From: gamble@owlnet.rice.edu (Ben Gamble)
Subject: Re: Sex Education <fairly long, but good!>
Keywords: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu
Organization: Tennessee Ernie Port Authority
Distribution: tx
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 19:26:48 GMT

Okay, I admit it.  When I fired my last salvo in this discussion, I
forgot one of the prime rules of news posting:  if a post pisses you
off, don't followup until you've cooled down.  If necessary, write two
followups, one fiery and one reasoned, then post the reasoned one and
throw away the fiery one (or just post it to alt.flame with followups
set to misc.misc -- that'll teach 'em...)  In sum:  my post served
mainly to embarrass me.  So, I apologize for certain characterizations
that were deliberately exaggerated for rhetorical effect.  Now, to the
business at hand.

In article <mumble> exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor) writes:
|In article <BuspuK.1KK@rice.edu> gamble@owlnet.rice.edu (Ben Gamble) writes:
[back and forth and back and forth and...]

|>|>|Mistake.  Don't do it.
|>|Why not?  What's wrong with encouraging abstinence?
|>[Mind you, both of these are _his words_.]  Well, Patrick, which is it?
|
|Both, of course.  But encourage abstinance by showing the dangers, not
|saying that it's "wrong"".  I see no inconsistancy.  Why can't you see
|that "moral" != "evidential"?

Ostensibly, !=.  But the way in which you are skewing the evidence,
presenting only the horror stories on the grounds that kids already
know about the pleasant part, indicates some hidden bias.  And if it's
not a moral bias, then what is it?

All rhetorical wrangling aside, here's how I see the central argument:
We both want to present the social facts as well as the biological
ones.  And, looking at it as honestly and fairly as I can, your
version of the facts seems to stop at "Sex is dangerous," while mine
runs on into "Sex is powerful, pleasurable, dangerous, and integral to
your humanity."  Let me know if and how you think I'm being unfair
here.

Going a little farther into speculation, your argument in previous
postings has been that kids can figure out the pleasure on their own,
but they need some guidance regarding the dangers.  My argument here
is that kids, when presented with a program that talks about sex and
mentions danger but not desire and pleasure, will immediately conclude
that said program is out of touch with reality, and moreover insults
their intelligence, because it doesn't reflect their own experience
with desire and pleasure.

|>[I suggest offering masturbation classes]
|Oh, that's nice.  Don't really think it's necessary, though.

Why not?  Would it be unfair to suggest that, while you're willing to
"present the [negative] evidence", you're squeamish talking about
pleasure?

|>...any sex ed program
|>that doesn't recognize that ("Keep your hands to yourself, that's all
|>you need to know.  
|
|Hmm, did I say that?  If I characterized your postings to the degree
|you characterized mine, I'd have you teaching sex ed with prostitutes
|in class for display of appropriate technique.

This is what I apologized for above.

|You and your "partner" are a little heavy-handed and light-minded.

"Lover".  And only the idea was hers; the anger was all mine.  And the
example, while intended to be amusing, nonetheless illustrates an idea
about which we are both very serious.

Going on...

|>|My God,
|>Really, honorifics aren't necessary.  "Ben" is just fine.
|Cute, but it adds nothing to your argument, only your display of ego.

JOKE.

|>|you want to trust this person to make a life-changing decision on 
|>_All_ decisions are life-changing.  That's why they're called decisions.
|Oh, yeah?  Life-changing, whether I get a red or black pencil?  Surely
|you meant something different than what I read.

No, I think you read me correctly and just disagree.  Yes, I think
every choice affects your life, to a greater or lesser degree, and
further, that subtle changes usually go deeper than we appreciate.
Fanciful scenario:  you write a poem one day at lunch with your pencil.
On impulse, you fold it up, address it to a local literary magazine,
and drop it in the mailbox.  Now, material written in black meets
their submission guidelines and is considered for publication, while
material written in red gets roundfiled without even being read.  They
like your poem, provided it's written in black, and publish it.  As a
contributor, you are invited to a reception when the mag comes out,
and you meet publishers who like your work so much they think it
should get national circulation, and a playwright with whom you later
have a very successful collaboration.  You could never have predicted
it, but the color of your pencil has affected the course of your life.
I maintain that every decision, small or large, has at least the
potential for something like this.  _That's_ what I meant.

|>[...] whereas you apparently mean "You'll burn in Hell!  At the
|>very least, you'll ruin your entire life!"
|You've obviously got no idea what I mean.  You're spouting back shit that
|someone else has tried to choke you with.  Now, what did I say?

Again, I apologize for getting this caustic.

|>|I'm all for educating kids on the facts.  Let's just remember who and what 
|>|we are talking about here.  
|>Yes, let's.  We're talking about teenagers, aka furiously boiling
|>cauldrons of hormones.  
|No, they are people.  Seeing them as sexual objects will not help.

No, not objects.  Yes, people.  _Sexual_ people.  I have seen no
indication that you want to recognize and allow for this, and it's
something that badly needs to be recognized and allowed for.

|>Threats, whether of parental retribution, a
|>life left in ruins by disease or pregnancy, or everlasting damnation,
|>will have no effect at all.
|I'm sorry, you are just wrong.  Except edit out the word "threats".  It is 
|different to show a threat than to make one.

I don't understand you.  "Threats" is the subject of the sentence and
you won't have a sentence without it...  Nor does your last sentence
make sense to me.

|Don't gamble on Ben ;-)

It's Welsh.  It means "wise man" (or maybe just "wise guy").  Now
button your lip.  <-:

Is anyone still reading?  Anyone?

-- 
Ben Gamble                              B0 f- t+ w- g+ k- s- m- e r-v p
gamble@owlnet.rice.edu 
       Oh ye who go about saying unto each other:  "Hello sailor":
       Dost thou know the magnitude of thy sin before the gods?
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton