What is the earliest age you would buy condoms for your son?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok so the Narcan is a great analogy and the "I am not supplying my kids with condom" moms are clearly also the "I'd not supplying my kids with Narcan" moms.

They think by not offering anything and being stern with their own personal values that their kids won't do drugs or have sex. And they think if you put some condoms and/or narcan in your house it will be immediately be a drug-infested brothel. And that is just how their parenting is going to be and they think it's correct. So be it. Kudos to you all.

And kudos to you as well. When you walk in on your teens banging in your kitchen, you can at least reassure yourself with the fact that a condom is present. And given how involved you are, I'm sure you wouldn't be shy about interrupting them momentarily to do a condom check before you delightfully tell them to resume thrusting in your house.

Or, after you revive your teen from their overdose with your Narcan (because you're a REAL-WORLD PREPARED MOM), smiling at your dazed and confused teen as you beam at them and say, "Good thing I keep the Narcan around in the house, huh, honey? Aren't I a good mom?"

Oh sweetie the time to stop trolling or drinking is now, because this retort just confirmed everything the PP stated and you look like a fool. Kinda like Marjorie Taylor Greene always thinking she is right. LOL

+100

I wish I knew that PP in real life. Her presumed superiority must be hilarious in person.

She is also the +1, +2 back to back posters on this thread too. On her own comments. How are their people like this? haha

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok so the Narcan is a great analogy and the "I am not supplying my kids with condom" moms are clearly also the "I'd not supplying my kids with Narcan" moms.

They think by not offering anything and being stern with their own personal values that their kids won't do drugs or have sex. And they think if you put some condoms and/or narcan in your house it will be immediately be a drug-infested brothel. And that is just how their parenting is going to be and they think it's correct. So be it. Kudos to you all.

I absolutely 100% expect my kids not to do drugs. If my kids need narcan then the failure on my part happened years BEFORE that point was reached, not the point at which I didn’t supply narcan. I would never send my teen to a party with narcan to “save others” - if I thought that would be a concern, my teen would NOT BE GOING to that party.

I am fully aware that at some point my teens will have sex, but I expect them to 1) buy and use protection like the mature-enough-to-have-sex people they think they are, and 2) put enough effort into sneaking around that I don’t have to know about their sex lives.

THANK YOU! I really don't know why this thought process is so radical to some people.

I repeat: If you have to buy protection for people who want to engage in sex, maybe they're not old or mature enough to do so??? And somehow I'm the crazy person for finding it to be absurd that I as a parent should supply my minor children with condoms so they can have sex and I can deal with the consequences if even despite my giving them condoms, a pregnancy or STD happens anyway???

Do you think that not buying condoms is going to prevent them from having sex? Like a kid who wants to have sex is going to say “well I guess I won’t do it now because I couldn’t find any condoms in the house.”

Honestly… in many cases, yes. In many cases teens really want to have sex BUT they also have internalized that they absolutely shouldn’t unless they use protection. With two people involved, you have double the chances of one of them calling it off unless a condom is available.

You are in fact, absolutely incorrect!!!

Results: Most teens (69%) had recently engaged in unprotected sex and 41% were willing to in the future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok so the Narcan is a great analogy and the "I am not supplying my kids with condom" moms are clearly also the "I'd not supplying my kids with Narcan" moms.

They think by not offering anything and being stern with their own personal values that their kids won't do drugs or have sex. And they think if you put some condoms and/or narcan in your house it will be immediately be a drug-infested brothel. And that is just how their parenting is going to be and they think it's correct. So be it. Kudos to you all.

I absolutely 100% expect my kids not to do drugs. If my kids need narcan then the failure on my part happened years BEFORE that point was reached, not the point at which I didn’t supply narcan. I would never send my teen to a party with narcan to “save others” - if I thought that would be a concern, my teen would NOT BE GOING to that party.

I am fully aware that at some point my teens will have sex, but I expect them to 1) buy and use protection like the mature-enough-to-have-sex people they think they are, and 2) put enough effort into sneaking around that I don’t have to know about their sex lives.

Weed is legal in many states and weed is also sometimes laced with fentanyl unknowingly. If you think your kids will never smoke weed in their entire high school or college life or you failed as a parent, you are just gonna have kids that never communicate anything with you since you will forever be disappointed in them

I never smoked weed in high school or college. And I’m not special. Lots of people, believe it or not, make it to adulthood without doing drugs.

