From: jap@cbnews.cb.att.com (james.a.parker)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Passing out Condoms  (Was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Date: 26 Aug 92 19:07:45 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Aug26.180030.7047@crd.ge.com> doel@crd.ge.com writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.150756.6925@cbnews.cb.att.com>, jap@cbnews.cb.att.com (james.a.parker) writes:
>
>> I would suggest that all other things being equal, having sex is "better", 
>> inasmuch as it increases the pleasure of the participants.
>> 
>> Further, I would suggest that:
>> 
>>    a) Pleasure is a positive value.
>>    b) It is immoral to deprive people of pleasure simply because you disapprove
>>       of the means of obtaining it.
>
>How is refusing to pass condoms out in schools and portraying a positive
>view of abstinence depriving anyone of pleasure?

A bit of a red herring here.  My response was to inject values and morality
into the discussion; something you castigated the previous poster for
omitting.

Note also that I never suggested spending tax dollars to pass out condoms;
although I failed to add that I would not suggest spending tax dollars to
encourage abstinence, either.   

To address your point, however, I contend that presenting a biased view of
sexuality, to wit, a positive view of abstinence without addressing the
positive aspects of "promiscuity", is deceitful, and if believed, deprives
the audience of the potential benefits (in this case pleasure).

>> The media campaign against the use of various disapproved recreational
>> pharmaceuticals is fraught with misinformation.  The truth about various
>> risks, even when they are few, is certainly appropriate, as the people involved
>> can then make informed decisions.  Lying to promote "preferred" behavior is,
>> again, immoral.
>
>Who is suggesting we lie?

Your reference to the "Just Say No" type of campaign.  Such campaigns have,
in practice, presented unsubstatiated opinion, exaggerated the risks, and
denied its audience the option of making an independent choice (i.e., the
only "valid" option given is universal abstinence).

If indeed you propose this model as used in practice, then you suggest we lie.

>> Again, you indicate that "promiscuity" should be discouraged across the board,
>> as opposed to encouraging it with reasonable safety.  This again, strikes me
>> as immoral.
>
>You are suggesting that we encourage promiscuity?  I don't think you'll
>find much support on this one, even if you do include safety messages.
>Promiscuity goes against our traditional values system (based on Judeo-
>Christian ethics but also echoed by pretty much every major organized
>religion).  Unless you're suggesting that we completely overturn our
>values system, there's no way we should "encourage" promiscutity.
>
>
>
-- 
I am suggesting we neither encourage nor discourage promiscuity.  If the risks
are as great as you suggest (compared to the benefits) then you have nothing
to worry about in presenting a balanced view without drawing conclusions.

As for "our" traditional value system, I suggest that such a monolithic beast
does not exist.  You yourself cited the values displayed in the media; were
this "traditional value system" anywhere near universal, the media would find
such matters unprofitable and cease displaying them.

I submit that the "traditional value system" you make reference to is actually
held by a small minority of Americans, and that this minority is attempting to
impress it upon the American people by asserting its near universal acceptance
and shaming people into not challenging it in public.

                                 James Parker
                                 jap@cb1focus.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle