> 
> However, while most won't, there will be some who do make that do (and if the schools and such actually do introduce them to the kids alongside abstinence and actually let them know they exist, that will help to increase the number--there's only so much the condom companies and such can do alone, and the same is true of the schools and parents. They have to work together and deliver a unified message in order to help a problem like this). And if that's the difference between said kids getting something like AIDS or not, that certainly makes it worth it to me.
> 
> ...



That's not a strawman, its an analogy. 

And its a perfect analogy for the situation. Kids still could get into cars and drive, there's nothing stopping one of them. But we shouldn't cater to it. This will be called a niche market being filled by the point of the matter is that you don't fix a problem by catering to those who do it. 

And its no statutory rape, I am pretty sure that has to be between someone older and someone younger.


----------



## ninjaneko (Mar 5, 2010)

Frostman said:


> i guess they are making preparations for when Noah Cyrus releases her lingerie line.


I just died a little inside


----------



## Psycho (Mar 5, 2010)

Frostman said:


> i guess they are making preparations for when Noah Cyrus releases her lingerie line.



how come i didn't think of this one?


----------



## Munak (Mar 6, 2010)

Why do I feel that they're just doing for this for the microdick 30 year olds and not really 12 year old children?


----------



## Teren_Kanan (Mar 6, 2010)

QwertyoPIZ said:


> Because we need to promote sex of 12 year olds by giving them condoms.



Nothing about promoting. It's about protecting those who do. No amount of abstinence training in the history of man has or will ever prevent teenagers from having sex. Some are going to, some aren't. 

Those who do should have the education needed and the protection available. 



Meshach said:


> No teenagers in that age have the guts to buy a condom, I'm sure they'll be just embarrass.



I didn't start having sex until 14, but I was perfectly able and willing to buy condoms. It was not embarrassing at all. And what's even more shocking, sometimes parents actually EDUCATE their young teenagers FULLY on the consequences of sex, and prepare them with knowledge, and condoms, incase they decide to do it. 



Ishinoue said:


> HOLY. CA-RAP.
> 
> Just keep leading our kids to think it's okay to start screwing people at twelve. I swear to god, when people do crap like this they just prove how much of  a stupid shit they are.



I pretty much knew everything there was to know about sex by age 12. I knew what a penis/vagina looked like, I knew what sex looked like. I knew about STD's, and pregnancy. I knew the best methods to prevent it. My parents made sure to teach me about these things once they realized I was very interested in females.

We I had sex for the first time at the age of 14, I used a condom my father had bought for me "Just in case". 

They always taught me I should wait, but they knew full well teenagers will be teenagers. I never caught any STD's, I never got anyone pregnant.




Hand Banana said:


> Way to be uneducated. They are trying to promote children to have sex safely and not spread stds or increase the teen pregnancy stats. If you were educated you would understand that. Its hard to try and prevent children from not having sex especially when they are constantly exposed to it. But apparently you have no clue about it.



This.



abcd said:


> @ ppl saying that 12 yr olds shouldn't be having sex ...
> 
> They probably "shouldn't" be, but they are going to anyways. It's very natural to have sexual urges at that age. Education and preparation are the best ways to prevent horrible consequences.
> 
> They are having sex ... U can't stop them ... Atleast give them protections .



This.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> "Oh yeah, people are already robbing stores. We can't stop them so lets just give them better guns to make it safer on them!"



Epic fail analogy. Now if you put it this way "People are already robbing stores, we can't stop them but if we replace the weapons they currently use, with non lethal ones, at least less people would be seriously injured/killed", it might make a "Slightly" better analogy, but still pretty fail.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> No its not a strawman, you need to look up the term.
> 
> It's called an analogy and what you're doing right now is a strawman, the analogy makes perfect sense. You don't enable someone when they do something wrong, you stop them.



It's still a fail analogy. Robbing someone is wrong. Having sex is not. Having sex at such a young age is ill advised, but certainly not wrong. It's natural and can be done safely if you are educated and have easy access to things like.. condoms.



QwertyoPIZ said:


> What these guys are doing is advertising illegal sex, under aged sex, and who knows what else?
> 
> Sure its normal to want sex even before puberty, but we don't need pregnant 12 year olds.
> 
> ...



We don't need pregnant 12 year olds. At least you GET some part of it. Condoms drastically prevent the chances pregnant 12 year olds. Again, forever and always have teenagers been having sex. At least help reduce the consequences of their actions.




Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> What's your argument for doing it? Absolutely nothing.
> 
> I don't need to give an argument because the argument is a given. Twelve year olds are too young to make vital choices and handle the problems that can arise when something if sex goes wrong and are too young to shoulder responsibility on their own. They're too young to be emotionally and mentally developed enough to have sex.
> 
> ...




Yeah, it's not a great idea for children that age to have sex. And you can cry "weak argument" all you want, but the facts don't change. Since the dawn of man, teenagers have had sex, and there is nothing that can be done to change this fact, nor will this ever change.

No amount of abstinence training is going to prevent this, or limit this. It's been tried by COUNTLESS cultures/religions and failed every single time. 

The only thing that hasn't been tried, and the thing that makes the most sense is to fully educate our youth about the possible consequences of sex, and give them the tools needed to help prevent those consequences, should they choose to have sex anyways.



Rob` said:


> You know I just realised CTK has given up arguing against making these condoms available and has instead gone for making arguments against having sex at that age while centring his arguments around the consequences of sex without protection.
> 
> Am I the only one who finds this deliciously ironic?



Yeah it's pretty funny.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Condoms only worked when used correctly. Am I the only one who realizes that being a 12 year old you can't do everything right?
> 
> The package says as much and you can act as if you just throw it on there but that's not the case. Maybe you don't know any twelve year olds but in a family as large as mine I deal with them constantly and let me tell you *they're horribly incapable of fucking responsibility. *



Were you a fucking unintelligent idiot when you were 12? I certainly wasn't. If you can't use a condom correctly at age 12, you either fail at life, or have no sexual education what so ever.

Sexual Education needs to go hand in hand with condoms for these teenagers. The education part is the thing we need most, simply making condoms more readily available is only a very small help.



Supergrunt8 said:


> Those little idiots don't deserve condoms. If they're having sex at such a young age let them suffer the consequences, If they know where to stick the cock in, then thy should know what happens next.



Exactly. If they know where to stick the dick, they should know what happens. And they should know using condoms do a great job of preventing anything negative from happening.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> You automatically assume that their lack of responsibility will lead them to responsibly wear a condom?
> 
> Twelve year olds are well capable of driving, do we make exceptions for the ones that we assume are ready? No, we tell them not to. We could just make all cars go slower for them and out stronger materials, but the truth of the matter is that we instead just tell them they aren't ready.
> 
> ...



Again, epic fail analogy. 

Risk of pregnancy and possible STD's does NOT compare to the MASSIVE risk of DEATH due to 12 year olds driving. Giving them condom cars (slower more protected cars) does nothing for the adults driving regular cars. 1 wrong turn by a kid driving could kill an ENTIRE family. Sex does not compare, sorry.

Sadly our education system is fail. MORE Sadly most of our parents are FAIL. I was a rather responsible 12 year old, and I still know to this day, 12 year olds that are rather responsible. Because they have good parents who teach them responsibility. 

Kids, and adults, are sometimes irresponsible, no matter how responsible they generally are. Shit happens and people do things they shouldn't. Best to be prepared and educated enough to help prevent bad consequences when you make mistakes.


----------



## Kind of a big deal (Mar 6, 2010)

If kids think they're big enough to have sex at that age, they're also big enough to get smacked some sense into them. 
Parents _should_ properly tell their kids what to do and how to act, and if they still don't get it by then, fuck it I'm all for beating them untill they _do_ get it. I'd much rather have a few kids with a few small bruises than teen pregnancies later down the line.
Not only that, but picking them up and slapping them on the butt untill they cry like little kids should put them in their place and be a much more effective reminder of how much they still are children. That's the kind of stuff that works on young boys much more effectively than a stern talking to.
Also, girls at that age may be ahead of boys but somehow it still sits badly with me, I have the feeling that their naivety is taken advantage of, somehow.


