Is Condom Distribution Smart Health Policy?

Recommend (2) Comments (9)

“Safe” sex. “Protected” sex. The terms alone are misleading, as sexual activity is inherently risky, physically, emotionally, and, as medical research is increasingly demonstrating, psychologically. Sex has massive potential either to foster trust and devotion or to destroy a person’s ability to experience either; too often, the latter becomes a reality, particularly when an individual is sexually active early in life.

Even correct condom use (and when we don’t trust teens to do just about anything else correctly, why would we trust them to get this right while in a state of adolescent arousal?) only reduces the risk of some sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) by 50% and does not guarantee the prevention of pregnancy. With respect to most negative emotional and psychological outcomes (e.g., betrayal, depression, decreased academic performance, etc.), condoms have a prevention rate of 0%. Not very reassuring statistics, those.

Yet handing out condoms to all comers at a public school contributes to the flood of raging hormonal giddiness that so effectively drowns out voices of caution. Ah, you say, that raging hormonal giddiness exists anyway, so why not provide some level of protection to kids who are already or would anyways become sexually active? Because it is naïve to believe that making condoms freely available does not lead to increased sexual activity one way or another. It is the difference between arranging a romantic fire, bearskin rug, and massage oil for a couple of 15-year-old lovebirds, and at least requiring them to purchase and set up the honeymoon suite themselves. At least there’s the chance that the extra energy and time required will lower the heat and allow a few of those boring yet sobering statistics from health class to pop into their still-developing brain.