<p>"Nope. Didn't say that at all. I said they "CAN." Other posters have implied that self-control is not possible."</p>
<p>It's possible to get perfect self-control when you're looking at one individual. It's not possible when you're serving a POPULATION, which is what colleges have to do. If you have a group of 5000 kids, some will make bad choices -- some will skip class, some will smoke, some will have unprotected sex. You really CAN'T have a group of 5000 kids all exercising self-control, all the time. </p>
<p>From a public health standpoint, if your goal is to reduce bad health outcomes (unplanned pregnancy; STDs; etc), "expecting" or "demanding" self-control from a population is not usually the best strategy, because there's never been a population in human history that exercised anything close to perfect self-control, especially where sex is concerned. The best strateg ies usually involve thinking from the perspective of the person making the risky choice, and figuring out what is likely to make them change their behavior. A bowl of condoms might improve the odds that the student will make a good choice by (let's say) 50%; supercilious comments about how the student is too immature to have sex because she didn't buy condoms ahead of time improve the odds by 0%. </p>
<p>"Your points are ones of the usual liberal condescension. People on any lower rung of life than you are just not able to take care of themselves, are they?"</p>
<p>Could you please quote the statements I made that suggested people are on "lower rungs of life" than I am? Are you suggesting that every college student in America is currently taking good care of herself when it comes to sex? If not, how do you propose we discuss ways to fix the problem without mentioning those students and their risky behavior? </p>
<p>Regarding the comment upthread that college kids today who are too foolish to use a condom unless it's right in front of them have "bigger problems" to worry about...I don't think it's possible to have a bigger problem than an unplanned pregnancy, unless perhaps it's HIV.</p>
<p>Many, if not most, colleges these days make condoms readily and (often freely) available to their students. I would define this as making male and female contraception available. Condom availability, however, requires ZERO medical treatment or clinical care.</p>
<p>If you mean more extensive medical care in the on-campus clinic, the only way to find out what's offered is to call the clinic.</p>
<p>dmd77: what on earth do you mean by simply answering the OP's question? have you no soul? here we are trying to achieve world peace and solve world hunger and you just answer the question! Shame. :)</p>
<p>I gotcha, Hanna. Believe me, I understand. I just hold a different view, which is based on the notion that "we" don't have to fix anything regarding 18-21 year olds' sex lives. They can take responsibility for it themselves by that age, imo. Different viewpoint from others here, to be sure. Both can be respected. Somehow the discussion got off track when someone mentioned the fishbowl of condoms.</p>
<p>hereshoping:
I totally resent your assuming anything about my values. I think you've crossed the line now. If you think peace, compassion, generosity, civil rights, education and forgiveness (all traditional liberal values) aren't Jesuit values - well then you don't know what you're talking about. </p>
<p>And why did you quote me as saying that part about wasting application dollars? </p>
<p>And by the way, you might want to hide that righty mean streak - it is really out of style - "I'm just saying. ;)</p>
<p>Ya' know what hereshoping? Looking back on your posts, I see you are a little short on actual college-related posts. I see no threads where you've tried to help out kids or parents with college information. All I see are political threads. So, since the kind owners of this forum generously share their space for us on this cafe, maybe you could take a minute to actually contribute some real information somewhere on here instead of only using it for a political forum. BBFN.</p>
<p>...................from the OP...........Access to full range of health services at church-backed school? ..................</p>
