abstinece-only sex education

And I am arguing that you are wrong, sexual education is complete with the physical discussion you outlined in your first paragragh. What you are discussing here applies to everything one does in life including sex. It might as well be playing baseball, or working a job. This is about nurturing a sense of individualism and self reliance.To be honest there is no answer to most of the issues you described above. No objective ones. And while I would agree with instructing my kid toward strong individualism and self-reliance (as you seem to indicate) some cultures (even within the US) do not agree with that. Are they wrong? Why?Societies have existed with people living and enjoying themselves, despite sacrifices in certain freedoms (even if not to a govt but to things like the family, or one's spouse, or one's boss). That will shape answers to the issues above.I don't see how you can get a set program on those topics which is not monocultural indoctrination. That's why I believe it is better addressed by the family and the immediate community, rather than some person who managed to get a certificate that says they "know" how to teach kids. That hardly places them better to tell my kids how they should determine when is the right time to start having sex (which I might note is a little off as masturbation is sex and kids are doing that, sometimes with each other, long before school). I agree except on one point, who "you" is. That should be the parent, not a teacher. The sex ed instructor gives fact based info on physical issues that the parents may not be up to date on. The teacher can do no better than a caring parent, in discussing issues of how and when to have sex. I'm sorry, but that is true whether one has sex or not. Indeed lack of sex can just as easily allow one to get more hooked on a person or idea than is realistic. Take a check on the goof balls that flew those planes into the WTC towers, or choked down the Koolaid in Jonestown. The Shakers were celibate yet quaked as if in orgasm in the thought of God.What's funny is that you are talking to me like I have never had sex or something. The first time didn't change jack, except for dispelling the illusion that people built "first time" into. And that is the common theme I have heard amongst most people.Sex is sex. It is pleasurable and may involve building a relationship, or not. Sometimes people realize they were confusing sexual attraction with love only after they had it and figured out the difference. That is one of the problems of conflating sex with love and relationships. Okay, but that is asking classes be tailored to your personal needs. Not everyone needs what you need. Isn't it true that if you had gotten the rest of that elsewhere you wouldn't have needed it in class? And isn't it possible you could have gotten it elsewhere outside of class? I don't know about your school but mine had school counselors that handled that kind of stuff.In another post you asked me what was wrong with porn. My answer is NOTHING is wrong with porn. It can be great entertainment. The problem is that other have a different view including that being involved in the making of, or using it, is disrespectful to onesself and others. This is especially true if one has a significant partner. Using it is considered like cheating. Are they wrong? Well not objectively, and don't they have a right not to have their kids told that porn is okay and is NOT disrespectful?I really believe in cultural diversity, which means keeping even my (**superior**) beliefs out of the educational agenda for other people's kids. Heheheh.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Uh... I'm not sure how you could read that section of mine which you quoted and thought I was only talking about relationships. The first paragraph itself involved nonsexual issues where people could be just as manipulated or change themselves personally due to flow of strong NEUROTRANSMITTERS.Heck my gf just did an article for a psych paper on the effects on behavior of women from menopause. They were really fucked up but it had nothing to do with doing or not doing something. That is likely the same thing as in puberty with hormones all racing around.And I'm telling you SEX ITSELF, the act of having sex does not "fuck with your head". Or at least not in the way you are portraying it. Maybe you should lay out exactly what these changes are? Yes and no. Sex ed is offered because information on sexual health was not necessarily available to all people who are parents, that some facts change and parents may not be up on them, and that this is an objective skill set... like teaching the rest of biology... which parents can feel confident in allowing someone else to teach so they don't have to. You mean you are not intending to talk about one. The devil is in the details of practice. What is obvious to you is NOT what is factually true in how it will be implemented. This is a discussion of life coaching and the "impacts" and "legal rights" differ from region to region and over time. Yeah I agree you have the right to rebuff coercion. But what counts as coercion? To a raving antisex feminist and a Xian fundie these may be too totally seperate things, even if both called coercion.Legal rights are especially slippery. So if porn is outlawed you be for teachers telling your kids they should be thinking its bad and rejecting it and turning in friends and parents who might have it? What if homosexual marriage is made unconstitutional, you want teachers telling your kids they should resist people trying to get them into homosexual relationships because they may have no future? Heck, homosexual sex itself was not a right up until a couple years ago, and was a crime in most places. In some areas having sex with vibrators is still a crime and not a right. I know I don't want my kids taught about legal rights from a state appointed "teacher". Wow, that says it all. I am leaving it as a whole so that people can see exactly what I am talking about. You are CLEARLY interested in indoctrinating kids with your own beliefs.False emotional attachment is a sexually transmitted disease like AIDs? Holy shit how is that NOT going to screw up a proper sex ed class? Such hyperbole!False emotional attachment happens in sexual relationships and nonsexual relationships and it has socio-psychological impact, not epidemiological impact of a virus.And I'm just aghast that you'd equate a person saying "if you loved me" with rape. That has absolutely NOTHING in common with rape. You are simply preparing a whole class of new "I, victim" pathologies.I totally grant that you may have been hurt by someone emotionally. Apparently because you felt that you wanted someone's love and to prove your own love and so have sex, which I guess you really didn't want to do? Okay. That's you. It is legitimate for you to feel that way for yourself.What is not true is that you have to tell everyone else that your subjective vision is how everyone else should feel and be outraged and hurt. It doesn't sound healthy to me at all and I would not be teaching my kids that at all.It's exactly why I want teachers sticking to facts and not trying to convert my kids to whatever the US victim culture wants others to believe.