+1

I also never did drugs (including smoking weed) and I was and am a happy, well-adjusted person with a satisfying social life and a great relationship with my parents. The majority of my friends also never dod drugs.

+2

Great! But also extraordinarily out of touch with teens and early 20-something people today. They are ditching alcohol in favor of weed.

I understand and can agree that marijuana use can and is more common with teens and young adults today compared to those in the past. Still doesn't mean EVERYONE does it.

But most do. 66% of all teens 12-19 have done it just within their last 3 months. Not even just ever which would be even higher.

What survey are you citing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok so the Narcan is a great analogy and the "I am not supplying my kids with condom" moms are clearly also the "I'd not supplying my kids with Narcan" moms.

They think by not offering anything and being stern with their own personal values that their kids won't do drugs or have sex. And they think if you put some condoms and/or narcan in your house it will be immediately be a drug-infested brothel. And that is just how their parenting is going to be and they think it's correct. So be it. Kudos to you all.

I absolutely 100% expect my kids not to do drugs. If my kids need narcan then the failure on my part happened years BEFORE that point was reached, not the point at which I didn’t supply narcan. I would never send my teen to a party with narcan to “save others” - if I thought that would be a concern, my teen would NOT BE GOING to that party.

I am fully aware that at some point my teens will have sex, but I expect them to 1) buy and use protection like the mature-enough-to-have-sex people they think they are, and 2) put enough effort into sneaking around that I don’t have to know about their sex lives.

THANK YOU! I really don't know why this thought process is so radical to some people.

I repeat: If you have to buy protection for people who want to engage in sex, maybe they're not old or mature enough to do so??? And somehow I'm the crazy person for finding it to be absurd that I as a parent should supply my minor children with condoms so they can have sex and I can deal with the consequences if even despite my giving them condoms, a pregnancy or STD happens anyway???

Do you think that not buying condoms is going to prevent them from having sex? Like a kid who wants to have sex is going to say “well I guess I won’t do it now because I couldn’t find any condoms in the house.”

Honestly… in many cases, yes. In many cases teens really want to have sex BUT they also have internalized that they absolutely shouldn’t unless they use protection. With two people involved, you have double the chances of one of them calling it off unless a condom is available.

You are in fact, absolutely incorrect!!!

Results: Most teens (69%) had recently engaged in unprotected sex and 41% were willing to in the future.

LOL I'm the poster who pointed out the futility of expecting adolescents to use condoms responsibly and consistently that the condom-distributors freaked out about so nice to see data backing what I knew with common sense to be true. What survey is this from?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok so the Narcan is a great analogy and the "I am not supplying my kids with condom" moms are clearly also the "I'd not supplying my kids with Narcan" moms.

They think by not offering anything and being stern with their own personal values that their kids won't do drugs or have sex. And they think if you put some condoms and/or narcan in your house it will be immediately be a drug-infested brothel. And that is just how their parenting is going to be and they think it's correct. So be it. Kudos to you all.

I absolutely 100% expect my kids not to do drugs. If my kids need narcan then the failure on my part happened years BEFORE that point was reached, not the point at which I didn’t supply narcan. I would never send my teen to a party with narcan to “save others” - if I thought that would be a concern, my teen would NOT BE GOING to that party.

I am fully aware that at some point my teens will have sex, but I expect them to 1) buy and use protection like the mature-enough-to-have-sex people they think they are, and 2) put enough effort into sneaking around that I don’t have to know about their sex lives.

THANK YOU! I really don't know why this thought process is so radical to some people.

I repeat: If you have to buy protection for people who want to engage in sex, maybe they're not old or mature enough to do so??? And somehow I'm the crazy person for finding it to be absurd that I as a parent should supply my minor children with condoms so they can have sex and I can deal with the consequences if even despite my giving them condoms, a pregnancy or STD happens anyway???

Do you think that not buying condoms is going to prevent them from having sex? Like a kid who wants to have sex is going to say “well I guess I won’t do it now because I couldn’t find any condoms in the house.”

Honestly… in many cases, yes. In many cases teens really want to have sex BUT they also have internalized that they absolutely shouldn’t unless they use protection. With two people involved, you have double the chances of one of them calling it off unless a condom is available.