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Mar 6, 2010)

Please never have kids.


----------



## Azure Ihrat (Mar 6, 2010)

About time. Kids using adult-sized condoms is dangerous because it's easier to slip off. If you're going to have sex and you're smart enough to use a condom you'd better be smart enough to use one that fits you properly.


----------



## Rakiyo (Mar 6, 2010)




----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 6, 2010)

Rob` said:


> Please never have kids.


Studies show that kids who are spanked grow up to be more productive citizens than the ones who aren't.


----------



## kazuri (Mar 6, 2010)

> Studies show that kids who are spanked grow up to be more productive citizens than the ones who aren't.



Studies also show correlation means causation too, right?


----------



## Grrblt (Mar 6, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Studies show that kids who are spanked grow up to be more productive citizens than the ones who aren't.



Studies show that slavery works.


----------



## Lucaniel (Mar 6, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Studies show that kids who are spanked grow up to be more productive citizens than the ones who aren't.



studies show the number of terrorist attacks worldwide rises with the average amount of bullshit people talk on the internet.


----------



## Psycho (Mar 6, 2010)

Grrblt said:


> Studies show that slavery works.



the end does not justify these means


----------



## Grrblt (Mar 6, 2010)

Psycho said:


> the end does not justify these means



Kind of the point I was going for.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 6, 2010)

Grrblt said:


> Studies show that slavery works.





Psycho said:


> the end does not justify these means





Grrblt said:


> Kind of the point I was going for.



Well its a bad point, you're talking about a better life for your kid as opposed to someone was being enslaved. 

If being enslaved had an equivalent pay off to say, going to college and having a good job and being able to care for one's self then you could make that comparison. But slavery is a negative. 

I like how when a scientific study doesn't fit with your narrow-minded view of how things should be you suddenly act as if there's no merit to it. Spanking isn't evil, guess what? Most people I know were spanked as kids, they don't have anger issues, they don't beat people up and none of them are especially violent. All of them are in college (the ones here at least) and two of them are making 60 K a year at 25 years old and one owns a house the other a business.


----------



## Le Pirate (Mar 6, 2010)

This has got to be the most interesting bit of knowledge I've come to posess all day.


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Mar 6, 2010)

It's still corporal punishment. They are plenty of ways to discipline children that don't involve hitting them.

Also expert opinion is pretty much divided on whether or not it actually works, .


----------



## Eboue (Mar 6, 2010)

The funniest thing is Switzerland has the fourth lowest child pregnancy rate in the entire planet, just behind Korea, china and japan. ( i admit this is from wikipedia). So they must be doing something right musnt they? The fact that they equip their children with the knowledge and the means to practice safe sex as opposed to springing it on them when their 14, or however old you think they should be, is obviously the best way of dealing with it. 

This of course runs contrary to the united states, who as a developed country have the WORST child pregnancy rate... And it might be a european cliche but you americans dont like talking about sex to your children. There is definately a correlation.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 6, 2010)

Eboue said:


> The funniest thing is Switzerland has the fourth lowest child pregnancy rate in the entire planet, just behind Korea, china and japan. ( i admit this is from wikipedia). So they must be doing something right musnt they? The fact that they equip their children with the knowledge and the means to practice safe sex as opposed to springing it on them when their 14, or however old you think they should be, is obviously the best way of dealing with it.
> 
> This of course runs contrary to the united states, who as a developed country have the WORST child pregnancy rate... And it might be a european cliche but you americans dont like talking about sex to your children. There is definately a correlation.



You need to learn to read charts because if its the one I think you're talking about, that's the LIVE birth rate. And the US is not on top, its Niger.

That chart also only factors in 15-19 year olds. And there's nothing to say someone who's 18 or 19 here can't have a kid.

This is more up to date chart, but it only factors in those age groups which isn't so hot considering two of the ages are adult.



One more tid-bit, Switzerland has a very low birthrate in general which is not a good thing at all:


----------



## Eboue (Mar 6, 2010)

i said developed country ~snip~

Also if you read a bit further, looked up a bit more you would find the combined pregnancy rates.


----------



## Astrid (Mar 6, 2010)

O: Whaaat?  this reminds me of this song!

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JN-c5ut_QnY[/YOUTUBE]

Excuse me, but if I ever grow up into a mother I will only want what's best for my child. I do prefer bruised butts rather than pregnant twelve-yeared olders. :/


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Mar 6, 2010)

He said developed countries, I don't think Niger really counts.

Also



Hmmm...


----------



## Adonis (Mar 6, 2010)

Authoritarianism [lacked a less politically-loaded word] posing as concern.

To argue, "We're right because children having sex is a detriment to themselves!" (which is a valid point) then coming back with, "The little disobedient fuck should be ready to face the consequences of their decision!" when someone offers a safe alternative [condoms] that allows them to make the mistake without possibly ruining his life betrays the motivation of your indignation. It shows that you're using the child's welfare as a smoke screen for a general disdain of disobedience then vindictively wishing that child is punished for his folly (even to the detriment of an additional child.) 

It's pathetic, really, that some of you rather a child suffer for his indiscretions than acknowledge the possibility of that kid getting over with minimal damage.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 6, 2010)

Rob` said:


> He said developed countries, I don't think Niger really counts.
> 
> Also
> 
> ...



Yeah, I posted that already. But teen includes two adult ages as I already said.


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Mar 6, 2010)

Oh ye that's why America has 11 times the birthrate...it all makes perfect sense now.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 6, 2010)

Adonis said:


> Authoritarianism posing as concern.
> 
> To argue, "We're right because children having sex is a detriment themselves!" (which is a valid point) then coming back with, "The little disobedient fuck should be ready to face the consequences of their decision!" when someone offers a safe alternative [condoms] betrays the motivation of your indignation. It shows that you're using the child's welfare as a smoke screen for a general disdain of disobedience then vindictively wishing that child is punished for his folly (even to the detriment of an additional child.)
> 
> It's pathetic, really, that some of you rather a child suffer for his indiscretions than acknowledge the possibility of that kid getting over.



I simply said, when you remove consequence that you don't fix the issue. And then I said that even then this will encourage at the same time as we know kids aren't equipped to use them properly.

And to everyone whining about birthrate, isn't the US one of the only developed nations with a positive birthrate over all? Europe needs to worry more about having more kids than they do cutting the number of kids down. Posting a super low birthrate among teens when the country has a super low birthrate to begin with is pretty un-amazing.


----------



## Eboue (Mar 6, 2010)

So its ok for child pregnancy's because there isnt enough europeans. Ok.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 6, 2010)

Eboue said:


> So its ok for child pregnancy's because there isnt enough europeans. Ok.



No its also not okay to try and strawman someone's statement.


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Mar 6, 2010)

And what is the issue exactly? Is it kids having sex or or possible consequences of kids having sex? If it's the former then that's just you wishing the kids would live by _your_ sense of morality. If it's the latter than these condoms are a good thing.

Also I don't think cutting down on our population is that much of a bad thing. We're not exactly under populated over here. 

And we're not whining about the birthrate, we're "whining" about the teen pregnancy rate. Which is still 11x higher in your country than in Switzerland. Try not strawmanning our arguments please.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 6, 2010)

Rob` said:


> And what is the issue exactly? Is it kids having sex or teens getting pregnant? If it's the former then that's just you wishing the kids would live by _your_ sense of morality.
> 
> Also I don't think cutting down on our population is that much of a bad thing. We're not exactly under populated over here.


Please see the earlier post, it has nothing to do with a sense of morality and everything to do with a lack of means to be responsible and handle health, emotional and monetary commitments.

If the birthrate is 11 times higher here, its proportional. Also teen pregnancy still counts two adult ages. Is there a break down of each age? No. If you had a chart that was a pregnancy rate BELOW 18 then it would be something to use a model. 

What someone does at 18 is their own business and I know a few people who were pregnant at 18 and capable of caring for a child on their own.


----------



## Eboue (Mar 6, 2010)

I wont whine about it . all i will say is that we were discussing teenage or child pregnancy and you put into the discussion the point that many european countries have negative birth rates. would you not say that in anyway that it sounds like you are trying to imply something? I dont believe you do think that, i just think you were clutching at straws. edit- i dont see how i straw manned your argument anyway, as this is a discussion about child pregnancy not about negative birth rates in europe.


