144.000 condoms for 4000 under 18 athletes in Youth Olympic Village

Walt Kowalski wrote:

eeeasy peasy wrote:

After seeing this, I wouldn't let my child go to the Youth Olympics even if they qualified.

If your kid is over the age of 12, you're doing them a favor by teaching them about safe sex and condoms. But yeah, just see if they don't become a statistic as a result of abstinence-only stance by puritanical parenting.

Where the hell have you been? Public schools teach kids about safe sex and condoms and far more than that by the time they are in 6th grade. In fact, they equip them with too much information at too young of an age. My job as a parent is ensuring my kids get accurate information (vs watered down information made more palatable for youth), fully appreciate the risks and try to undo the damage they incur from being educated by the state about matters that should be left to the parent. Kids would fare better if there were more parents who pushed the abstinence-only stance. I know it's not a "trendy" parenting philosophy these days, but one just needs to take a look at the sexual deviants on this site to realize that things have not gone in the right direction.

Hey, Walt, you're blind wrote:

Kids would fare better if there were more parents who pushed the abstinence-only stance. I know it's not a "trendy" parenting philosophy these days, but one just needs to take a look at the sexual deviants on this site to realize that things have not gone in the right direction.

The majority of sexual deviants (I prefer the term sex offender) are the products of repressed, abstinence only homes. I guess that's the alternative trend you prefer.

Walt Kowalski wrote:

Hey, Walt, you're blind wrote:

Kids would fare better if there were more parents who pushed the abstinence-only stance. I know it's not a "trendy" parenting philosophy these days, but one just needs to take a look at the sexual deviants on this site to realize that things have not gone in the right direction.

The majority of sexual deviants (I prefer the term sex offender) are the products of repressed, abstinence only homes. I guess that's the alternative trend you prefer.

Actually, that's incorrect. The majority of sex offenders (to use your term) are products of abusive, overly free (lack of parental oversight), and disconnected families. Exactly the type of families that do not preach abstinence. They typically have witnessed and/or been exposed to sexuality at an early age. Either from being a passive or active participant themselves .

In fact, therapy for sex offenders focuses on abstinence and avoidance of triggers.

You should really do your research before opining on things that you have no clue about.

Cite the studies, you anti-science neocon sheep.

Walt Kowalski wrote:

Cite the studies, you anti-science neocon sheep.

Do your own research, you illiterate POS.

That's right, I knew you didn't have it in you, wimp.

Walt Kowalski wrote:

The majority of sexual deviants (I prefer the term sex offender) are the products of repressed, abstinence only homes. I guess that's the alternative trend you prefer.

^^^Ipsedixitism = dullard

Unfortunately the dense ones are the most prolific reproducers as they lack the ability to delay gratification (and hold to this as some sort of honor)

why the number 144,000

a possible answer is palletizing requirements.

Bulk custom individual condoms are packed 1000 to the box and a dozen pallets with a dozen boxes of a thousand on each seems like a good answer

???? what are the consequences of sex ed? How are your children damaged?

My 5yr old knows about intercourse. How is this a problem? Is she now damaged? How so?

Banana Bread wrote:

I'm not in charge of the IAF and maybe never will be. But if I ever do manage to make it I would give more morals to runners. Teenagers shouldn't be doing the deed. They are too young. They should be building an education and concentrating on developing in whatever sports there doing. They shouldn't be abusing love(well it isn't real love anyway it is just fake feelings to have quick flings). I never get up to this so obviously didn't as a teenager because I'm ethical.

Maybe never will be?

Banana Bread wrote:

If I was in charge of the IAF I would ban this from the Olympic Village. Promiscuous and debauchery people don't deserve to be in the Olympics and I wouldn't be a fan of anyone who excepted a condom. I would hand it back. What ever happened to waiting for your soulmate and marriage? It is sick that the IAAF would allow and encourage people to act this way. What a joke.

Why can't people have sex before they're married? How does that have anything to do with them "deserving" to be in the Olympics? Their athletic abilities get them into the Olympics, and I somewhat understand that if someone commits some sort of hideous moral crime, that they shouldn't be celebrated by the IAAF and included in the Olympics (or other events), but how is having sex before marriage a moral crime?

It's obvious that most of them will bring most or all of them home and use them over time, thus providing a useful service in helping them delay pregnancy/impregnation until they're older and decreasing the spread of disease. When you have people from all over the world, just a few STD's might otherwise be spread widely.

Former insider wrote:

Hopefully I understand what you mean correctly and I used the good words to tell what I had in mind (English is not my first language).

What I called casual sex at the event was just 2 people "dating" for 3-4 days, kissing and possibly having sex , but I called it casual because it was sex very soon after meeting and without perspective of a long term relationship (since it was mostly between people from 2 different countries). People were 15-16.

Casual sex while exchange student was the same as above as well as sex with others watching, or multiple couples. The most liberal being the Australians and the Brasilians. Age 16-18.

Mmmm Australians

I'm enjoying Banana Bread's comments, and enjoying even more the comments of those who are taking him seriously.

I think I'm the only Romanian posting here and yes I'm an Orthodox Christian---we believe that having sex before marriage is a heavy sin because you don't have God's blessing to do it. Virginity is actually a virtue among Christians in our country and the age of consent is 18. If you commit this sin you have to confess it ASAP and do not even think about marrying the girl who has sinned with you.

Just my point of view I won't judge anyone else who disagrees with me.

Also using condoms even when married is another sin which demands confession and repentance like any other sin. Do not try condoma anyway they are not helping with the sensuality I think skin on skin contact is the best feeling ever ???

100mSpecialist wrote:

I think skin on skin contact is the best feeling ever ???

Well: how would you know then? Did you already confess ASAP? On your knees, sinner!

Banana Bread wrote:

If I was in charge of the IAF I would ban this from the Olympic Village. Promiscuous and debauchery people don't deserve to be in the Olympics and I wouldn't be a fan of anyone who excepted a condom.

I agree.

It's like providing needle-disposal boxes at Starbucks bathrooms for the homeless to do drugs safely.

At the same time, they don't wany anyone to smoke cigarettes in their stores. Leftists are hypocrites.