You are in fact, absolutely incorrect!!!

Results: Most teens (69%) had recently engaged in unprotected sex and 41% were willing to in the future.

I am confident that my teens fall in that 30% bucket of “exceptional” kids who have healthy self esteem, a modicum of impulse control, and are not complete morons.

I suspect the other posters on this thread who agree with me (despite the nutjob crying troll every other post, there really are many of us!) are also raising “exceptional” kids. In fact, our kids are probably hanging out together doing age-appropriate things while your kids are screwing in your bed or off reviving their ODing friends down at the gas station.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok so the Narcan is a great analogy and the "I am not supplying my kids with condom" moms are clearly also the "I'd not supplying my kids with Narcan" moms.

They think by not offering anything and being stern with their own personal values that their kids won't do drugs or have sex. And they think if you put some condoms and/or narcan in your house it will be immediately be a drug-infested brothel. And that is just how their parenting is going to be and they think it's correct. So be it. Kudos to you all.

I absolutely 100% expect my kids not to do drugs. If my kids need narcan then the failure on my part happened years BEFORE that point was reached, not the point at which I didn’t supply narcan. I would never send my teen to a party with narcan to “save others” - if I thought that would be a concern, my teen would NOT BE GOING to that party.

I am fully aware that at some point my teens will have sex, but I expect them to 1) buy and use protection like the mature-enough-to-have-sex people they think they are, and 2) put enough effort into sneaking around that I don’t have to know about their sex lives.

THANK YOU! I really don't know why this thought process is so radical to some people.

I repeat: If you have to buy protection for people who want to engage in sex, maybe they're not old or mature enough to do so??? And somehow I'm the crazy person for finding it to be absurd that I as a parent should supply my minor children with condoms so they can have sex and I can deal with the consequences if even despite my giving them condoms, a pregnancy or STD happens anyway???

Do you think that not buying condoms is going to prevent them from having sex? Like a kid who wants to have sex is going to say “well I guess I won’t do it now because I couldn’t find any condoms in the house.”

Honestly… in many cases, yes. In many cases teens really want to have sex BUT they also have internalized that they absolutely shouldn’t unless they use protection. With two people involved, you have double the chances of one of them calling it off unless a condom is available.

You are in fact, absolutely incorrect!!!

Results: Most teens (69%) had recently engaged in unprotected sex and 41% were willing to in the future.

I am confident that my teens fall in that 30% bucket of “exceptional” kids who have healthy self esteem, a modicum of impulse control, and are not complete morons.

I suspect the other posters on this thread who agree with me (despite the nutjob crying troll every other post, there really are many of us!) are also raising “exceptional” kids. In fact, our kids are probably hanging out together doing age-appropriate things while your kids are screwing in your bed or off reviving their ODing friends down at the gas station.

+1 and grabbing condoms from the bathroom on the way out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok so the Narcan is a great analogy and the "I am not supplying my kids with condom" moms are clearly also the "I'd not supplying my kids with Narcan" moms.

They think by not offering anything and being stern with their own personal values that their kids won't do drugs or have sex. And they think if you put some condoms and/or narcan in your house it will be immediately be a drug-infested brothel. And that is just how their parenting is going to be and they think it's correct. So be it. Kudos to you all.

And kudos to you as well. When you walk in on your teens banging in your kitchen, you can at least reassure yourself with the fact that a condom is present. And given how involved you are, I'm sure you wouldn't be shy about interrupting them momentarily to do a condom check before you delightfully tell them to resume thrusting in your house.

Or, after you revive your teen from their overdose with your Narcan (because you're a REAL-WORLD PREPARED MOM), smiling at your dazed and confused teen as you beam at them and say, "Good thing I keep the Narcan around in the house, huh, honey? Aren't I a good mom?"

+1 I LOVE this. I am right there with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok so the Narcan is a great analogy and the "I am not supplying my kids with condom" moms are clearly also the "I'd not supplying my kids with Narcan" moms.

They think by not offering anything and being stern with their own personal values that their kids won't do drugs or have sex. And they think if you put some condoms and/or narcan in your house it will be immediately be a drug-infested brothel. And that is just how their parenting is going to be and they think it's correct. So be it. Kudos to you all.

