From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Sex Education <fairly long, but good!>
Keywords: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu
Date: 25 Sep 92 20:58:35 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson in North America.
              The opinions expressed are strictly those of the user and
              not necessarily those of Ericsson.

In article <BuspuK.1KK@rice.edu> gamble@owlnet.rice.edu (Ben Gamble) writes:
>From: gamble@owlnet.rice.edu (Ben Gamble)
>Subject: Re: Sex Education <fairly long, but good!>
>Keywords: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu
>Date: 18 Sep 92 22:44:44 GMT

>In article <mumble> exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se) writes:
>|In article <BuKyMy.224@rice.edu> gamble@owlnet.rice.edu (Ben Gamble) writes:
>|>In article <mumble> exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se) writes:

>[I have restored below a few lines that Patrick edited out when he
>replied to my post.  I make a habit of quoting as little as possible,
>but sometimes it's necessary to include a lot, so please bear with me.]

>|>|>2) Sex education should be modified to encourage abstinence
>|>|>specifically, presumably labelling other activities as 'bad',
>|>|>'unacceptable', 'immoral', or simply incorrect.
>|>|
>|>|Mistake.  Don't do it.
>|>|About as far as I'd go here is giving them [scare stories]
>|
>|>Here you are talking about encouraging abstinence _indirectly_ by
>|>presenting only one angle.  
>|
>|Why not?  What's wrong with encouraging abstinence?  Has it given disease?
>|Has it caused pregnancy?  (Ok, once ;-)

>Run that back.  First:
>|>|Mistake.  Don't do it.

>Then:
>|Why not?  What's wrong with encouraging abstinence?  Has it given disease?

>[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"?

>My lover, reading over my shoulder, has an excellent suggestion.
>Since you're so hot on the dangers of partner sex, you should really
>like this one: offer classes in masturbation, complete with detailed
>practical instruction.  

Oh, that's nice.  Don't really think it's necessary, though.

>Readings from Kinsey, Hite, Dodson, Barbach,
>etc.  Labs, perhaps.  (Okay, the "labs" bit is mine, and not intended
>seriously.)  Seriously, what you don't seem to be addressing in your
>(waffling) support of teaching abstinence is that teenagers are sexual
>creatures (see "boiling cauldrons" below) and that 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.

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

>Okay, now on to cell division.") is not only
>disrespectful to them as humans, but is doomed to failure and will in
>fact be directly responsible for any pregnancies, diseases, etc., that
>result when the pressure _just gets too high_.

Drivel associated with taking things to extremes...

>|If you leave a kid with information, but an 
>|attitude that "It won't happen to me" you have done a disservice, because he/
>|she will make his/her choice in essential ignorance of the facts.

>If you somehow manage to eradicate this invulnerable attitude in your
>teenage child, you should be awarded the Nobel prize for parenting,
>because you will have accomplished something absolutely unique in
>human history.

Uh, no.  Only in your experience, apparantly.

>|My God,

>Really, honorifics aren't necessary.  "Ben" is just fine.

Cute, but it adds nothing to your argument, only your display of ego.

>|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.

>|their own, without any "moral" teaching, or at least repetition of 
>|the dangers?

>Well, there's not much point in discussing what "moral teaching" we'd
>give them, since by "moral teaching" I would mean "Be good to
>yourself.  Be good to your partner," 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?

>|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.

>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 close with a quotation from sex researcher Ira Reiss, discussing the
>relative failure rates, both theoretical and observed, of
>contraception and abstinence:  "Vows of abstinence break far more
>often than condoms."

Condoms are made in much greater quantity than vows of abstinence, also.

Don't gamble on Ben ;-)
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "This must be Thursday.  I never could get the hang of Thursdays"
                                                       - Douglas Adams
  - Patrick Taylor                                       (Arthur Dent)
    Ericsson Network Systems
    exuptr@exu.ericsson.se                       "Don't let the .se fool you"
    or exuptr@ZGNews.Lonestar.Org, exu.exuptr@memo.ericsson.se
Newsgroups: tx.politics