From: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Subject: AIDS info to kids? (was Re: separation of church and state)
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: tx
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 18:57:08 GMT

In article <L2a7NB1w164w@keys.lonestar.org> cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris Winemiller) writes:
>rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally) writes:
>
>> In article <iJmXNB1w164w@keys.lonestar.org> cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris
>  Winemiller) writes:
>> >Talking and demo-ing condoms is only a natural
>> >fallout of this kind of thinking.  The whole package ought to be stopped
>> >dead in its tracks because it paints a _false picture_ about what sex is and
>> >what it takes to make it meaningful.  (Not to mention, of course, the risks
>> >of contracting various STD's.)
>> 
>> 	Repression failed. Miserably. Or, do you deny that?
>
>What I'm talking about isn't repression, and it doesn't fail nearly as
>miserably as the "sex education" being pawned off in schools today.

	You're asking that we not divulge information about condoms to
our children. Your point is that it paints a "false picture" about
sex. You argue, then, not to stop the information, but that the information,
or its delivery, is flawed. So far, so good. No repression. But, your
complaint is that it doesn't teach kids about love and its relationship
to the sex act ("make it meaningful"). In parentheses, though, you try
to cover yourself. Problems: Which is safer, to use a condom, or not?
Answer: To use one. Which is safer, to have no sex, or "safe" sex? Answer:
To have no sex. Condom pushers believe that we must move the children
from unprotected sex to protected, "safe" sex. Perhaps "safer" would be
a better way to put it. We're nearing "repression", though, when you 
don't want to try to change unprotected sex habits to protected sex habits
because you don't want to appear to advocate sex. Who goddamn cares if 
we _are_ advocating sex, at this point, because, like it or not, Chris,
they're doing it. What do we do about them? for them? Your answer, to
deny these kids info about the act they are performing, is clearly
repressive, as you target kids that haven't been having sex with the
"meaningful" sex (read "morality-based") information. I will say, however,
that even though I feel that the info is valuable and necessary (which,
I might add, self-righteously) for the whole of children in our society,
it is not necessarily good for _your_ kids. I don't think our public
school system has the right to override parental concerns such as yours,
even when overriding would benefit the majority of kids (IMO).

>> >  [stuff about pictures of aborted babies deleted]
>> 	I know this: it doesn't change anyone's mind. If that's your
>> goal, you should see this by now. What is your agenda? Righteousness,
>> or results?
>
>Both.  One need not choose between the two.

	This attitude is _the_ problem in a nutshell. It's quite easy to
demonstrate righteousness w/o results, and results w/o righteousness. And
so, a choice _must_ be made. ("Results" is used to mean "positive results").
Your pat answer indicates your choice is righteousness.

>> Talk all you want about what would
>> be an ideal world (no abortions), but ask yourself if you're saying what
>> you're saying because it'll help us all approach that ideal, or because it
>> makes you feel better about yourself.
>
>Just because the world is not ideal doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for
>high goals. Those goals --- and achieving them in some measure --- is what
>makes the world bearable sometimes.  For all of us.

	Strive for them, yes, but do not demand those ideals now. That's 
many steps away from where we are now, and we ain't about to make a 
giant leap. Ask that we make the next step- educate our children about
condoms. Find out why kids make the choice to have sex, and try to change
those factors that lead to the act- ghettos, for example, might be a good
place to start. Those kids _all_ have unprotected sex, most likely. And
righteousness will not bring them results. It'll make you feel better,
however.

>> and I want to know: Do you think this sort of talk is the best approach?

>I assuming "talk" refers to speaking about pictures of aborted babies.  I
>think such pictures are only one way of approach.  Perhaps it has some
>effect, judging by the vociferousness with which abortion advocates oppose
>them.

	It has the effect of pissing them off? Righteous! Results? None.


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Mullally (rocky@sugar.neosoft.com) PH:713-681-2495
"You know what they say about a honey bear. If you shave off all that baby
hair, you have a hairy-minded pink bare bear."- Lou Reed.