I absolutely 100% expect my kids not to do drugs. If my kids need narcan then the failure on my part happened years BEFORE that point was reached, not the point at which I didn’t supply narcan. I would never send my teen to a party with narcan to “save others” - if I thought that would be a concern, my teen would NOT BE GOING to that party.

I am fully aware that at some point my teens will have sex, but I expect them to 1) buy and use protection like the mature-enough-to-have-sex people they think they are, and 2) put enough effort into sneaking around that I don’t have to know about their sex lives.

THANK YOU! I really don't know why this thought process is so radical to some people.

I repeat: If you have to buy protection for people who want to engage in sex, maybe they're not old or mature enough to do so??? And somehow I'm the crazy person for finding it to be absurd that I as a parent should supply my minor children with condoms so they can have sex and I can deal with the consequences if even despite my giving them condoms, a pregnancy or STD happens anyway???

Do you think that not buying condoms is going to prevent them from having sex? Like a kid who wants to have sex is going to say “well I guess I won’t do it now because I couldn’t find any condoms in the house.”

Honestly… in many cases, yes. In many cases teens really want to have sex BUT they also have internalized that they absolutely shouldn’t unless they use protection. With two people involved, you have double the chances of one of them calling it off unless a condom is available.

You are in fact, absolutely incorrect!!!

Results: Most teens (69%) had recently engaged in unprotected sex and 41% were willing to in the future.

I am confident that my teens fall in that 30% bucket of “exceptional” kids who have healthy self esteem, a modicum of impulse control, and are not complete morons.

I suspect the other posters on this thread who agree with me (despite the nutjob crying troll every other post, there really are many of us!) are also raising “exceptional” kids. In fact, our kids are probably hanging out together doing age-appropriate things while your kids are screwing in your bed or off reviving their ODing friends down at the gas station.

Of course you are! I would expect nothing less from the world’s best parent. Who I’m guessing also has NPD. Or is just and a$$hole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here, answering the question: Is there some reason your kid can’t walk into CVS and buy his own?

Yes. He's 14. GF is 15.

OMG.

Stop clutching your pearls. I was having sex at 14/15 (after a year of dating) and I found a way to buy condoms or my BF did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok so the Narcan is a great analogy and the "I am not supplying my kids with condom" moms are clearly also the "I'd not supplying my kids with Narcan" moms.

They think by not offering anything and being stern with their own personal values that their kids won't do drugs or have sex. And they think if you put some condoms and/or narcan in your house it will be immediately be a drug-infested brothel. And that is just how their parenting is going to be and they think it's correct. So be it. Kudos to you all.

I absolutely 100% expect my kids not to do drugs. If my kids need narcan then the failure on my part happened years BEFORE that point was reached, not the point at which I didn’t supply narcan. I would never send my teen to a party with narcan to “save others” - if I thought that would be a concern, my teen would NOT BE GOING to that party.

I am fully aware that at some point my teens will have sex, but I expect them to 1) buy and use protection like the mature-enough-to-have-sex people they think they are, and 2) put enough effort into sneaking around that I don’t have to know about their sex lives.

THANK YOU! I really don't know why this thought process is so radical to some people.

I repeat: If you have to buy protection for people who want to engage in sex, maybe they're not old or mature enough to do so??? And somehow I'm the crazy person for finding it to be absurd that I as a parent should supply my minor children with condoms so they can have sex and I can deal with the consequences if even despite my giving them condoms, a pregnancy or STD happens anyway???

Do you think that not buying condoms is going to prevent them from having sex? Like a kid who wants to have sex is going to say “well I guess I won’t do it now because I couldn’t find any condoms in the house.”

Honestly… in many cases, yes. In many cases teens really want to have sex BUT they also have internalized that they absolutely shouldn’t unless they use protection. With two people involved, you have double the chances of one of them calling it off unless a condom is available.

You are in fact, absolutely incorrect!!!

Results: Most teens (69%) had recently engaged in unprotected sex and 41% were willing to in the future.

I am confident that my teens fall in that 30% bucket of “exceptional” kids who have healthy self esteem, a modicum of impulse control, and are not complete morons.

I suspect the other posters on this thread who agree with me (despite the nutjob crying troll every other post, there really are many of us!) are also raising “exceptional” kids. In fact, our kids are probably hanging out together doing age-appropriate things while your kids are screwing in your bed or off reviving their ODing friends down at the gas station.