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Mar 6, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Please see the earlier post, it has nothing to do with a sense of morality and everything to do with a lack of means to be responsible and handle health, emotional and monetary commitments.



Oh so it's the consequences of sex, all of which these condoms are meant to tackle. 

You seem pretty convinced that kids are going to take this as a sign that firstly it's ok to have sex and secondly it's ok to have unprotected sex. I've never seen any evidence of either.



> If the birthrate is 11 times higher here, its proportional. Also teen pregnancy still counts two adult ages. Is there a break down of each age? No. If you had a chart that was a pregnancy rate BELOW 18 then it would be something to use a model.



Again you're saying birthrate when we're talking about teen pregnancies? Why? Is this some ingenious tactic or what?

You seem pretty fucking convinced that it's all under 18s in Switzerland and over 17s in the USA getting pregnant. Try to produce something to support that idea.

Also what the fuck do you mean by proportional? I really hope you're not trying to invoke the high population of the USA because that would be kind of hysterical. Read the chart again if you are.



> What someone does at 18 is their own business and I know a few people who were pregnant at 18 and capable of caring for a child on their own.



Ye that's great and ye...this is relevant how?

Also it's great that you accuse Eboue of using a strawman when you've done the same.


----------



## Grrblt (Mar 6, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Well its a bad point, you're talking about a better life for your kid as opposed to someone was being enslaved.
> 
> If being enslaved had an equivalent pay off to say, going to college and having a good job and being able to care for one's self then you could make that comparison. But slavery is a negative.


Spanking is a negative. Both of them can have good effects.



> I like how when a scientific study doesn't fit with your narrow-minded view of how things should be you suddenly act as if there's no merit to it. Spanking isn't evil, guess what? Most people I know were spanked as kids, they don't have anger issues, they don't beat people up and none of them are especially violent. All of them are in college (the ones here at least) and two of them are making 60 K a year at 25 years old and one owns a house the other a business.


I did not say anything about the scientific study. I didn't say spanked kids would have anger issues, beat people up, not be able to get into college or not make good money. I said the end does not justify the means. I happen to know a lot of people who are going to college without having gotten spanked as a kid. If a study showed that raped women turned out to be more productive citizens than non-raped women, would you promote rape?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 6, 2010)

Eboue said:


> I wont whine about it . all i will say is that we were discussing teenage or child pregnancy and you put into the discussion the point that many european countries have negative birth rates. would you not say that in anyway that it sounds like you are trying to imply something? I dont believe you do think that, i just think you were clutching at straws. edit- i dont see how i straw manned your argument anyway, as this is a discussion about child pregnancy not about negative birth rates in europe.



You strawmaned it because when I said:



> Europe needs to worry more about having more kids than they do cutting the number of kids down. Posting a super low birthrate among teens when the country has a super low birthrate to begin with is pretty un-amazing.


You said...



> So its ok for child pregnancy's because there isnt enough europeans. Ok.


That's the very definition of a strawman. I didn't say anything about letting teens (even though as I keep saying teen includes two ages that are adults) have kids. I said they need to increase their birthrate. 

You made up something else entirely and acted as if you were refuting it. 

Meanwhile Rob seems to have lost his argument and is just drawing wild conclusions. I didn't say anything about over 18 here and under 18 there. Get your facts straight.

@Grrblt: First slavery now rape? Just can't make those bad arguments stick huh?


----------



## Eboue (Mar 6, 2010)

if you didnt think there was any correlation why would you bring it up in a debate not about *birth rates* but about pregnancy.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 6, 2010)

Eboue said:


> if you didnt think there was any correlation why would you bring it up in a debate not about *birth rates* but about pregnancy.


Because you brought up birthrate. Remember?


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Mar 6, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Meanwhile Rob seems to have lost his argument and is just drawing wild conclusions.



I'm going to be mature and assume that this isn't just a pathetic attempt to get out an argument you can see no way of winning. 



> I didn't say anything about over 18 here and under 18 there.



Enlighten me, why do you keep going on about how the study includes "two adult ages" then?



> Get your facts straight.



I have.

You on the other hand seem to think it was him not you that bought up birth rate, read back through the posts


----------



## Grrblt (Mar 6, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> @Grrblt: First slavery now rape? Just can't make those bad arguments stick huh?


Feel free to take your time to come up with a real counter argument.


----------



## Eboue (Mar 6, 2010)

Eboue said:


> The funniest thing is Switzerland has the fourth lowest child pregnancy rate in the entire planet, just behind Korea, china and japan. ( i admit this is from wikipedia). So they must be doing something right musnt they? The fact that they equip their children with the knowledge and the means to practice safe sex as opposed to springing it on them when their 14, or however old you think they should be, is obviously the best way of dealing with it.
> 
> This of course runs contrary to the united states, who as a developed country have the WORST child pregnancy rate... And it might be a european cliche but you americans dont like talking about sex to your children. There is definately a correlation.



quite clearly i say nothing about birth rate only pregnancy, which is the point relevant to the discussion.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 6, 2010)

Grrblt said:


> Feel free to take your time to come up with a real counter argument.



How about you come up with a real argument. I'd hate to kick an argument while its down. But comparing rape to spanking is laughable at best.



Eboue said:


> quite clearly i say nothing about birth rate only pregnancy, which is the point relevant to the discussion.


On the contrary, you said nothing, but the chart you're quoting is LIVE BIRTH RATE.


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Mar 6, 2010)

I can't believe he's calling your comparison bad when he compared giving kids condoms to giving armed robbers better guns.

Also you're just assuming that he was quoting a birthrate chart and we've given you plenty of teen pregnancy charts.


----------



## Eboue (Mar 6, 2010)

i at no point stated which chart i was using so how do you know this anyway.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 6, 2010)

Rob` said:


> I can't believe he's calling your comparison bad when he compared giving kids condoms to giving armed robbers better guns.



Yeah because I was talking about making it safer for the robbers, there's no positives to rape, even if it did somehow magically make the person being raped more successful in life, you're still mentally scaring them. 

Show me the mental scaring of spanked people.


----------



## Grrblt (Mar 6, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> How about you come up with a real argument. I'd hate to kick an argument while its down. But comparing rape to spanking is laughable at best.


Why is it laughable? Can't stomach the fact that spanking and rape are both types of violence? It's really a simple question: would you promote a type of violence if victims of that violence turned out to make more money later in their life? That's the argument you're driving with spanking, I'm applying the same principle to a different type of violence.

Either you say yes, in which case you're promoting rape and _you're_ laughable, or you say no, in which case you think it only applies to certain levels of violence chosen in some arbitrary way by yourself, and that makes you not only laughable but also pretentious. Or, as a third option, you stop supporting spanking on the premise that it's good for you.


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Mar 6, 2010)




----------



## Banhammer (Mar 6, 2010)

Asian people around the world rejoiced


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 6, 2010)

Grrblt said:


> Why is it laughable? Can't stomach the fact that spanking and rape are both types of violence? It's really a simple question: would you promote a type of violence if victims of that violence turned out to make more money later in their life? That's the argument you're driving with spanking, I'm applying the same principle to a different type of violence.
> 
> Either you say yes, in which case you're promoting rape and _you're_ laughable, or you say no, in which case you think it only applies to certain levels of violence chosen in some arbitrary way by yourself, and that makes you not only laughable but also pretentious. Or, as a third option, you stop supporting spanking on the premise that it's good for you.



You lost your argument there it looks like. Don't worry, I won't bother finding it for you. First you compared slavery to spanking, then rape. I'm sorry but murder is also a form of violence...but if I jump up and kick someone's ass they don't call it murder and sentence me for it. 

For an anaology to work there has to be correlation, not neccessarily in severity but in the amount of leap it takes to get from one point to another. If I said that giving guns to robbers to make them safer was like giving condoms to children---I said it because the sentiment that led us there was "well they're already doing it". It's the same thing that can be said about clean needle programs and the like. 

