Sex Ed - Missing The Forest

[coffeegyal]

Re: Sex Ed - Missing The Forest

Ah, Fledgist, there's the problem: Parental involvement. I do remember learning about the mechanics of sex, puberty, and disease prevention in school, but it is my parents who shaped my values in relation to the subject.

Schools can only teach sex as a public health issue. It should not be the job of a public school teacher to tell my child what to feel or believe.

What about an appeal to selfishness? Might that work? Like an appeal to the protection of one's own body...No, maybe not. The seat belt issue leaps to mind. If it weren't legislated, people wouldn't buckle up. Where I live, in fact, no one wears seat belts. People don't even register their vehicles. If there's no enforcement, there's (effectively) no law.

Servant, I think education combined with family transmission of values are the only way we can go. There's not a lot we can do about the choices people make.

[Fledgist]

Re: Sex Ed - Missing The Forest

Originally posted by coffeegyal:
[qb] Ah, Fledgist, there's the problem: Parental involvement. I do remember learning about the mechanics of sex, puberty, and disease prevention in school, but it is my parents who shaped my values in relation to the subject.

Schools can only teach sex as a public health issue. It should not be the job of a public school teacher to tell my child what to feel or believe.

What about an appeal to selfishness? Might that work? Like an appeal to the protection of one's own body...No, maybe not. The seat belt issue leaps to mind. If it weren't legislated, people wouldn't buckle up. Where I live, in fact, no one wears seat belts. People don't even register their vehicles. If there's no enforcement, there's (effectively) no law.

Servant, I think education combined with family transmission of values are the only way we can go. There's not a lot we can do about the choices people make. [/qb]

You're perfectly correct.

[Diplomat]

Re: Sex Ed - Missing The Forest

Originally posted by coffeegyal:

...I think education combined with family transmission of values are the only way we can go. There's not a lot we can do about the choices people make.

Agreed!

[Guest]

Re: Sex Ed - Missing The Forest

I have just had a thought about how appropriate the title of this topic is: Sex Ed - Missing the Forest

One of the problems I have with many organized religions is what I perceive to be an overemphasis on sexual conduct. It's been many years since my Bible studies, but I don't remember Jesus Christ discussing sexual conduct so much. On the other hand I do remember him condemning man's inhumanity to man, charging us to love our fellow man, removing money-lenders from the temple, etc.

Just to cite two examples, MLKJr. and Bob Marley were infamous for marital infidelity. Yet they are heroes to many of us because of their great humanity. MLKJr.'s militancy and Bob Marley's music are gifts to all of us which transcend their personal misdemeanors.

So when religions use sexual conduct as a moral yardstick, are they missing the forest?

[Diplomat]

Re: Sex Ed - Missing The Forest

Originally posted by MissB:

So when religions use sexual conduct as a moral yardstick, are they missing the forest?

Not at all! Jesus did NOT have to elaborate on sexual issues because once He restated what they were, the rules were quite clear:

1) Sex was designed to take place within marriage.
2) Marriage was to be between a man and a woman, exclusive of all others, and for life.
3) Parents were to provide moral and spiritual instructions to their children.

If you read the NT carefully, the early Church consistently spoke out against all types of immorality, including sexual transgressions.

It is true that Jesus showed us how to live, but He also affirmed how we should conduct ourselves in other areas.

[Guest]

Re: Sex Ed - Missing The Forest

Thanks for your response, CEW. It doesn't really address my misgivings about the importance given to sexual conduct by "the Church" as opposed to man's inhumanity to man. Surely if organized religions addressed the latter first and foremost, sexual conduct, professional ethics and all the rest would follow. Does anyone have any thoughts on that?

[Diplomat]

Re: Sex Ed - Missing The Forest

Originally posted by MissB:

Thanks for your response, CEW. It doesn't really address my misgivings about the importance given to sexual conduct by "the Church" as opposed to man's inhumanity to man.

And you *are* entitled to those misgivings. I would argue that given the liberal attitude that prevails among some in Christendom, sexual conduct is a big issue - both inside and outside of the Church - and one that needs to be front and center of attention.

Surely if organized religions addressed the latter first and foremost, sexual conduct, professional ethics and all the rest would follow. Does anyone have any thoughts on that?

Jesus made it clear that all the commandments were 'packed' into two: 1) Love your God with your entire being, and 2) Your neighbour as yourself. The message of the Church is for the whole man, and therefore while there is tremendous injustice going on, i.e. man's inhumanity to man, that too is a part of the gospel message. On any given Sunday in any number of choices, the message of loving, caring for, and helping or fellowmen is being taught. If each person would pay attention to this first, then yes, adherence to appropriate sexual conduct would follow. The fact of the matter however is that the opposite is happening, and therefore the Church has to come out with a multi-pronged approach and target the issues that are of concern.

[servant]

Re: Sex Ed - Missing The Forest

More evidence that the powers that be “don’t get it” :

washingtonpost.com

District To Offer Condoms For Free
Dispensers in Offices Aimed at Rise in AIDS
By Avram Goldstein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 2, 2003; Page B01

District health officials, who every day confront the nation's highest incidence of AIDS, will soon install plain white condom dispensers in select government offices and begin distributing the contraceptives for free.

The goal is to place more than 50 dispensers in offices frequented by the public, including the D.C. Housing Authority and the departments of human services, motor vehicles and public works, among others.

"They're going to be as common as water fountains," Ivan O. Torres, interim director of the city's HIV/AIDS Administration, said of the dispensers. "The mayor is committed to this. . . . This is no longer something to be ashamed of. It affects all of us."

City officials, who announced the measure on World AIDS Day yesterday, said they know of no other city or state that has distributed prophylactics so broadly from within government buildings.

The condoms are intended for the public and not for city workers, Torres said. They will not be displayed prominently in lobbies but they will be readily available.

In the next 12 months, the administration plans to pass out about 550,000 male condoms, 45,000 latex dental dams and about 30,000 female condoms in a variety of venues, including the public school system, which gives out 50,000 condoms a year. Male condoms cost the city less than a nickel apiece, and female condoms cost several dollars each.

Beauty salons, barbershops and nightclubs in the District hand out government-provided condoms, and Torres said their role will be stepped up as well. In recent tests of free dispensers in restrooms at District nightclubs Dream and Zanzibar and Georgene's restaurant and bar, male condoms were in demand, officials said. At Dream, about 900 condoms were dispensed over a recent two-day period, he said.

The distribution plan was greeted with enthusiasm yesterday by D.C. Council members but dismissed by others who questioned the logic behind it.

"I'm not aware of any evidence that that sort of activity has a positive effect," said Robert E. Rector, a family-issues researcher at the conservative Heritage Foundation. "The number-one determinant of whether a person will catch a sexually transmitted disease is the number of lifetime sexual partners. We seem to go out of our way as a government and a nation to avoid telling people that, but we hand out a lot of free condoms."

Tom Coburn, a physician, co-chairman of a presidential AIDS panel and former Oklahoma congressman, called condom distribution misguided because, he said, condoms fail 20 percent of the time. We used to think condoms were fairly effective," he said. "If used perfectly, they are probably 94 or 95 percent effective, but we're human, and we don't use them perfectly. . . . The city would be much better off spending its money getting people tested, treated and counseled not to give the virus to others."

Torres acknowledged that abstinence is the most effective preventive measure. "We preach that, but we have to deal with reality as public health professionals and can't deal with ideological platitudes," he said. "Some people do not choose abstinence."

D.C. Council member Jim Graham (D-Ward 1), former executive director of Whitman-Walker Clinic, the region's largest private HIV/AIDS agency, praised the plan. "What's at stake is so great, and it is 2003," he said. "It's time we really move as aggressively as funds will allow."

© 2003 The Washington Post Company


It has been proposed in this thread that public schools may not “impose” the morality of some members of society upon children, even while admitting that those aspects of morality may inure to the benefit of those children and indeed society at large. And furthermore, that morality cannot be legislated. And should not be, in a free society.

But the truth is that the courts have been about the business of legislating the morality of 'some' members of society since their inception. Courts regularly fulfill their moral mandates all the time, laws against selling pornography to minors being one common example.

Some of these laws can and do infringe individual liberty considerably, and telling the owner of a store that he cannot sell a particular product to a minor deprives that individuals of their ability to use their property as they might otherwise prefer. No one, in this situation to my knowledge, and I am willing to corrected here, has been able to establish that in such a situation, that the government does not have the legitimate power to limit the freedoms of businesspersons in order promote the general welfare of children…..even of their parents object !

Thereby demonstrating that there are well established precedents under which community interests supercede those of individual desires.

That abstinence, and monogamy decrease the spread of life threatening STD’s such as HIV infections is not arguable. But for some reason, the “right” to spread STD’s in our post modern society appears to trump the welfare of society itself.

I wonder why.

[Diplomat]

Re: Sex Ed - Missing The Forest

Originally posted by servant:

Some of these laws can and do infringe individual liberty considerably, and telling the owner of a store that he cannot sell a particular product to a minor deprives that individuals of their ability to use their property as they might otherwise prefer. No one, in this situation to my knowledge, and I am willing to corrected here, has been able to establish that in such a situation, that the government does not have the legitimate power to limit the freedoms of businesspersons in order promote the general welfare of children…..even of their parents object !

Thereby demonstrating that there are well established precedents under which community interests supercede those of individual desires.

Absolutely. Except in cases were clearly established individual rights are being violated, isn't that what governments and the Courts are primarily for?

That abstinence, and monogamy decrease the spread of life threatening STD’s such as HIV infections is not arguable. But for some reason, the “right” to spread STD’s in our post modern society appears to trump the welfare of society itself.

I wonder why.

Maybe this has become too much of a political issue? Some special interests groups are weilding much greater influence in the electoral process, and it seems to me that whereas the evidence speaks loudly on the benefits of monogamy and abstinence, there isn't the legislative will to upset those who would throw a fit if both practices were made a mandatory part of the education system. In this regard I guess one could say that society can be its worse enemy. Everyone wants the government to do something, but if a practical solution involves surrendering what they perceive to be a part of their rights, then the impractical becomes the more acceptable option.

[servant]

Re: Sex Ed - Missing The Forest

So we prevent teachers from teaching children about the benefits of abstinence and monogamy in deference to parents who do not "believe" in either I suppose.

No wonder we need to distribute free condoms.

Maybe we should distribute bullet proof vests to juvenile offenders rather than teach..... oh well, let me stop.

[Diplomat]

Re: Sex Ed - Missing The Forest

So where do you place the blame? On the failure of:

1. Parents in the moral education of their children?
2. Politicians and beauracrats who are too concerned about the next election?
3. Society on a whole for failure to surrender certain rights for the benefit of the overall majority of its citizens?
4. The Courts for being too lenient?

I see and am supportive of your thinking on teaching the merits of the aforementioned practices, but short of throwing your hands up in the air given the restraints, what would you do?

[servant]

Re: Sex Ed - Missing The Forest

Parents, teachers and all who are concerned about the welfare of children and of society in general need to stand up once and for all and oppose stripping sex ed of every last vestige of moral instruction.

We are now at a point in history where to stand up in a classroom and say "sex before marriage is wrong", (let alone exposes you to STDs) can get a teacher fired for "imposing his or her values" on a student.

To say that parents alone should be responsible is to engage in idealistic nonsense that is unhelpful. Both teachers and parents are responsible. The fact is that people's lives are at stake as the articles I have been quoting establish. Moreover, the variability of parent's interest, availability and expertise preclude their involvement as the sole source of intervention in these matters. Parents can barely help their children with algerbra, let alone sex ed, a subject in which the stakes are far higher and involve nothing less that the welfare of society as a whole.

[Fledgist]

Re: Sex Ed - Missing The Forest

Originally posted by servant:
[qb] So we prevent teachers from teaching children about the benefits of abstinence and monogamy in deference to parents who do not "believe" in either I suppose.


