Sex Ed - Missing The Forest

[servant]

Re: Sex Ed - Missing The Forest

Sorry Miss B I was editing while you were posting.

Anyway, I am trying to understand what you just said so I can't respond. Could you explore that a little more please ?

[servant]

Re: Sex Ed - Missing The Forest

*

[Diplomat]

Re: Sex Ed - Missing The Forest

Originally posted by MissB:

To me 'abstinence' and 'monogamy' are types of behavior with absolutely no moral connotations. 'Marital fidelity' sounds more poetic, but to me, rings more like a moral or value.

I am trying to follow your thinking but need to understand the foundation of your thoughts. What do you consider, or what is your 'definition' of, moral behavior?

[Fledgist]

Re: Sex Ed - Missing The Forest

Originally posted by servant:
[qb] Well well well. I am actually in agreement with everything Fledgist just said.

In answer to your question, I believe the answer is yes. As contentious as the words "right" and "wrong" are, it would seem to me that these concepts are the basis of our system of jurispudence and important to our understanding of what morality is.

{Fledgist: 'Our' understanding? I'm pretty certain I consider moral actions that you would consider immoral (slaves killing their owners, for example).}
Miss B, do you think that an atheist would necessarily find the idea of monogamy incompatible with their world view ? I don't think so but again, maybe this is something that Fledgist should address instead of me.

{Fledgist: I wouldn't. But my morality is consequentialist. Other people's mileage may vary.}

"Wouldn't 'abstinence' be a more neutral equivalent?"

I found it interesting that you would say this because many of the programs that have been advocating abstinence before marriage, have been faith based in nature. The word "abstinence" has become a very loaded one in sex ed circles as a result. [/qb]

I wonder why.

[servant]

Re: Sex Ed - Missing The Forest

For the record, I consider all killing, except in the immediate defense of your own or another's life to be immoral.

My guess is that abstinence has become a loaded term because educators have been unable to uncouple it from those religious groups who advocate this behavior.

Oddly enough, here is what Planned Parenthood of America says about it at their website:

”Continuous abstinence is 100 percent effective in preventing pregnancy. It also prevents sexually transmitted infection. Most methods of birth control have some cost. Abstinence costs nothing.”

Makes you wonder.

[Guest]

Re: Sex Ed - Missing The Forest

Originally posted by CEW:
[qb]I am trying to follow your thinking but need to understand the foundation of your thoughts. What do you consider, or what is your 'definition' of, moral behavior? [/qb]

What seems so clear in my head often doesn't come out that way when I write it, but here goes.

Moral implies conformity with generally accepted standards of goodness or rightness in conduct or character, sometimes specifically in sexual conduct. Webster's New World Dictionary

My problem with adding morality to sex education of the general public or in public schools is that my standard of goodness or rightness in sexual conduct is not the same as another person's. I try not impose my morals on anyone and would not want anyone to impose their morals on me.

Therefore, in sex education, I don't think it's appropriate to include morality with terms like fidelity (faithful devotion to duty or to one's obligations or vows; loyalty; faithfulness) as being good. I am more in favor of addressing behavior with terms like monogamy (the practice or state of being married to only one person at a time) as being safe.

[Guest]

Re: Sex Ed - Missing The Forest

Originally posted by CEW:
[qb] Again, IMHO, it does go back to the definition of morality. If we accept the aforementioned definition as being reasonable, then everytime legislation is passed telling us how to 'behave', 'morality' is being legislated. [/qb]

I have no legal expertise, but it seems to me that in most (all?) cases legislation limits itself to telling us how to behave with regards to other members of society, i.e. do not endanger their lives, health, and well-being through one's acts and deeds.

If my intuition is right, legislation does not tell us what to think or feel. Moral values on the other hand are meaningless if not heartfelt. What good is conspicuous marital fidelity if one is continually dreaming of infidelity? And how on earth can you teach someone to feel something in their heart (or legislate their feelings)?

[servant]

Re: Sex Ed - Missing The Forest

Miss B, how is teaching children the benefits of marital fidelity a bad thing ?

[Guest]

Re: Sex Ed - Missing The Forest

Originally posted by servant:
[qb] For the record, I consider all killing, except in the immediate defense of your own or another's life to be immoral.