What you fail to see is that you can't just pull the rape card or the slavery card and expect it to win your argument. You don't have an argument and if you think just because you got Rob and that other guy to agree with you that it makes you right, it doesn't 

Anyone who looks at what you're saying objectively, whether they agree on spanking or not can see you weren't trying to show correlation you were just trying to go for an emotional response. CTK is black so lets use slavery. CTK dislikes rape so lets use rape. 

it doesn't work that easily because you can't bullshit a bullshitter. 


I know how to use google.


----------



## Grrblt (Mar 6, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> You lost your argument there it looks like. Don't worry, I won't bother finding it for you. First you compared slavery to spanking, then rape. I'm sorry but murder is also a form of violence...but if I jump up and kick someone's ass they don't call it murder and sentence me for it.


Murder is the one form of violence that can never give people higher incomes and will always prevent them from going to college.

Please, try again.



> For an anaology to work there has to be correlation, not neccessarily in severity but in the amount of leap it takes to get from one point to another. If I said that giving guns to robbers to make them safer was like giving condoms to children---I said it because the sentiment that led us there was "well they're already doing it". It's the same thing that can be said about clean needle programs and the like.


I haven't mentioned any analogies you may have or not have made.



> What you fail to see is that you can't just pull the rape card or the slavery card and expect it to win your argument. You don't have an argument and if you think just because you got Rob and that other guy to agree with you that it makes you right, it doesn't


Sure I can pull those cards and expect to win. I'm winning. And I'm not saying that due to Rob or any other guy; I'm saying it because you refuse to counter it.



> Anyone who looks at what you're saying objectively, whether they agree on spanking or not can see you weren't trying to show correlation you were just trying to go for an emotional response. CTK is black so lets use slavery. CTK dislikes rape so lets use rape.


I know it's nice to think you're important, but choosing rape and slavery had nothing to do with you. It had to do with your argument.


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Mar 6, 2010)

I was more hoping you'd take notice of some of the results, like the lesbian one.

Anyways I am actually going to have to explain why your comparison was ridiculous aren't I?

Well it's very simple.

Generally Armed Robbery isn't seen as bad because of the consequences the robbers might have to face but the affects on the victims. 

Adolescents having sex is generally seen as bad because of the consequences the adolescents might have to face.

His comparison isn't ridiculous because he's simply comparing two forms of violence and abuse. 

I can't make it any clearer for you.


----------



## Gardenhead (Mar 6, 2010)

I don't see any cogent argument in favour of spanking here; physically assaulting a child is self evidently morally wrong, in the same way - but not to the same severity - that rape or slavery are, and no dubious potential increase in future income (or indeed a real increase) should be able to justify it.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 6, 2010)

at everyone on the evils of spanking. That's when I step out because I don't see anything wrong with spanking.


----------



## Banhammer (Mar 6, 2010)

white folks need to spank their kids.


latin folks need to grow a brain when spanking their kids


----------



## Sunako (Mar 6, 2010)

Are you serious ...


----------



## Adonis (Mar 6, 2010)

Spanking is rarely a reasoned response. It's simply a convenient, socially-acceptable way to lash out at a child without looking like a lazy, contemptible parent bully. 

"Oh, I didn't hit him because I was frustrated! He needed to learn a lesson that could only be accomplished through negative reinforcement. Any glee or catharsis I got out of it was purely coincidental and treating a child like Pavlov's dog was the noble thing to do. Parents that don't spank are *white* hippies who let their spoiled kids run all over them; therefore, no alternative works. Likewise, the fact I have to resort to spanking constantly doesn't mean it's failing as a deterrent to bad behavior and my claim, 'He won't do that again!" a premature, unfounded boast."

Spanking isn't evil; just pitiable. At best, it shows a lack of imagination when it comes to problem-solving. 

The analogies need to stop because they've been disproportionate and horrible all around. Comparing kids having sex to armed robbers or spanking to rape isn't conducive because at least half the rebuttal can, and should, focus on how nonsensically overinflated they are.

@CTK:

If you think kids having sex is wrong, argue that. Don't, however, grasp at all these corollary justifications like the risk of STDs then backpedal when they're addressed in a way that still allows for kids to have sex without those risks. It makes you look deceitful.


----------



## Terra Branford (Mar 6, 2010)

Banhammer said:


> Asian people around the world rejoiced




Well, it really depends on your spankings, really. Because most adults act like freakin' retards and BEAT their children. But if adults think that is okay, then something is seriously wrong.

A quick smack on the butt should do them good. I mean, my little brothers were never punished in ANY way and well, they are loud, annoying, rude and very crude when they talk.
They push people, they cry when they don't get their way and they are pretty dumb >.>​ So, some times spankings are good to discipline your child.

On-Topic:

Ahem...Why are we encouraging 12 year olds to have sex by giving them condoms that fit? They should should scare the little shits by making it super-mega illegal and then we'll see the child acting like robots not having any sexual feelings at all -- when they don't have any at that age, or at least nothing like that of a older person. 

Damn Switz.


----------



## saprobe (Mar 6, 2010)

Hrm, OK. I just checked in on this thread and I'd like you to realize how bizarre it is that you've been arguing about spanking for several pages in a thread about condoms for 12 year olds. Regardless of how you all got from A to B, SPANKING + CONDOMS + 12 YEAR OLDS = FBI INVESTIGATION 

Just a friendly reminder.


----------



## Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (Mar 6, 2010)

saprobe said:


> Hrm, OK. I just checked in on this thread and I'd like you to realize how bizarre it is that you've been arguing about spanking for several pages in a thread about condoms for 12 year olds. Regardless of how you all got from A to B, SPANKING + CONDOMS + 12 YEAR OLDS = FBI INVESTIGATION
> 
> Just a friendly reminder.



Therein lies further confusion as it seems that those who are negative to these condoms (because "children shouldn't have sex") seem to support the use of spanking and physical violence.

I wonder if they approve of circumcision as well...


----------



## Spencer_Gator (Mar 6, 2010)

ugh this is ridiculous. 12 year olds shouldn't be doing it anyway. I'm all for spanking a child. Not abuse, but if u don't punish them they won't learn


----------



## Tomasso (Mar 6, 2010)

LOL poor boys
That must be embarrassing.


----------



## Aldrick (Mar 6, 2010)

I am outraged and disgusted.


----------



## Crackers (Mar 6, 2010)

I am... disturbed.


----------



## Sanity Check (Mar 6, 2010)

I'm just wondering how atheists who pride themselves on exchanging bibles for pornography will attempt to blame religion for this.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 7, 2010)

Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki said:


> Therein lies further confusion as it seems that those who are negative to these condoms (because "children shouldn't have sex") seem to support the use of spanking and physical violence.
> 
> I wonder if they approve of circumcision as well...


Because those things are comparable. 

How come in every thread that involves kids having sex you're wildly in support of it. Seems suspect.


----------



## Hinako (Mar 7, 2010)

Jonty said:


> I don't see any cogent argument in favour of spanking here; physically assaulting a child is self evidently morally wrong, in the same way - but not to the same severity - that rape or slavery are, and no dubious potential increase in future income (or indeed a real increase) should be able to justify it.


What has living in England done to you? I think a spanking is in order.


----------



## Aldrick (Mar 7, 2010)

Spanking for fun and profit


----------



## Venamisa (Mar 7, 2010)

O.O W.....T......F?


----------



## Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (Mar 7, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Because those things are comparable.



There is a certain pattern involved, though. They're all expressions of authoritarian conservative ideas, though. It's all about controlling other people.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> How come in every thread that involves kids having sex you're wildly in support of it. Seems suspect.



"Wildly in support"?

lolwtf

All I'm saying is that they shouldn't be punished for it. Some maniac in this thread even suggested that kids should be thrown in juvenile jail for having sex.


----------



## Crackers (Mar 7, 2010)

Hm, interesting. 

**


----------



## Grrblt (Mar 7, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> How come in every thread that involves kids having sex you're wildly in support of it. Seems suspect.



Can't speak for KGS but I'm in support of kids having sex if they are able to and want to. What's "suspect" about it?


----------



## Kind of a big deal (Mar 7, 2010)

Hahaha I make a semi-joke post about spanking some sense into fucking retarded kids and it explodes into a discussion. Awesome how the internet works.

