>"The study found that 45 percent of students aged 13 to 19 already had an active sex life and that 60 to 70 percent had used condoms to protect against unwanted pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases like AIDS.
>
>About 10 percent said they had sex without using a condom because they could not afford one, while 42 percent said they simply did not have one handy."
>
>We can either get up on a stump and beat our chests about ideology or actually try to address the problem of teen pregnancy and STDs. No one is going to stop them from doing it, that's for sure.
>
>I'm fine with making condoms available. But there's another (and far more important) side to this - it's called responsibility.
>
>I just saw on the local news that a 38 year old female prostitute *may* have infected as many as 10 male college students in the SE Philly area. I find it impossible to believe that 10 different male college students couldn't get access to a condom.
>
>My wife has a much younger brother, whose father bolted years ago. So I took on the responsibility of giving him some direction when he became a teenager. I've had many open and brutally honest conversations with him regarding drugs and sex and responsibility. I'm not in denial when I say that I know he understands the risks and will make the right decisions.
>
>OK....so 13 and 14 year old kids claim they're using condoms....every time???? That is TOO young to have sex...for the simple reason that they're unable to handle all of the possible physical and emotional consequences.
>
>Now...condoms offer protection against AIDS - but they are hardly full-proof. Condoms were designed to protect against standard STDs. The HIV virus is many times smaller. Plus which, I've talked to people in the health care industry who report that many teens wind up not using condoms after awhile.
>
>IMO, just dumping condoms (in itself) is a panacea.
>

I know you meant it's NOT a panacea, and I agree with you. It still seems like a step in the right direction.