{Fledgist: Would you like teachers telling your children about the benefits of, say, polyamory and group marriage?}

No wonder we need to distribute free condoms.

{Fledgist: The fact that this has been done in some countries -- Jamaica, for example -- for years having escaped you?}

Maybe we should distribute bullet proof vests to juvenile offenders rather than teach..... oh well, let me stop. [/qb]

Ah, the usual apples and oranges illogic.

[Fledgist]

Re: Sex Ed - Missing The Forest

Originally posted by servant:
[qb] Parents, teachers and all who are concerned about the welfare of children and of society in general need to stand up once and for all and oppose stripping sex ed of every last vestige of moral instruction.


{Fledgist: Translation, schools must impose 'Servant's' morality, since parents are, apparently, incapable of teaching their children moral behaviour.}

We are now at a point in history where to stand up in a classroom and say "sex before marriage is wrong", (let alone exposes you to STDs) can get a teacher fired for "imposing his or her values" on a student.

{Fledgist: I don't believe that sex before marriage is wrong, I would be a hypocrite if I told my children that it was. What gives you the right to say that on a moral issue the public schools which I pay for with my taxes should tell my children that what I believe is wrong? Would it be acceptable if, were I a schoolteacher, I were to tell your children 'Christianity is a religion that endorses slavery, and that is criminal'? After all, I believe it is immoral to let children be exposed to such an evil doctrine, and, surely, I am worth as much as you.}

To say that parents alone should be responsible is to engage in idealistic nonsense that is unhelpful. Both teachers and parents are

{Fledgist: That's rubbish, and dishonest rubbish at that. What you're seeking to do is get around the fact that many parents don't share your views, and won't force them down your children's throats.}

responsible. The fact is that people's lives are at stake as the articles I have been quoting establish. Moreover, the variability of parent's interest, availability and expertise preclude their involvement as the sole source of intervention in these matters. Parents can barely help their children with algerbra, let alone sex ed, a subject in which the stakes are far higher and involve nothing less that the welfare of society as a whole. [/qb]

Ah, there's no difference between morality and algebra? That's specious. There is a difference between technical knowledge and knowledge of how to behave and what constitutes right and wrong.

What you are seeking to do is have schools do a job you are afraid that parents will not do in the way that you require them to do it. As a parent, I find that completely disgusting.

[Diplomat]

Re: Sex Ed - Missing The Forest

Originally posted by servant:

To say that parents alone should be responsible is to engage in idealistic nonsense that is unhelpful.

I do not necessarily agree that this is "idealistic nonsense" at all. Where society - generally speaking - has failed to provide the guidelines for one reason or another, parents had better be prepared to take up the slack or someone else will be providing the guidelines.

Both teachers and parents are responsible. The fact is that people's lives are at stake as the articles I have been quoting establish. Moreover, the variability of parent's interest, availability and expertise preclude their involvement as the sole source of intervention in these matters. Parents can barely help their children with algerbra, let alone sex ed, a subject in which the stakes are far higher and involve nothing less that the welfare of society as a whole.

How much of an expert does a parent have to be to teach monogamy and abstinence? Neither of these subjects are on par with rocket science! Where ignorance abounds, a responsible parent can get a ton of resoure material, but the big factor here is responsible parenting. Whether through personal experience or observation of the experiences of others, there is a lot that any parent can teach a child. Teaching a young girl the benefits of keeping her legs closed, a young man the benefits of keeping his penis in his pants, or how to be sexually responsible, is not supremely difficult. I would imagine that this is happening with far more regularity - and with varying degrees of success - than we give credit for.

We ought to also appreciate that education is not necessarily a deterrent. As long as individuals have the power to choose, they will make varying choices, some of them irresponsible. I do not think it is the role of the school system to teach sexual behavior, but I do believe that there are various government and community agencies that are making the information available to the public. The problem is that there will always be a minority who still choose to do otherwise. Unfortunately, those - and the resulting consequences of their actions - are the ones we continue to hear about.