So, on the topic of spanking kids, I have the feeling some people find it hard to see a difference between a reasonable punishment for bad behavior and a merciless abuse of a child. They are the ones who are the real pessimists here, I believe people can actually be reasonable and judge for themselves how harsh or how mild a punishment has to be.
It's not up to us to be the judge of how people raise their children, so in line with that it's not up to us to say where the bar is for what is considered reasonable and what is considered too much. We, as a society, can and should only interfere when the actual safety of a child is at risk. A slap because a snotty brat is doing something massively stupid or mean is not abuse, so we can't say it's too much or too little.

Now to get back on the topic somewhat, boys at that age are in a certain stage in the development of their brain that they find it hard to oversee consequences for their actions. You can make up a whole bunch of consequences for them as punishments, but they're simply going to find them wholly unimpressive because they're indirect punishments. Taking away privileges for a certain amount of time is only going to make everything uncomfortable for a longer period of time while the punishment is in effect, instead of getting over it quickly and moving on. You could make the case that a corporal punishment, within reason obviously (it should be self-evident but Im not risking it), can be more merciful than giving a punishment that drags on and on.

What's the point of raising your voice to begin with? Every type of parent does that. Why do parents do that? It's to come across as more serious, trying to claim more authority. But raising your voice is simply a very crude way of establishing who the adult is by manifesting themselves as such. You could say it's a castrated form of slapping your kids. The thought behind it is exactly the same, and the intent is the same, but one actually follows through with the threat and the other doesn't.

Out of all the possible punishments, a slap on the head is simply going to be the most effective, because you induce almost a subconscious pavlov effect. Kinda like how you can train animals to distinguish that it's bad to pee on the carpet and good to pee outside. It's very direct, so on young boys especially, it simply is effective. Yes, I did just compare kids to young animals, in the end that's what they are and they're also prone to natural behavior, deal with it.

Unpopulair opinion? Sure. Do I care? Not really, no.


----------



## Hinako (Mar 7, 2010)

LOL @ people supporting little kids having sex. 




^I thought people learned a lesson when Britian became ridiculed.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 7, 2010)

Grrblt said:


> Can't speak for KGS but I'm in support of kids having sex if they are able to and want to. What's "suspect" about it?



That's pretty silly, I mean what's the ends to it? There are plenty of examples of what can go wrong with it. If you want to attack spanking which is proven to do some good, how can you support something that there's no studies to show something good has come from? 

How many people go "yeah, I am so glad I slept with someone when I was 12...that wasn't a mistake at all?" 

Your reason for spanking being wrong don't make sense when used to refute your support of kids having sex. Because kids wanting something doesn't mean shit. Kids can't have what they want all of the time and its a parents job to make sure a kid stays safe over having what they want. 

Unless your going to be there to watch the kids have sex, there's no safe way to make sure that they do things right and take precautions. The same way kids need someone to select what they eat and stay healthy or need to be told to get up and take their asses outside and do something besides slump in front of the TV. 

It just feels like no one here has ever been around someone under the age of 15. 



Kind of a big deal said:


> So, on the topic of spanking kids, *I have the feeling some people find it hard to see a difference between a reasonable punishment for bad behavior and a merciless abuse of a child. *They are the ones who are the real pessimists here, I believe people can actually be reasonable and judge for themselves how harsh or how mild a punishment has to be.



Exactly, when you say spank everyone pictures you beating them with a wrench. That's not at all what it means.


----------



## Grrblt (Mar 7, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> That's pretty silly, I mean what's the ends to it? There are plenty of examples of what can go wrong with it. If you want to attack spanking which is proven to do some good, how can you support something that there's no studies to show something good has come from?


No good has ever come from sex? 



> How many people go "yeah, I am so glad I slept with someone when I was 12...that wasn't a mistake at all?"


I don't know and don't care. People, including kids, should be allowed to make mistakes.

How many people go "yeah, I am so glad that I never fooled around with the other sex when I was younger... that wasn't a mistake at all?" People who still haven't fooled around don't count.



> Your reason for spanking being wrong don't make sense when used to refute your support of kids having sex. Because kids wanting something doesn't mean shit. Kids can't have what they want all of the time and its a parents job to make sure a kid stays safe over having what they want.


My arguments about spanking and sex have nothing to do with each other. Kids can't have what they want all of the time, but that doesn't mean they can't have it at all.



> Unless your going to be there to watch the kids have sex, there's no safe way to make sure that they do things right and take precautions. The same way kids need someone to select what they eat and stay healthy or need to be told to get up and take their asses outside and do something besides slump in front of the TV.


Unless you're going to be there to watch the kids, there's no safe way to make sure that they don't have sex. I guess neither of us can get what we want. I think it's easier to get horny youngsters to practice safe sex than it is to get them to abstain from sex. I also think they will have a better time from safe sex than no sex.



> It just feels like no one here has ever been around someone under the age of 15.



I remember being under 15. Several of my friends of the same age were having sex. Those who weren't having sex, wanted to have it. Since I don't see those guys anymore, I can't say how many of them are in college. But I'm pretty sure they are not beating people up; not even the ones who used to do so when we were younger.


----------



## Danky (Mar 7, 2010)

Well considering girls are getting their period at earlier ages the 12-year old condom seems necessary. Props for Switzerland for making this! :

Still pretty lols worthy. Good to know it's not just America that has the loose values.


----------



## Birdwell (Mar 7, 2010)

I don't really have an issue with kids having sex, tbh. If the sex drive is there, why force social standards in conflict of basic biology? I really don't think there are that many 12 year olds having sex though.

I started having periods at 10. And not splotchy once every three month periods. They were regular straight out the gate. In conjunction with them my sex drive kicked in. I didn't start having sex, but if circumstances had been different I may have. And I'd have liked to have protection available.


----------



## Adonis (Mar 7, 2010)

Kind of a big deal said:


> So, on the topic of spanking kids, I have the feeling some people find it hard to see a difference between a reasonable punishment for bad behavior and a merciless abuse of a child. They are the ones who are the real pessimists here, I believe people can actually be reasonable and judge for themselves how harsh or how mild a punishment has to be.



Yet, some parents judge abuse to be a reasonable punishment. Funny how that works.

As someone who was spanked, I know the difference between "socially-accepted" punishment and merciless abuse.



> It's not up to us to be the judge of how people raise their children, so in line with that it's not up to us to say where the bar is for what is considered reasonable and what is considered too much.



Sounds like lazy, "Nobody can't tell me nothing!" authority jargon.

To argue: "We can't judge..." only to follow up with



> We, as a society, can and should only interfere when the actual safety of a child is at risk.



Is contradicting yourself. There _is_ a scenario where we can rightly judge _against_ a parent's judgement, thus your omitting that particular situation which warrants such judgement is trying to have it both ways. We can judge parents all we want to. Being critical isn't the same as demanding child services take the kids away.




> A slap because a snotty brat is doing something massively stupid or mean is not abuse, so we can't say it's too much or too little.



Depends on the slap. Slapping a kid full on, for example, for acting like a stupid kid _is_ too much. And by saying it's not abuse, you're making a judgment call; so on what grounds do you say I and others cannot do the same?



> Now to get back on the topic somewhat, boys at that age are in a certain stage in the development of their brain that they find it hard to oversee consequences for their actions. You can make up a whole bunch of consequences for them as punishments, but they're simply going to find them wholly unimpressive because they're indirect punishments. Taking away privileges for a certain amount of time is only going to make everything uncomfortable for a longer period of time while the punishment is in effect, instead of getting over it quickly and moving on. You could make the case that a corporal punishment, within reason obviously (it should be self-evident but Im not risking it), can be more merciful than giving a punishment that drags on and on.



Isn't spanking an indirect consequence?

That'd be a bad argument, though, because a punishment that lasts a longer time is going to be more memorable (thus more of a deterrent) than a quick spanking *unless* the abuse factor of corporal punishment is ramped up. This is why interrogation is more effective than torture (not drawing a comparison.) Pain can easily be forgotten once it's over no matter how insufferable it seemed at the time. I remember that spanking only made me dread having done something wrong *after* I had done it. What good is that?

That said, I must note this is the first time I've heard it argued that alternative punishments were too strict rather than too lax. Problem is, I'm not arguing against discipline being too uncomfortable; I'm arguing against corporal punishment because it's both ineffective and can easily escalate to abuse.



> What's the point of raising your voice to begin with? Every type of parent does that. Why do parents do that? It's to come across as more serious, trying to claim more authority. But raising your voice is simply a very crude way of establishing who the adult is by manifesting themselves as such. You could say it's a castrated form of slapping your kids. The thought behind it is exactly the same, and the intent is the same, but one actually follows through with the threat and the other doesn't.



Except, one involves physically lashing out at a kid and the other is raising your voice. Just because they possibly stem from the same pathology doesn't make them equivocal. Altruism, for example, may very well stem from a desire to control another person. That doesn't make the positive manifestation equal to the negative ones.

If the same establishment of authority can be accomplished without hitting a kid, why would I prefer hitting the kid, anyway? What you call 'castration' I call 'self-control.' There's nothing particularly macho about asserting physical dominance over some awkward kid half your size.

I'll also point out that 'raising one's voice' doesn't necessarily entail any threat rendering your 'following through' justification invalid.



> Out of all the possible punishments, a slap on the head is simply going to be the most effective, because you induce almost a subconscious pavlov effect.



Except, it doesn't. Not to lean on anecdotal evidence, but spanking never made me any less likely to do something; it just made me hate getting caught more.



> Kinda like how you can train animals to distinguish that it's bad to pee on the carpet and good to pee outside. It's very direct, so on young boys especially, it simply is effective. Yes, I did just compare kids to young animals, in the end that's what they are and they're also prone to natural behavior, deal with it.



That's not what happens, though. Never did I have an 'A Clockwork Orange' moment when about to do something I'd been spanked for doing before; I simply put more effort into making sure my dad wasn't around so I wouldn't get caught. A non-spanked kid, on the other hand, might think more in terms or right-and-wrong than fear.



> Unpopulair opinion? Sure. Do I care? Not really, no.



I have nothing against an opinion just for being unpopular. This isn't an unpopular stance, though.


----------



## QwertyoPIZ (Mar 7, 2010)

Adults go to jail for having sex with the underaged, so should anyone else. As I said before, these kids should be jailed in juvenile jails for a minimum of 3 years for having underaged sex.


----------



## Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (Mar 7, 2010)

QwertyoPIZ said:


> Adults go to jail for having sex with the underaged, so should anyone else. As I said before, these kids should be jailed in juvenile jails for a minimum of 3 years for having underaged sex.



Why? tencharlimit


----------



## kazuri (Mar 7, 2010)

> Adults go to jail for having sex with the underaged, so should anyone else. As I said before, these kids should be jailed in juvenile jails for a minimum of 3 years for having underaged sex.



...Try applying WHY its illegal. The reason is, because we think they aren't mature enough to understand the consequences, and are easily taken advantage of by older people. 

By your logic, any underage kid who is 'tricked' or hell, even raped, or masturbate should go to jail.


----------



## Eboue (Mar 7, 2010)

QwertyoPIZ said:


> Adults go to jail for having sex with the underaged, so should anyone else. As I said before, these kids should be jailed in juvenile jails for a minimum of 3 years for having underaged sex.



You want to sent 12 year olds to juvenile jails for 3 years? This could ruin there lives. They would miss out on some ridiculously important parts of their childhood, regardless of whether you think it is stupid or wrong to make them contraceptives, 3 years in a juvenile jail for a 12 year old can be see as nothing more than barbaric and draconian.


----------



## Birdwell (Mar 7, 2010)

kazuri said:


> ...Try applying WHY its illegal. The reason is, because we think they aren't mature enough to understand the consequences, and are easily taken advantage of by older people.



And all of this links into the Western practice of infantilizing our youth. I remember when people were shitting themselves over that news story about the woman who let her kid ride the subway by himself. Compare this to other countries, where kids routinely transport themselves places.

Of course your kid is going to be taken advantage of if you raise them with the mentality that they can't take care of themselves. Kids obviously shouldn't be forced into sexual situations, but if they feel like progressing to that earlier than some what's the big deal?


----------



## QwertyoPIZ (Mar 7, 2010)

kazuri said:


> ...Try applying WHY its illegal. The reason is, because we think they aren't mature enough to understand the consequences, and are easily taken advantage of by older people.
> 
> By your logic, any underage kid who is 'tricked' or hell, even raped, or masturbate should go to jail.



There are obviously exceptions, don't try to use lame arguments on me. Masterbation is not sex.



Eboue said:


> You want to sent 12 year olds to juvenile jails for 3 years? This could ruin there lives. They would miss out on some ridiculously important parts of their childhood, regardless of whether you think it is stupid or wrong to make them contraceptives, 3 years in a juvenile jail for a 12 year old can be see as nothing more than barbaric and draconian.



Having a baby could ruin their lives. Society could ruin their lives.
Its people that think like you that society is fucked up today, there is no punishment for anything. People get away with murder.

Juvenile jail will teach them to straighten the fuck up and be respectful instead of thinking they can do idiotic things.


----------



## Eboue (Mar 7, 2010)

This study, by the home office clearly shows that taking youth offenders into custody leads to the highest amount of reoffending. 

I would take you to the bottom of page twelve.



Juvenile jail would teach them to become criminals.

edit-

On your point of having kids could ruin their lives, isnt the whole point of condoms so that they wont have kids...


----------



## Aldrick (Mar 7, 2010)

Kids shouldn't have anything good which is why I am opposed to underage sex.


----------



## SPN (Mar 7, 2010)

Little buggers trying to make me feel more lame than I already am.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 7, 2010)

Grrblt said:


> No good has ever come from sex?


Thanks for yet another strawman, you've proved this is a total waste of time.

Anyone who read what I said understood that you shouldn't be able to get that from: 



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> ...how can you support something that there's no studies to show something good has come from?
> 
> How many people go "yeah, I am so glad I slept with someone when I was 12...that wasn't a mistake at all?"


----------



## Grrblt (Mar 7, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Thanks for yet another strawman, you've proved this is a total waste of time.
> 
> Anyone who read what I said understood that you shouldn't be able to get that from:



You quite literally said no studies have shown that anything good come from it. Either you're complaining about the lack of studies so that we can't be sure that good comes from it, or you're suggesting that nothing good comes from it. Which is it?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 7, 2010)

Grrblt said:


> You quite literally said no studies have shown that anything good come from it. Either you're complaining about the lack of studies so that we can't be sure that good comes from it, or you're suggesting that nothing good comes from it. Which is it?



You seem to not get it, there's no evidence anywhere that states having sex at 12 does anything positive. The key word here being 12, not sex. Stop trying to shift my argument to footing where its easier for you to jump on, its not working.


----------



## Birdwell (Mar 7, 2010)

Eboue said:


> On your point of having kids could ruin their lives, isnt the whole point of condoms so that they wont have kids...



4 real. It's like people saying band aids shouldn't exist because people shouldn't get hurt in the first place. It's going to happen. There is no changing that. You can sit around all day talking about how wonderful it would be if no one ever got a cut, but that doesn't change the fact that people are going to get cuts.

Everyone has different standards. If they're not your kid, I don't think it's any of your business if a 12 year old wants to have sex.


----------



## Kind of a big deal (Mar 7, 2010)

Adonis said:


> Yet, some parents judge abuse to be a reasonable punishment. Funny how that works.



Yes well, these are not good parents anyway. Besides, there are many ways to hurt children that are not just physical abuse (neglect for example). Physical abuse just happens to be the most straightforward. Being against physical punishment because it's reminiscent of physical abuse, blurs the line between abuse and punishment, which is not accurate. I don't think anyone is in favor of abuse of children.



> Sounds like lazy, "Nobody can't tell me nothing!" authority jargon.
> 
> To argue: "We can't judge..." only to follow up with
> 
> Is contradicting yourself. There _is_ a scenario where we can rightly judge _against_ a parent's judgement, thus your omitting that particular situation which warrants such judgement is trying to have it both ways. We can judge parents all we want to. Being critical isn't the same as demanding child services take the kids away.



