Free Condoms for 11 year-olds.

I had about three starts-and-stops on writing this post. What can you really say about a city giving away condoms to 11 year-old children?

It’s horrid? It’s unimaginably bad law writing? It’s a sign of the utter rot of our culture?

See, for a whole lot of us, all of that goes without saying, so why say it? We’ll just look, agape, at the cesspool that produces such policy, and move along because we don’t live in Philly and can’t do anything to stop it anyhow.

Those who support such a policy argue that, well, some kids become sexually active at that tender age, so we gotta make sure they’re being responsible about it.

Never mind that sex at that early age already indicates a glaring, massive lack of responsibility on the part of the children, and even more so on the part of whatever role models and/or authority figures they’ve had in their lives. So the cant about “being responsible” is really trying to put a Band-Aid on an amputated leg.

They even suggest positions in which the little girl can insert a female condom, or, for extra fun, have your partner help you! Fun!

But speaking of responsibility, where is the sense of responsibility on the part of law makers? Laws are in place to direct behavior and train virtue, not just to set parameters outside of which you get punished. A government policy with fun, cartoonish packaging, tells kids “here’s a balloon for your party.” It says, “sure, go ahead, have sex at eleven.” The packaging itself gives away the farm on this one: sex is about having fun, and nothing more. There is not relationship, no self-gift, no spirit-body connection, nothing singular or amazing about the act at all: it’s just about having fun. (And those pesky unwanted pregnancies. Damn our biology.)

Unintended pregnancy rates and STD infection rates rise in places where condoms are passed out for free (see: Africa). The reason is simple, really. If people are not helped to realize that they can and ought to be in control of their base urges rather than being controlled by them, if people are not supported in remaining a virgin or at least in remaining monogamous, if people are not directly, actively encouraged to wait until marriage* for sex, then there is no societal formation to do those things. Compound that with being given a condom by the government apparatus that supplies your food, security, and housing, and then being given a condom is like being given a lollipop: it loses all significance.

It kind of removes wonder about how a figure like Kermit Gosnell could operate for so long in a city like Philadelphia. If the city is actively encouraging promiscuity in the pre-teen years, at a time when the children certainly cannot afford an abortion or would have to tell their parents (if they have any parents), then where will the children go for abortion but places like Gosnell’s “clinic”? A failure to respect life at the front end doesn’t suggest a real respect for life at any part.

I wonder: will the city pay for the abortions that these eleven, twelve, thirteen year-old girls will either seek or have forced upon them when the condom is misused or breaks? Will the city require the youth to get their parents’ permission or to notify their parents? The city is not requiring parental notification to procure the free condoms, so why the resulting abortion? If the city intends to pay for abortions, then I’m glad there is still a shred of federalism in this country, and I do expect that no money will go from my pocket to bailout Philadelphia as it is aborting itself out of existence.



  • Hubert

    It is sad to think sometimes how the US is Screwed Up in it’s cultural values! And it’s companies too, McDonald’s tried to show a TV ad in the Philipines where a 6 year old girl prostitutes herself out for their french fries! The Catholic Church in the Philipines wouldnt allow it though, they got the disgusting ad pulled. At least one country has morals and values. Here is a link God Bless

  • WillyJ

    I’m guessing they concluded condoms are way less expensive than toy balloons. The kids will eventually discover they make for better water bombs.

    • Davide

      Haha!!! I am not even going to tell you what me and my twin did with a condom we found-nothing sexual–we didn’t even know what it was. I took it to school, in Italy many of the nuns still wear their habits–anyways my twin and me were scolded by the sister–sent to the leaders office and kicked put of school for three days-parents grounded us for month. I can still hear sister in fluent Italian saying over and over “you Mancinelli boys are rotten” she was right we were!!!! After all Dario and myself were the middle kids and we had middle kid syndrome to the extreme-we always in trouble!!! But we were a lot of fun.

  • Bruce

    Catholics are often asked why they care so much about civil laws and affairs. They are told that, since such things do not involve religion, why be upset? What they fail to realize is that Catholics are wise enough to understand how the world works. Our faith is compatible with reason, and our reason tells us that civil laws serve as teaching tools for society. For example, when civil law protects an evil act, such as abortion, society overwhelmingly considers such protection as being an endorsement. The same holds true for the recognition of homosexual friendships. In this case, the city of killadelphia acts in a manner that essentially promotes sexual activity among children. This is beyond the pale and yet also a sign of extreme cowardice. Public officials, cynical and lazy, prefer to give up the battle against irresponsible behavior among children (just as they have given up on adults decades ago) and promote policies which they hope will keep children safe, but will ultimately lead them into further disaster. What is particularly astonishing is how the media can be so upset about a Catholic clergy member being accused of homosexual activity with an 11-year old, and yet there is silence and acceptance as the city actively provides sex tools to 11-year children. The utter lack of intelligence, reason, and common sense among social liberals would be funny if it were not so sad and dangerous.

    • Davide

      I agree with what you say for the most part but do you really think “homosexual friendships” should be illegal? Like strictly friendships between persons with same-sex inclinations? Really? Or are you talking about gay unions-such as “marriage” in this case yes I agree- these should be illegal.