<p>There are a couple of things that can be done if a school does not offer a ''full range'' of services - especially birth control/condom access - make sure to research where these services are available - Planned Parenthood - Women's health clinics, etc..... and make sure the student is aware of where these services are and how to access them - all it really takes is a phone call or 2. As for tucking the condoms into a suitcase for son's - don't forget the daughters as well. Tho I am sure we as parents don't like to think about our kids sex lives - they are human too - and being supportive and open and able to discuss this issue - as difficult as it may be - is important - before they go off to the big world out there.</p>
<p>Religiously affiliated schools have to the right to offer - or not to offer - reproductive services - tho I would feel that they would be very negligent if they did not offer rape crisis services.</p>
<p>I think one thing to keep in mind as well is that many of our kids don't feel comfortable discussing this issue with us parents - nor do they want us to know anything about their sex lives - but giving them the tools is very important for them - and for us as well. Many girls don't want their parents to know they are taking birth control - so don't fill the script under a parents health insurance - but also may not be able to pay for a script monthly. At least thru school clinics - or others mentioned above - they can at least do the responsible thing and gain access to needed woman's health care. </p>
<p>Just as our kids chose a school to attend based on research etc..... - they need to also be well aware of what is - and what is not - available for them and how to access those things - of their own choosing - as adults.</p>
<p>It is so interesting you have no idea how offensive your posts are, weenie. And my second quote was from JHS. celloguy and EK turned the conversation political and religious. IMO, your lefty condescension is out of style. Public schools expouse liberal social values (you specifically mentioned women's issues); Catholic schools expouse "conservative" social values. If you don't like the values of the school your kid is attending, why send him there? That is all I asked. I can understand your defensiveness, but give it a rest. I've posted on a lot of various other threads. What you say you have found is wrong. I learn from others' alternative views, maybe you could do the same, instead of trying to censor what people say. Indeed, I learned from you that some people send their kids to Catholic schools while "grinning and bearing" it. I seriously wasn't aware of that.</p>
<p>Since you got offended by my "waste my application dollars" line, I want to make clear that I was responding to and echoing Sticker Shock (with whom I had crossed posts). She said: "Save your application fee cash and don't let your kids apply to schools that fail to put fishbowls full of condoms in the dorms. It's that simple. Really." </p>
<p>I was agreeing with that. I think if your kids go to a religious college, they (and you) accept the package for what it is. At Catholic schools, students get all the great Catholic values, and they get a screwed-up (from my point of view) position on sexuality, too. They can't pick and choose, and they certainly can't complain because the school demands that its health services and counselling reflect its spiritual and moral values. But they can choose to go elsewhere for education, and I'm perfectly happy my kids did.</p>
<p>
[quote]
celloguy turned the conversation political and religious
[/quote]
</p>
<p>excuse me? The OP asked about the availability of birth control in LACs, and particularly in religious schools. A number of people responded with what they knew about that, including dt123 who reported condoms were free (but limited) at a west coast school, emeraldkity who reported a basket of condoms on the counter in the freshman dorm, and my own comment that I was "comforted" by the condom fishbowl in my daughter's dorm bathroom. Your responses were sarcastic, insulting, and frankly not very well framed (e.g., your responses seemed to indicate poor comprehension skills). Noticing this, I realized we weren't communicating well so I withdrew. You continue to misunderstand and fling insults. I don't know if this would help, but you might try carefully rereading the thread to try to better understand what's been said.</p>
<p>
[quote]
At Catholic schools, students get all the great Catholic values, and they get a screwed-up (from my point of view) position on sexuality, too.
[/quote]
Are you TRYING to be as offensive as possible? Or do you just not see how intolerant & ignorant this statement is?</p>
<p>...................and they get a screwed-up (from my point of view) position on sexuality, too...............
................... Or do you just not see how intolerant & ignorant this statement is?...............</p>
<p>Actually the statement - from their point of view - may not be that off base for many people. For some folks - the teachings - or demands - of the Catholic church regarding sexuality are off base - tho for folks who do follow the teachings find that appauling.</p>
<p>It is a to each their own situation - just depends on what one believes in - and not intolerant or ignorant at all.</p>
<p>My bigger fear is not that services are not provided at all on campus but that only a subset of services are provided and other options are not discussed at all. In the first case the student will go off campus to a service provider that hopefully provides info on all options while in the second case a naive student may not know they are only getting access to a few of their full range of options. </p>
<p>(Rereading this it sounds like I'm talking about abortion but the focal point was birth control options).</p>
<p>I grew up in a family that discussed issues. This was before the days of political correctness. I am slowly understanding that for some here it is very threatening to be confronted with opposing ideas, especially if they are not presented <em>just so.</em> This is the style of debate I'm used to. It's the way I think. celloguy, again, your posts appear to be very mild, but on close reading (which I do, contrary to your assertion) they are quite hostile. The hostility is not lost on someone like myself (nor, I think, on SS), coming from the opposite spectrum. In other words, you're not fooling anyone here.</p>
<p>Let us agree to disagree, and especially agree we all want what is best for our kids.</p>
<p>"do you just not see how intolerant & ignorant this statement is?"</p>
<p>When you insult the value systems of others, it's hard for me to get worked up when others insult yours. Here's what you said about my belief system:</p>
<p>"Your points are ones of the usual liberal condescension. People on any lower educational of socio-economic rung of life than you are just not able to take care of themselves, are they?"</p>
<p>What if I had responded, "Your points are ones of the usual Christian hypocrisy. Kids who have lower sexual morals than you deserve to get STD's, don't they?"</p>
<p>As it happens, I don't believe that. But it's a very close equivalent of what you said to me. I'm sure it isn't pleasant to hear it turned around. It comes across as pretty intolerant & ignorant, too. (Unless, of course, you are prepared to argue that only religious belief systems deserve tolerance and respect, while secular ones don't.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Let us agree to disagree, and especially agree we all want what is best for our kids.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, please. Let's. Now reread the paragraph above in which you accuse "us" of finding opposing ideas "very threatening." You accuse me in particular of posts that are "quite hostile," and, apparently, disingenuous ("you're not fooling anyone"). Most folks would take offense at three insults in a single paragraph, but I won't, okay?</p>
<p>I am a "devout liberal" and my kids go to a jesuit hs and as I said may indeed go to a jesuit college</p>
<p>there are some issues with the catholic church which I disagree with vehemently, but there are some other issues, the social ones that I embrace- helping the disadvantaged, etc</p>
<p>it is my Ds choice, who is as well a politically active liberal humanist young woman, and she is smart enough, that if she makes a mistake, will take care of it, and I could see her at her school making waves with regard to the health care options...</p>
<p>For me, the services should be there, and if you have the virginal child who never gets date raped, doesn't do anything - an yes, oral sex does count - then they can ignore the services offered....simple</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well, "Here's Hoping" for all college kids to practice abstinence. And "Here's Hoping" for whorled peas while we're at it.;)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'd suggest that parents who do not have their heads in the sand...(as well as the entire health profession - but forget about them).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
...tension between those who feel it is their moral duty to restrict access...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
...grin and bear it...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think that's a pretty dumb plan.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
At Catholic schools, students get the great Catholic values and they get a screwed up (from my point of view) position on sexuality too.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I found these quotes somewhat insulting.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Your points are the ones of the usual Christian hypocrisy - kids who have lower sexual morals than you deserve to get stds don't they?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The discussion as I saw it was about kids aged 18-21 being provided with contraception at colleges. I put forth the idea that perhaps, as "adults", they should be left to take care of their own personal birth control needs. This view is compatible with the view of Catholic college administrators. This view prompted the above comments, among others.</p>
<p>Hanna, If you made the statement above it would have nothing to do with the conversation, since no one was discussing morals. I also said I respected your views because you believe strongly that it is what is best for kids. In my view kids with all kinds of morals aged 18-21 are capable of taking care of themselves, imo. A poster elsewhere recently put it very well: kids today are being "SEXUALIZED AND INFANTILIZED" simultaneously. I think that is it in a nutshell. I'd like to see kids treat sex more seriously, and also take more responsibility for their own choices. The discussion centered around differing practices at colleges in furnishing reproductive healthcare (the OP), and was expanded to include whether these practices are wise or not.</p>
<p>Hanna, I never insulted anyone's value system.</p>
<p>
[quote]
For me, the services should be there, and if you have the virginal child who never gets date raped, doesn't do anything - an yes, oral sex does count - then they can ignore the services offered....simple
[/quote]
CGM, that's how it works in schools without religious affiliation right now. Students who are not sexually active do not seek out these services. Many who are sexually active prefer to handle these matters with a trusted physician or are capable of buying condoms at the local 711. </p>
<p>But we're talking about schools that ARE affiliated with religions. They have every right to run things as they choose, in keeping with the doctrines of their faith. Now if you were to found the CGM Humanist University, you could choose to handle these matters as you saw fit, fully expecting that those attending would understand that going in and not apply if this approach conflicted with their own ideas.</p>