It's not a contradiction really. I'll explain it: Everybody can be critical of others, that's human nature, but nobody has a right to dictate others how to do their things either. That's one of the freedoms we can enjoy. 
Parents can raise their children any way they want to and nobody should be able to interfere with that, unless the child is in danger or neglected. 

Certain rules take priority over others. Protection of children overrules the right for people to decide how to raise their own children. As long as that  standard is met, society has or should have no further business in how children are raised.



> Depends on the slap. Slapping a kid full on, for example, for acting like a stupid kid _is_ too much. And by saying it's not abuse, you're making a judgment call; so on what grounds do you say I and others cannot do the same?



Of course it depends on the slap. That's the whole point. Look, a slap doesn't even have to hurt, it can just be more of a nudge that just acts as a behavioral reminder.
Others can do the same and judge what's too much and what isn't, but most people will find common ground in what's overboard and what's not. A slap on the hand is not the same as bruises that have to be hidden with clothing. I don't think the line between abuse and punishment is that blurry, myself. Punishment is very controlled and restrained, otherwise it's unacceptable. I'm sure there's some cases where it comes down to individual judgment but by far in normal situations and normal people it's pretty obvious.



> Isn't spanking an indirect consequence?
> 
> That'd be a bad argument, though, because a punishment that lasts a longer time is going to be more memorable (thus more of a deterrent) than a quick spanking *unless* the abuse factor of corporal punishment is ramped up. This is why interrogation is more effective than torture (not drawing a comparison.) Pain can easily be forgotten once it's over no matter how insufferable it seemed at the time. I remember that spanking only made me dread having done something wrong *after* I had done it. What good is that?
> 
> That said, I must note this is the first time I've heard it argued that alternative punishments were too strict rather than too lax. Problem is, I'm not arguing against discipline being too uncomfortable; I'm arguing against corporal punishment because it's both ineffective and can easily escalate to abuse.



Well, maybe pavlov effect wasn't the right way to describe it. I don't think punishments have that big an effect on the conscious mind, I don't think all kids stay away from bad things they would normally do because they fear a specific kind of punishment. 
That's working with the assumption that kids are disobedient but only obey because they are afraid of punishment. 
I think it's rather they don't do things because they know the parents don't want them to. How do you get to that point? By teaching them what's right and what's wrong. And sometimes a punishment is necessary to teach or remind them.
As you say, you can get over pain and forget about it, but that's not a problem, because if the punishment had it's direct effect of showing they are disobedient, it's goal is reached. No parent wants to be in the situation that punishment is a deterrent for bad things. 
If all is as it should be, parents and children love each other, as much as the parents want to raise the children, the children also don't want to make their parents unhappy. If anything, physical punishment is an expression of the parents being unhappy.

The psychology is not to make kids whince at the idea of receiving physical pain when they do bad things. That's cruel in it's own right. The idea is that kids will know very clearly when they've let their parents down, and they want to get along. That's what discipline is all about, the very clear distinction between good and bad behavior. It's not cruel at all, but quick and effective.
That's why I feel alternative types of punishment such as taking away privileges are more cruel, because it takes more time to express this dissapointment, and feels like blackmailing kids into behaving in a certain way. There's some underlying machiavellian element to it that I would be very uncomfortable with, having in my household.

As for escalating into abuse, I really don't want to accuse people you may know of anything, but it shouldn't escalate into anything if the parent has good intent. The parent was never any good at it, if physical punishment becomes abuse. The thought behind it, is almost the complete opposite. Ideally a parent that loves it's child would never physically abuse it, no matter what.



> Except, one involves physically lashing out at a kid and the other is raising your voice. Just because they possibly stem from the same pathology doesn't make them equivocal. Altruism, for example, may very well stem from a desire to control another person. That doesn't make the positive manifestation equal to the negative ones.
> 
> If the same establishment of authority can be accomplished without hitting a kid, why would I prefer hitting the kid, anyway? What you call 'castration' I call 'self-control.' There's nothing particularly macho about asserting physical dominance over some awkward kid half your size.
> 
> I'll also point out that 'raising one's voice' doesn't necessarily entail any threat rendering your 'following through' justification invalid.



It is comparable because the expected result is also the same. Reaffirming hierarchy. I think you're taking words like 'castrated and following through' a little too literally here. It's just saying that it's a toned down version of natural behavior.



> Except, it doesn't. Not to lean on anecdotal evidence, but spanking never made me any less likely to do something; it just made me hate getting caught more.



I dislike anecdotal evidence in topics just as you do, so I honestly appreciate you disclaiming that a little. But since it's pretty inevitable in this topic, I'll add my experiences.
I have always considered getting spanked (which probably happened less than once a year on average I was a pretty boring kid), as letting down my parents, the way I discribed in this post. Acting in the desired behavior for me did not come from avoiding punishment. Or at least I should say, it wasn't the biggest reason.

Like I said, subconscious pavlov effect may not be the right way to describe it, it's not quite as direct as that. It's more like kids and young boys especially, understand right from wrong very clearly, because they respond  from physical contact.



> That's not what happens, though. Never did I have an 'A Clockwork Orange' moment when about to do something I'd been spanked for doing before; I simply put more effort into making sure my dad wasn't around so I wouldn't get caught. A non-spanked kid, on the other hand, might think more in terms or right-and-wrong than fear.



Well, I actually think it's the opposite. A non-spanked kid will be more likely to look at right-and-wrong in terms of punishment consequences, because the type of punishment is so deliberate and even explained into words. Fear as a deterrent would work with the assumption that a physical punishment is more fearful, but I don't think it is. Even as a kid I would much rather be slapped than to have my gameboy taken away from me, for example.

Of course it really boils down to the character of the kid in question as well. Some kids will act the way they do because they seek approval of their parents and others because they don't want to be punished. Both types, and probably many more (many in-between with a mix of the two), exist regardless of the type of punishment.


----------



## Eboue (Mar 7, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> You seem to not get it, there's no evidence anywhere that states having sex at 12 does anything positive. The key word here being 12, not sex. Stop trying to shift my argument to footing where its easier for you to jump on, its not working.



Whilst this in no way counters your argument, the same can be said of your argument, where are your studies to prove it is bad for twelve year olds to have sex?


----------



## Hinako (Mar 7, 2010)

Ummmm I dunno know why it's bad for kids to have sex.... oh wait maybe it's because they don't know how to raise a child!


----------



## Aldrick (Mar 7, 2010)

> Ummmm I dunno know why it's bad for kids to have sex.... oh wait maybe it's because they don't know how to raise a child!



If they only had something to stop themselves getting pregnant.


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Mar 7, 2010)

That will never happen.


----------



## Psycho (Mar 7, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> You seem to not get it, there's no evidence anywhere that states having sex at 12 does anything positive. The key word here being 12, not sex. Stop trying to shift my argument to footing where its easier for you to jump on, its not working.



sex is a part of being a human... more then that actually, sex is a part of being an animal; any animal (including humans) have their own attitude towards sex, it's weird to me the idea of taking a part of being what you are and putting an age minimum on it, if the guy is twelve, and as long as both parties consent to it, let him make a mistake, it's not like it can completely ruin his whole life that easily; i lost my virginity at 13 and i think i'm doing pretty well


----------



## Kind of a big deal (Mar 7, 2010)

Kids shouldn't be having sex, not only because of possible diseases and pregnancies (although that certainly isn't without merit), but because kids have not fully developed themselves mentally, and may grow up to have strange ideas about sexuality if they're allowed to do as they please as long as it's safe. It doesn't always go wrong and it doesn't always go right, we're all human beings, there's a reason we don't let children do as they please, if we do, they might grow up in a way we didn't intend to.


----------



## Hinako (Mar 7, 2010)

Aldrick said:


> If they only had something to stop themselves getting pregnant.


If only people would stop encouraging any kind of sex!!