My guess is that abstinence has become a loaded term because educators have been unable to uncouple it from those religious groups who advocate this behavior.

Oddly enough, here is what Planned Parenthood of America says about it at their website:

”Continuous abstinence is 100 percent effective in preventing pregnancy. It also prevents sexually transmitted infection. Most methods of birth control have some cost. Abstinence costs nothing.”

Makes you wonder. [/qb]

It's perfectly logical that Planned Parenthood informs about abstinence. Unfortunately, the word has been hijacked by certain groups who place it in a moral and coercive context. Abstinence itself simply describes a behavior: the act of voluntarily doing without some or all food, drink, or other pleasures - Webster's

[Guest]

Re: Sex Ed - Missing The Forest

Originally posted by servant:
[qb] Miss B, how is teaching children the benefits of marital fidelity a bad thing ? [/qb]

It's not a bad thing, servant, rather it is an imposition of one's values on another person (or their children). To my mind it is preferable to respect people's rights to have values different to one's own.

[Diplomat]

Re: Sex Ed - Missing The Forest

Originally posted by MissB:

I have no legal expertise, but it seems to me that in most (all?) cases legislation limits itself to telling us how to behave with regards to other members of society, i.e. do not endanger their lives, health, and well-being through one's acts and deeds.

If my intuition is right, legislation does not tell us what to think or feel. Moral values on the other hand are meaningless if not heartfelt. What good is conspicuous marital fidelity if one is continually dreaming of infidelity? And how on earth can you teach someone to feel something in their heart (or legislate their feelings)?

Which is why, IMO, morality cannot be legislated.

[Guest]

Re: Sex Ed - Missing The Forest

Originally posted by CEW:
[qb] Which is why, IMO, morality cannot be legislated. [/qb]

I take it even further, CEW, and say you can learn what one person thinks is moral, but you cannot learn morality (moral character or quality).

[servant]

Re: Sex Ed - Missing The Forest

Originally posted by MissB:
[qb]

Originally posted by servant:
[qb] Miss B, how is teaching children the benefits of marital fidelity a bad thing ? [/qb]

It's not a bad thing, servant, rather it is an imposition of one's values on another person (or their children). To my mind it is preferable to respect people's rights to have values different to one's own. [/qb]

**sigh**

I feel sorry for children in public school. In the interest of "respecting their rights", we have given them information on the mechanics and biology of sex and sent them into the world to fend for themselves.

[Fledgist]

Re: Sex Ed - Missing The Forest

Originally posted by servant:
[qb] For the record, I consider all killing, except in the immediate defense of your own or another's life to be immoral.

{Fledgist: There's a problem here. According to you, every one of my (and, I suppose, your) ancestors who sought to free themselves from slavery by removing the whoresons who had enslaved them was immoral. I find that position completely, totally, entirely immoral. It is the 'morality' of the servile, toadying, crawling coward; the worldview of the traitor.}

My guess is that abstinence has become a loaded term because educators have been unable to uncouple it from those religious groups who advocate this behavior.

{Fledgist: I suppose if the word lies down with dogs it comes up with fleas.}

Oddly enough, here is what Planned Parenthood of America says about it at their website:

”Continuous abstinence is 100 percent effective in preventing pregnancy. It also prevents sexually transmitted infection. Most methods of birth control have some cost. Abstinence costs nothing.”

Makes you wonder. [/qb]

What does it make you wonder?

[Fledgist]

Re: Sex Ed - Missing The Forest

Originally posted by servant:
[qb]

Originally posted by MissB:
[qb]

Originally posted by servant:
[qb] Miss B, how is teaching children the benefits of marital fidelity a bad thing ? [/qb]

It's not a bad thing, servant, rather it is an imposition of one's values on another person (or their children). To my mind it is preferable to respect people's rights to have values different to one's own. [/qb]

**sigh**

I feel sorry for children in public school. In the interest of "respecting their rights", we have given them information on the mechanics and biology of sex and sent them into the world to fend for themselves. [/qb]

I'm curious as to what would give you the right to demand that my children be taught your worldview. I'm also curious as to how, exactly, children go through school without the moral guidance of parents or guardians.