      • Bruce

        Nope. What I am saying is that the state has no interest in recognizing homosexual friendships – sexual or otherwise – (as being equivalent to marriage, in particular), and by doing so, such official recognition effectively promotes such behavior and holds it up as morally good. In truth, I consider homosexual unions/partnerships/relationships as being friendships regardless of whether or not the two (or more) persons engage in sexual activity. The fact of the matter is, they can never be a couple in the true sense of the word, since they cannot unite. So, for the sake of being consistent, homosexual “relationships” are considered friendships, and just like any other kind of friendship, the state has no need to recognize them. You and I can be friends, Davide, but the state does not need to license us as friends. By doing so, they are sending a message…one that I do not consider of any benefit to the common good. Just like giving 11-year olds condoms.

        • davide

          Okay I gotcha I misunderstood what you were conveying but now I got it…thank you

    • Janet

      The difference Bruce….is that one would be child molestation. A full grown adult male priest having sex with a minor child without his or her consent. It is a male priest tricking an 11 year old child into sex. The other is most likely 11 yr old boys getting condoms mailed to them for kicks…most likely. The fact that you do not see the difference is completely and utterly sick. Talk about sad and dangerous Bruce….

      • Tom Crowe

        Janet, while I agree that Bruce’s example is jarring and not a perfect parallel, I would like to point out that encouraging sex between extreme minors by passing out condoms with fun cartoonish instructions harms them in pretty much the same way. Think about it for a second before you resort to revulsion. Yes: a priest molesting an 11 year-old is reprehensible beyond belief, but why? Because it is an authority figure violating a vulnerable young person who trusted the authority figure, and the violation is of a sexual nature, thereby both bodily and emotionally. Kids being encouraged to have sex with each other, or told that that it’s perfectly fun and okay to engage in such activity is merely a softer way to accomplish the same scandal: the violation of youth and the violation of the sanctity of sexual relations. Then add in that it’s not exactly always two 11 year-olds hooking up but a much older, if still under 18, person with a much younger person, and you’ve got a significant rending of youth and innocence there. The added scandal involved with a priest molesting an 11 year-old is that the child likely was not already attuned to and desensitized to sex as would be an 11 year-old who is ordering his/her own condoms, so it was an abrupt violation as opposed to a longer-term violation of innocence. So while yes, it is a jarring example, I don’t think it’s not as far off as you imagine.

        • Janet

          In this case Philidephia did their research and decided that 11 yr olds were at risk.
          The fact that girls are ovulating earlier and can become pregnant at an earlier age has something to do with it as well. I agree that it is alarming that kids would have sex this young…i don’t know why you would assume it is a much older person under 18 having sex with an 11 year old. I don’t agree that this is the case. I think reality TV has much more to do with sex at a younger age than handing out condoms…..That really wasn’t my point though. making a bad decision to have sex at age 11 is no where near the violation of an adult priest sexually violating an 11 year old (or any age minor). I would call that pure evil. I would also call covering it up so that it can continue to happen over and over and over again….is also pure evil.

          • Tom Crowe

            Janet– Teachers in their twenties and thirties are too-frequently found in sexual relationships with their high school students. Your own example belies your premise since some priests (and, I ask you to be fair and include the much greater number/percentage of coaches, parents, aunts/uncles, neighbors, parents of friends, etc. who molest those entrusted to their care) have been found molesting or otherwise engaging in sexual relationships with minors. Pedophiles and pederasts and even people who just have no particular disorder but who like having sex with multiple partners like going after younger and virginal types because they like taking away the innocence. It’s sick, but it’s a fact. And yet you can’t believe that the eleven year-olds seeking condoms might be engaging in sex acts with much older partners? Why not? And consider that the 11 year-old isn’t deciding to have sex in a cultural and moral vacuum. There are many, many, many millions of 11 year-olds who are also ovulating earlier, or otherwise physically maturing faster, who do not ever consider sex until well into their teens. So what is different about the youths this program targets? The atmosphere in which they live appears to be the only difference. Which means the children were scandalized by their role models and authority figures. They may not have been ripped out of innocence by a predatory pedophile/pederast priest, coach, teacher, neighbor, parent, etc., but they were ripped out of innocence by someone and something in their atmosphere. And that scandal at least approaches the gravity of the scandal caused by the predatory priest whom you use as the purest form of evil. In both cases, one who is innocent and who deserves to be protected and taught properly is violated by a wrong understanding and experience of sex that forever changes them and gives them a faulty conception of sex and relationships.

      • Truthful MD

        I think Bruce’s comment shows the trouble with electronic communication–there is often quite a large gap of understanding because one does not have the inflection. I do not read the comment as saying that molestation is ok, but rather that our society rightly labels some things as scandal yet chooses to ignore others. By doing so, much harm is done. Scandal is scandal, and not calling it so doesn’t make this condom distributing activity any less of a scandal.

  • davide

    Yikes!!!! One of my brother’s is eleven…I don’t think he has sex on his mind…he better not!!! In all truth he has severe autism…so no my brother is not the typical eleven year old…but I can’t even imagine the reason to hand out condoms to kids that young…..What the heck is wrong with people?



Receive our updates via email.