----------



## Psycho (Mar 7, 2010)

Kind of a big deal said:


> Kids shouldn't be having sex, not only because of possible diseases and pregnancies (although that certainly isn't without merit), but because kids have not fully developed themselves mentally, and may grow up to have strange ideas about sexuality if they're allowed to do as they please as long as it's safe. It doesn't always go wrong and it doesn't always go right, we're all human beings, there's a reason we don't let children do as they please, if we do, they might grow up in a way we didn't intend to.



isn't "doing as you please as long as it's safe" called "having safe fun"?


----------



## Adonis (Mar 7, 2010)

Kind of a big deal said:


> Yes well, these are not good parents anyway. Besides, there are many ways to hurt children that are not just physical abuse (neglect for example). Physical abuse just happens to be the most straightforward. Being against physical punishment because it's reminiscent of physical abuse, blurs the line between abuse and punishment, which is not accurate. I don't think anyone is in favor of abuse of children.



The problem is that the line is crossed by most in support of corporal punishment since it's by definition the deliberate infliction of pain. The line drawn even among the most vehement academic defenders was typically "two swats with an open palm." I got spanked _with a belt_ until I *stopped* crying, which was generally at least 10hits.

My point being, when corporal punishment has to be reeled back that far just to be acceptable, what's the use? Two hits ain't scaring me any more than any other punishment and anything more than that can be shown to have counterproductive consequences like fear-based morality and resentment.



> It's not a contradiction really. I'll explain it: Everybody can be critical of others, that's human nature, but nobody has a right to dictate others how to do their things either. That's one of the freedoms we can enjoy.
> Parents can raise their children any way they want to and nobody should be able to interfere with that, unless the child is in danger or neglected.



Not to play semantics but dictating and criticizing are largely the same thing in this case. Telling someone you disapprove with their methods is _implicitly_ dictating them on how to do something; presenting your alternative solution is _explicitly_ dictating.

There's no freedom from criticism. You're free to disregard criticism, assuming it's not backed by the authority of the law, and others are free to criticize.



> Certain rules take priority over others. Protection of children overrules the right for people to decide how to raise their own children. As long as that  standard is met, society has or should have no further business in how children are raised.



I disagree. If studies show that the parenting norm is actually counterproductive, why would anyone *not* want that vocalized and presented in a public forum of discussion?



> Of course it depends on the slap. That's the whole point. Look, a slap doesn't even have to hurt, it can just be more of a nudge that just acts as a behavioral reminder.



As someone who got hit-to-hurt, I admittedly don't understand the rationale behind love-taps. 



> Others can do the same and judge what's too much and what isn't, but most people will find common ground in what's overboard and what's not. A slap on the hand is not the same as bruises that have to be hidden with clothing. I don't think the line between abuse and punishment is that blurry, myself. Punishment is very controlled and restrained, otherwise it's unacceptable. I'm sure there's some cases where it comes down to individual judgment but by far in normal situations and normal people it's pretty obvious.



I don't know; some abuse is very restrained. The only reason most kids don't have to worry about hiding bruises is because they get hit on their asses.



> Well, maybe pavlov effect wasn't the right way to describe it. I don't think punishments have that big an effect on the conscious mind, I don't think all kids stay away from bad things they would normally do because they fear a specific kind of punishment.
> That's working with the assumption that kids are disobedient but only obey because they are afraid of punishment.



We agree on this.



> I think it's rather they don't do things because they know the parents don't want them to. How do you get to that point? By teaching them what's right and what's wrong. And sometimes a punishment is necessary to teach or remind them.



This can be accomplished without spanking. All spanking seems to do is shift the focus from right-and-wrong to what gets me hit and what doesn't. Non-spanked kids would strike me as more likely to worry about their parent's desires than a kid seeking to avoid his own pain.




> As you say, you can get over pain and forget about it, but that's not a problem, because if the punishment had it's direct effect of showing they are disobedient, it's goal is reached. No parent wants to be in the situation that punishment is a deterrent for bad things.



We seem to agree in terms of goal and simply disagree about methodology.



> If all is as it should be, parents and children love each other, as much as the parents want to raise the children, the children also don't want to make their parents unhappy. If anything, physical punishment is an expression of the parents being unhappy.



Arguably, but it also shows that violence is an acceptable expression of one's feelings. Kids hit for the very same reason.



> The psychology is not to make kids whince at the idea of receiving physical pain when they do bad things. That's cruel in it's own right. The idea is that kids will know very clearly when they've let their parents down, and they want to get along. That's what discipline is all about, the very clear distinction between good and bad behavior. It's not cruel at all, but quick and effective.



This is understandable. It also shows there's been a major failure of comprehension on my part.




> That's why I feel alternative types of punishment such as taking away privileges are more cruel, because it takes more time to express this dissapointment, and feels like blackmailing kids into behaving in a certain way. There's some underlying machiavellian element to it that I would be very uncomfortable with, having in my household.



It could certainly be argued and I'd probably be inclined to agree with you. 




> As for escalating into abuse, I really don't want to accuse people you may know of anything, but it shouldn't escalate into anything if the parent has good intent. The parent was never any good at it, if physical punishment becomes abuse. The thought behind it, is almost the complete opposite. Ideally a parent that loves it's child would never physically abuse it, no matter what.



I admittedly, and wrongly, painted you as a 'spare the rod' supporter. The physical punishment you support can hardly be called corporal punishment in the understood sense. 



> It is comparable because the expected result is also the same. Reaffirming hierarchy. I think you're taking words like 'castrated and following through' a little too literally here. It's just saying that it's a toned down version of natural behavior.



As I've said, I thought you were a 'spoil the rod' old school spanker. In this context, arguing against you wasn't really necessary at all.





> I dislike anecdotal evidence in topics just as you do, so I honestly appreciate you disclaiming that a little.
> 
> But since it's pretty inevitable in this topic, I'll add my experiences.
> I have always considered getting spanked (which probably happened less than once a year on average I was a pretty boring kid), as letting down my parents, the way I discribed in this post. Acting in the desired behavior for me did not come from avoiding punishment. Or at least I should say, it wasn't the biggest reason.
> ...



I get what you're saying and it's a valid stance.



> Well, I actually think it's the opposite. A non-spanked kid will be more likely to look at right-and-wrong in terms of punishment consequences, because the type of punishment is so deliberate and even explained into words. Fear as a deterrent would work with the assumption that a physical punishment is more fearful, but I don't think it is. Even as a kid I would much rather be slapped than to have my gameboy taken away from me, for example.



We're using spanked in two different ways. My fault, admittedly, since I'm on the more extreme end of the spectrum. That said, your parents would barely qualify as spankers in the eyes of the mainstream.



> Of course it really boils down to the character of the kid in question as well. Some kids will act the way they do because they seek approval of their parents and others because they don't want to be punished. Both types, and probably many more (many in-between with a mix of the two), exist regardless of the type of punishment.



It's not cut-and-dry, no.


----------



## Aldrick (Mar 7, 2010)

> If only people would stop encouraging any kind of sex!!



If only humans didn't have base sex drives


----------



## Psycho (Mar 7, 2010)

Aldrick said:


> If only humans didn't have base sex drives



if only humans didn't have instincts...


----------



## Aldrick (Mar 7, 2010)

If only humans didn't exist.


----------



## Psycho (Mar 7, 2010)

Aldrick said:


> If only humans didn't exist.



but then we'd never have invented condoms and everyone would be getting pregnant and overpopulation would fuck the world


----------



## Aldrick (Mar 7, 2010)

> but then we'd never have invented condoms and everyone would be getting pregnant and overpopulation would fuck the world



Impossible. The only thing capable of fucking the world is your mother.


----------



## Petenshi (Mar 8, 2010)

Aldrick said:


> Impossible. The only thing capable of fucking the world is your mother.



You and your mom jokes. This all probably stems back to yours, and her 12 year old condom scandal.


----------



## Random Nobody (Mar 8, 2010)

Hinako said:


> Ummmm I dunno know why it's bad for kids to have sex.... oh wait maybe it's because they don't know how to raise a child!



Good point, good thing this thread isn't about condoms.


----------



## Chaos Ghost (Mar 8, 2010)

Bout time, when I lost my virginity at 13 I had to use man condoms, and it was hella hard to manage

Not joking at all btw


----------