Totally serious question: let’s say my (fictitious) 14 yo daughter was having regular sex with condoms I supplied to her. What makes your kid (who absolutely positively would NEVER have sex until she’s married) better than my kid? All else being equal (meaning my kid is ALSO partaking in age appropriate activities, is a talented athlete, is doing well in school, and is a joy to be around)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a 13 year old, so it isn’t an issue yet, but he knows there is an open box of condoms in the medicine cabinet beside the soap and tampons and zit cream. I restock them all as needed.

+1. Planning to do the same when my kids are teenagers. I mentioned this in another thread, but my dad kept "his" condoms in the upstairs linen closet for years when my brother and I were teens. We'd help ourselves as needed. Many years later, we found out our dad had gotten a vasectomy when we were toddlers. I am being serious when I say I never had sex without a condom until I was engaged, not even once (I was also on the Pill from age 14 because I had terrible periods but also because my mom did NOT play).

Your kids ARE teenagers.

Even
If they won’t use them now, normalize that you will help and let them
Learn to use them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok so the Narcan is a great analogy and the "I am not supplying my kids with condom" moms are clearly also the "I'd not supplying my kids with Narcan" moms.

They think by not offering anything and being stern with their own personal values that their kids won't do drugs or have sex. And they think if you put some condoms and/or narcan in your house it will be immediately be a drug-infested brothel. And that is just how their parenting is going to be and they think it's correct. So be it. Kudos to you all.

I absolutely 100% expect my kids not to do drugs. If my kids need narcan then the failure on my part happened years BEFORE that point was reached, not the point at which I didn’t supply narcan. I would never send my teen to a party with narcan to “save others” - if I thought that would be a concern, my teen would NOT BE GOING to that party.

I am fully aware that at some point my teens will have sex, but I expect them to 1) buy and use protection like the mature-enough-to-have-sex people they think they are, and 2) put enough effort into sneaking around that I don’t have to know about their sex lives.

THANK YOU! I really don't know why this thought process is so radical to some people.

I repeat: If you have to buy protection for people who want to engage in sex, maybe they're not old or mature enough to do so??? And somehow I'm the crazy person for finding it to be absurd that I as a parent should supply my minor children with condoms so they can have sex and I can deal with the consequences if even despite my giving them condoms, a pregnancy or STD happens anyway???

Do you think that not buying condoms is going to prevent them from having sex? Like a kid who wants to have sex is going to say “well I guess I won’t do it now because I couldn’t find any condoms in the house.”

Honestly… in many cases, yes. In many cases teens really want to have sex BUT they also have internalized that they absolutely shouldn’t unless they use protection. With two people involved, you have double the chances of one of them calling it off unless a condom is available.

You are in fact, absolutely incorrect!!!

Results: Most teens (69%) had recently engaged in unprotected sex and 41% were willing to in the future.

I am confident that my teens fall in that 30% bucket of “exceptional” kids who have healthy self esteem, a modicum of impulse control, and are not complete morons.

I suspect the other posters on this thread who agree with me (despite the nutjob crying troll every other post, there really are many of us!) are also raising “exceptional” kids. In fact, our kids are probably hanging out together doing age-appropriate things while your kids are screwing in your bed or off reviving their ODing friends down at the gas station.

Totally serious question: let’s say my (fictitious) 14 yo daughter was having regular sex with condoms I supplied to her. What makes your kid (who absolutely positively would NEVER have sex until she’s married) better than my kid? All else being equal (meaning my kid is ALSO partaking in age appropriate activities, is a talented athlete, is doing well in school, and is a joy to be around)?

Well for starters in this fictitious scenario, my daughter would be better than your daughter because she would be clever enough, responsible enough, and capable enough to purchase her own condoms whenever it is she decides she’s ready for sex, rather than needing her mommy to do it for her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok so the Narcan is a great analogy and the "I am not supplying my kids with condom" moms are clearly also the "I'd not supplying my kids with Narcan" moms.

They think by not offering anything and being stern with their own personal values that their kids won't do drugs or have sex. And they think if you put some condoms and/or narcan in your house it will be immediately be a drug-infested brothel. And that is just how their parenting is going to be and they think it's correct. So be it. Kudos to you all.

I absolutely 100% expect my kids not to do drugs. If my kids need narcan then the failure on my part happened years BEFORE that point was reached, not the point at which I didn’t supply narcan. I would never send my teen to a party with narcan to “save others” - if I thought that would be a concern, my teen would NOT BE GOING to that party.

I am fully aware that at some point my teens will have sex, but I expect them to 1) buy and use protection like the mature-enough-to-have-sex people they think they are, and 2) put enough effort into sneaking around that I don’t have to know about their sex lives.

THANK YOU! I really don't know why this thought process is so radical to some people.

I repeat: If you have to buy protection for people who want to engage in sex, maybe they're not old or mature enough to do so??? And somehow I'm the crazy person for finding it to be absurd that I as a parent should supply my minor children with condoms so they can have sex and I can deal with the consequences if even despite my giving them condoms, a pregnancy or STD happens anyway???

Do you think that not buying condoms is going to prevent them from having sex? Like a kid who wants to have sex is going to say “well I guess I won’t do it now because I couldn’t find any condoms in the house.”

Honestly… in many cases, yes. In many cases teens really want to have sex BUT they also have internalized that they absolutely shouldn’t unless they use protection. With two people involved, you have double the chances of one of them calling it off unless a condom is available.

You are in fact, absolutely incorrect!!!

Results: Most teens (69%) had recently engaged in unprotected sex and 41% were willing to in the future.

I am confident that my teens fall in that 30% bucket of “exceptional” kids who have healthy self esteem, a modicum of impulse control, and are not complete morons.

I suspect the other posters on this thread who agree with me (despite the nutjob crying troll every other post, there really are many of us!) are also raising “exceptional” kids. In fact, our kids are probably hanging out together doing age-appropriate things while your kids are screwing in your bed or off reviving their ODing friends down at the gas station.

Totally serious question: let’s say my (fictitious) 14 yo daughter was having regular sex with condoms I supplied to her. What makes your kid (who absolutely positively would NEVER have sex until she’s married) better than my kid? All else being equal (meaning my kid is ALSO partaking in age appropriate activities, is a talented athlete, is doing well in school, and is a joy to be around)?

Well for starters in this fictitious scenario, my daughter would be better than your daughter because she would be clever enough, responsible enough, and capable enough to purchase her own condoms whenever it is she decides she’s ready for sex, rather than needing her mommy to do it for her.

I may not like the tone, but I see the sense in this. If mommy is buying condoms now, when does this stop? This condom buying seems like the latest permutation of helicopter parenting. Also, if I were dating a guy whose mother new enough about his sex life to buy him condoms, that would be a hard no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok so the Narcan is a great analogy and the "I am not supplying my kids with condom" moms are clearly also the "I'd not supplying my kids with Narcan" moms.

They think by not offering anything and being stern with their own personal values that their kids won't do drugs or have sex. And they think if you put some condoms and/or narcan in your house it will be immediately be a drug-infested brothel. And that is just how their parenting is going to be and they think it's correct. So be it. Kudos to you all.

I absolutely 100% expect my kids not to do drugs. If my kids need narcan then the failure on my part happened years BEFORE that point was reached, not the point at which I didn’t supply narcan. I would never send my teen to a party with narcan to “save others” - if I thought that would be a concern, my teen would NOT BE GOING to that party.

I am fully aware that at some point my teens will have sex, but I expect them to 1) buy and use protection like the mature-enough-to-have-sex people they think they are, and 2) put enough effort into sneaking around that I don’t have to know about their sex lives.

THANK YOU! I really don't know why this thought process is so radical to some people.

I repeat: If you have to buy protection for people who want to engage in sex, maybe they're not old or mature enough to do so??? And somehow I'm the crazy person for finding it to be absurd that I as a parent should supply my minor children with condoms so they can have sex and I can deal with the consequences if even despite my giving them condoms, a pregnancy or STD happens anyway???

Do you think that not buying condoms is going to prevent them from having sex? Like a kid who wants to have sex is going to say “well I guess I won’t do it now because I couldn’t find any condoms in the house.”

Honestly… in many cases, yes. In many cases teens really want to have sex BUT they also have internalized that they absolutely shouldn’t unless they use protection. With two people involved, you have double the chances of one of them calling it off unless a condom is available.

You are in fact, absolutely incorrect!!!

Results: Most teens (69%) had recently engaged in unprotected sex and 41% were willing to in the future.

I am confident that my teens fall in that 30% bucket of “exceptional” kids who have healthy self esteem, a modicum of impulse control, and are not complete morons.

I suspect the other posters on this thread who agree with me (despite the nutjob crying troll every other post, there really are many of us!) are also raising “exceptional” kids. In fact, our kids are probably hanging out together doing age-appropriate things while your kids are screwing in your bed or off reviving their ODing friends down at the gas station.

Totally serious question: let’s say my (fictitious) 14 yo daughter was having regular sex with condoms I supplied to her. What makes your kid (who absolutely positively would NEVER have sex until she’s married) better than my kid? All else being equal (meaning my kid is ALSO partaking in age appropriate activities, is a talented athlete, is doing well in school, and is a joy to be around)?

Well for starters in this fictitious scenario, my daughter would be better than your daughter because she would be clever enough, responsible enough, and capable enough to purchase her own condoms whenever it is she decides she’s ready for sex, rather than needing her mommy to do it for her.

So what else? Besides this major indicator of fabulousness?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok so the Narcan is a great analogy and the "I am not supplying my kids with condom" moms are clearly also the "I'd not supplying my kids with Narcan" moms.

They think by not offering anything and being stern with their own personal values that their kids won't do drugs or have sex. And they think if you put some condoms and/or narcan in your house it will be immediately be a drug-infested brothel. And that is just how their parenting is going to be and they think it's correct. So be it. Kudos to you all.

I absolutely 100% expect my kids not to do drugs. If my kids need narcan then the failure on my part happened years BEFORE that point was reached, not the point at which I didn’t supply narcan. I would never send my teen to a party with narcan to “save others” - if I thought that would be a concern, my teen would NOT BE GOING to that party.

I am fully aware that at some point my teens will have sex, but I expect them to 1) buy and use protection like the mature-enough-to-have-sex people they think they are, and 2) put enough effort into sneaking around that I don’t have to know about their sex lives.

THANK YOU! I really don't know why this thought process is so radical to some people.

I repeat: If you have to buy protection for people who want to engage in sex, maybe they're not old or mature enough to do so??? And somehow I'm the crazy person for finding it to be absurd that I as a parent should supply my minor children with condoms so they can have sex and I can deal with the consequences if even despite my giving them condoms, a pregnancy or STD happens anyway???

Do you think that not buying condoms is going to prevent them from having sex? Like a kid who wants to have sex is going to say “well I guess I won’t do it now because I couldn’t find any condoms in the house.”

Honestly… in many cases, yes. In many cases teens really want to have sex BUT they also have internalized that they absolutely shouldn’t unless they use protection. With two people involved, you have double the chances of one of them calling it off unless a condom is available.

You are in fact, absolutely incorrect!!!

Results: Most teens (69%) had recently engaged in unprotected sex and 41% were willing to in the future.

I am confident that my teens fall in that 30% bucket of “exceptional” kids who have healthy self esteem, a modicum of impulse control, and are not complete morons.

I suspect the other posters on this thread who agree with me (despite the nutjob crying troll every other post, there really are many of us!) are also raising “exceptional” kids. In fact, our kids are probably hanging out together doing age-appropriate things while your kids are screwing in your bed or off reviving their ODing friends down at the gas station.

Totally serious question: let’s say my (fictitious) 14 yo daughter was having regular sex with condoms I supplied to her. What makes your kid (who absolutely positively would NEVER have sex until she’s married) better than my kid? All else being equal (meaning my kid is ALSO partaking in age appropriate activities, is a talented athlete, is doing well in school, and is a joy to be around)?

Well for starters in this fictitious scenario, my daughter would be better than your daughter because she would be clever enough, responsible enough, and capable enough to purchase her own condoms whenever it is she decides she’s ready for sex, rather than needing her mommy to do it for her.

I may not like the tone, but I see the sense in this. If mommy is buying condoms now, when does this stop? This condom buying seems like the latest permutation of helicopter parenting. Also, if I were dating a guy whose mother new enough about his sex life to buy him condoms, that would be a hard no.

In terms of your kids (not your partners mom), do you really NOT want to know that they’re having sex?

And I’m just not understanding how this qualifies as helicopter parenting. I would think “you’re not having sex until you are a mature adult” is more on the side of helicoptering.