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Not by me. You have consistently overestimated my animosity to what you believe. I get that's your view and that's fine. Just as I believe there is no universal law (you are mistaken). And I would NOT want my views foisted onto your worldviews (or vice versa) through an educational course.That said, I was raised Xian and have a pretty decent knowledge of the scriptures and think you may not be availing yourself of some worthy aspects of modern sex ed, that could be palatable to you. But you'll see... Okay to me that actually reads as sex ed SHOULD be about health and self respect, only you have an additional dimension. While "liberal" programs focus on the physical and mental dimensions you believe in a spiritual dimension. You are worried about impacts on spiritual health and self-respect. Indeed even what issues might effect the culture in a spiritual pandemic so to speak, which can lead to real physical and mental problems later.Let me know if I got you wrong. If I'm right then I see exactly what you are saying and this is why I agree with your later comment... Well I should say that not all operate as you suggest, nor must they, but certainly you have seen it suggested by schraf and MrJack and brenna. You should have noticed me fighting them on that. To be fair to them they were not teaching the tenets of the sexual revolution exactly, but a more modern fem postfem victim culture version. But the idea is the same.And yeah they (and you) could rightly criticize me for wanting to teach kids a libertine sexual revolutionary vision (pretty close to what you outlined though not exact). But that is only IF sex ed included socio-psycho elements of respect and spirituality... which is exactly why I am arguing it should not! I don't want have the state or any other health official teach your kids my philosophy.Here's the deal, unless you are believing that God is not working through viral and bacterial agents, and these diseases simply "appear" in a person when he makes a judgement... Or that pregnancies occur by a baby simply appearing... physical description of how the reproductive system works and what environmental factors are faced with sexual activity helps a good xian just as much as anyone else. It does not and cannot promote "bad" behavior.Yes, people should not be taught any behavior is "bad" or "good" by a sex educator. Who are we to say anyway (remember the garden)? But that is not to say they should be left to do as they will either. Such questions should be forwarded to parents and other important persons in one's lives (like pastors). How sex effects one beyond the purely physical dimension, including later physical aspects derived from spiritual/cultural issues, is up to them to put into perspective for that person not sex educators.What sex education allows a person, any person of any culture, to have is the knowledge of how the body works on the physical level and what that person can do to prevent certain physical issues. I do not know of any scripture which says that is not something valuable for people to have.And the fact is that that helps people later in marriage (those who wait) just as much as it would a rampant libertine. The evidence is showing that innocents even according to your own eyes, are suffering because of physical issues they were not aware of.I might add that Jesus generally tended to be merciful and aid those physically who were unworthy and made mistakes. Remember the addage of helping those even the ones you view as most vile. If people are going to make mistakes, isn't it better to be forgiving and at least help them avoid or deal with some of the worst physical issues? Doesn't that help you as much as them by alleviating suffering?I guess I find it odd to believe that sex ed's ability to help people avoid contagion and unwanted pregnancy, in the short term, would be powerful enough to overcome God's will for man.And I also am not certain why one holding such a position would not be against the medical profession in total, including all aids to the suffering of women in childbirth. Why is it sufficient to prevent the masses from knowing what the doctors know?But those are side issues. My main idea is that while we are certainly personal philosophical enemies, your ad hominem against my beliefs reflecting my vision of your own, we do not have to disagree on the teaching of clinical knowledge regarding the body to those who lack such knowledge.As a point of fact, you say my sexual philosophy leads to cultural suicide, but it is proven that in areas where your moral philosophy holds sway and abstinence is the only message taught, the worst ills are occuring. Despite my shock at how some people in my community are ignoring clinical knowledge they have access to, they are certainly fairing better than YOUR communities. The worst hit at this point are the ones with no clinical knowledge, or are ignoring such clinical knowledge.Doesn't that argue by itself that ignorance of clinical knowledge (regardless of moral beliefs) is what the problem is? I might add that HIV was not initially sexual and continues to be spread via bush-meat eating along with lines of new SIV-type transfers. Last I read there were at least two more varieties and it is increasing among african exotics. You can preach against sex all you like, with regard to HIV the cause was interaction with contagious exotic animals in a nonsexual fashion, and such interactions combined with globalization will hit us in many different fronts in the future.Abstinence until marriage, with monogamy, will not help one bit to a family in Africa who uses or participates in the bush-meat industry. If a husband comes down with it, should they not know how to prevent the wife from contracting it? Or is she supposed to divorce him?Clinical knowledge has no moral value.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Right. You suggest that ideal sex education should include discussion of love and self-respect, in order to deal with what issues exactly? Which of those issues/concepts existed within the the public mind before fem/post fem victim culture?You may not like the label I just put on what your proposed teaching came from, but it is not inaccurate at all. Faith called it sexual revolution and "if it feels good do it". Clearly yours was not that. From your own statements it is about cautioning people and attempting to get them to view sex from the vantage point of "sex is good and you should feel good about it, but be careful as there is a lot of harm and later is better so that one can be better prepared to handle everything that goes with it." Am I right or wrong? If I'm wrong state how.By the way, why are you reverting to ad hom attacks on me via replies to others instead of just trying to support you position in replies to me? Could it be you know you cannot unpack those simple terms regarding things like love, relationships, and self-respect without imposing specific cultural outlooks?

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

That does not challenge what I said at all. I mean so you are in support of school boards teaching that pressures (internal or external) to engage in homosexual or mixed race relations is wrong and unhealthy if that is what the majority feels? I am giving very real and practical responses here. You are using motherhood arguments. We should teach people {insert kneejerk nice sounding term here}. Its something that sounds great, but as I have stated gets lost in the details of how it will have to be carried out. Who decides what moral standard is in the curricula, what of the vast number of social situations that can be addressed will be addressed, who will kick and cry when their pet issue is left out?I am being very straightforward and have yet to get a solid response out of any of you who are arguing for teaching issues beyond physical sexual health within sex ed courses. Just the standard turn around trying to make me look like a monster as if I am arguing that no kids should be instructed in how to get around in life socially (defending themselves from users and abusers of all kinds)... which is pure horseshit. As far as your legal definition claim, there are many legal definitions all over the place. Not all equate coercion with rape, and I know of none that would count what you just suggested as coercion.And what does legal mean anyways? Homosexuality was illegal not 5 years ago and it can go back that way. Polygamy is illegal in most if not all of the US. Prostitution is illegal. In some parts porn is illegal. Certainly kids aren't supposed to be looking at porn (that's illegal). You think sex ed courses should be telling kids NOT to look at porn and they are being "raped" or "fucked up in the head" if they do?Let's get back to reality. If you have sex with someone because they say "if you love me you'd have sex with me", that's not even what I'd call coercion. Manipulation maybe, but that is way different than "if you don't have sex with me I will fail you, or tell your parents about something bad you did" and still vastly further from "If you love to keep breathing, you'll have sex with me".This is part of the whole slippery slope we are sliding down in the victim culture. Anything that might make me feel bad must be associated with the very worst things that can happen. It is NOT useful and NOT healthy and totally unnecessary for a sex ed course trying to help people get through a physical pandemic! ???? I would not have said anything except that you keep relating your statements back to what would have helped you! That sort of suggests that it had something to do with what happened in your life. No I am not insane, you are going to make victims, and not giving people facts. Notice that you skipped over one of my more important statements. You didn't just equate, but stated factually that coercion and rape are sexually transmitted diseases like Aids?Imagine you just got through telling kids about STDs, then "finish up" their education by making that hyperbolic commentary. So its communicable? What can they wear or take to prevent it? If they get it they can pass it on and will have to visit doctors for medicines? You've just confused the whole subject. There were NO facts transmitted.Whats more it came from a sex-negative view point. What about "if you love me you WON'T have sex with me until marriage?" If the former is rape, is this torture? Or is it okay because the person who feels hurt wants sex rather than not being sure?And still further it focuses unduly on sex. How about "if you love me, you'll take me to X, or by me X"? Is that kidnapping or armed robbery? Or is this okay because it does not involve sex at all.The idea that a person is victimized and injured by having sex under less than ideal circumstances, including a choice that they regret later, is simply part of sex-negative thinking, and furthers the entire victim mentality. If I didn't like something I must have been a victim. If it was sexual then I was violated in the worst possible way.None of this is true. I would hope my own kids would never think like that. And I would not want anyone teaching them to be this way. This is life. You WILL get used at some point. You will be tricked. You will make a decision on an emotional appeal which is not always something you feel great about afterward. They are not of consequence, other than to learn from the experience and move on.I might add brenna, that some people may have heard "if you love me, you'll have sex with me" and did it and did NOT get hurt in the process. They actually enjoyed it and were glad that they did not wait for some arbitrary time set by the state or culture (like having to get married or arbitrary condition like only with opposite sex or same race) which underlay their hesitation.That simple statement is surely an emotional appeal and may be manipulative and selfish, but is not under all conditions malevolent. Unlike RAPE the person really does have a choice, and both parties might not look at it as anything negative later.Can you see that your black/white vision on this is not necessarily universal?

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I don't know what your problem is, but whatever. What you proceeded to write is EXACTLY what I thought your position was and pretty well stated in my own. You made yours a little longer to include some specifics about respecting choices of others, the variation FAITH WAS TALKING ABOUT WHICH IS WHY I PUT YOU IN THAT LIST, but that is it.The best you can say is that my statement was not as explicit or refined. Hardly capable of being characterized as wrong. The idea that that has something to do with proper sex education is post feminism. It is not directly related to the sexual revolution and ideas of what sex education should include. You are not scoring points against my position at all. Do you know the history of sex education especially as it relates to the sexual revolution? Hmmmm.My heroes are the likes of Beate Uhse, Betty Dodson, Kinsey, and even Annie Sprinkle. You have stated in the past that your major influences had been feminist. I accept that my cultural position is of the sexual revolution, yet you deny yours is fem/post fem. Why, when the stated issues (which include everything you just said now) are clearly sprung from those sources? Is it simply from a need to always paint me as wrong? Are you kidding me? While you may consider those SITUATIONS to have existed throughout history, that has nothing to do with believing they have anything to do with sex education, or an intrinsic part of sexuality... WHICH IS WHAT I WAS DISCUSSING!If you are going to try and claim these issues were taught, or even recognized as issues within sexual relationships, much less for teaching, throughout human history, I think I need some evidence for it.Back in the world I live in, sexual education is a relatively recent phenomena within western culture. It was fought for and people were arrested just trying to get clinical information out to people. It was only after relative acceptance of that kind of instruction, where more things could be added to it. Changing concepts of sexuality, including the recognition of power roles (which is chiefly a feminist introduction) and communication skills for negotiation, have become recent additions to what sex education CAN cover.I might point out I ASSUME you would include homosexuality as a valid option which should be respected. Now I suppose you can shock me by saying you wouldn't. In case you aren't going to shock me, please explain how that was a part of education before homosexuality was pulled off the DSM list?All I did was date where your concepts came from. Faith said sexual revolution "feel good, do it". I was correcting it, and you blew a gasket. I still hold my position. The concepts you are suggesting were recent, fem/post fem and some directly related to recent victim culture where avoidance of psychological distress is considered tantamount to traditional sexual issues. If I am wrong I now want you to show it... especially throughout history!By the way, how will porn and prostitution be treated in your program?

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Hey, I just got done saying that what you described is not always if ever considered illegal. And I also brought up many things you might consider fine are illegal in some places, and where not illegal now, were illegal just a few years back and can be again.If homosexual marriage is made illegal and indeed unconstitutional, my guess is you would not favor teachers telling your kids they should view that as proper. Heck, would you be for them telling your kids porn is illegal?And again I might point out that your suggestuon is 100% a recipe for indoctrination. Teach the law as if it is fact, and it is as if it is fact, rather than merely current legislation which may be errant. It is your assertion it is the law. I know its not, certainly not as wide spread as you claim to make it a part of sex ed programs. Now we are back to wrong, eh? Where is your dealing with what I said regarding this in my post? Manipulation and avoidance of manipulation is a general issue and not just sexual. Hence its inclusion in a course on sexual education is not useful.Also it is a matter of cultural differentiation. In some quarters suggesting if a person finds something pleasurable, they should try it is just as much a manipulation as suggesting if someone loves another they out to try sexual pleasure.Its all an emotional appeal. Its related to everything in life, and not just sex. People make mistakes in this regard and learn from them. The effects of this are not synonymous with diseases, as you stated was a fact. Neither does it have to be destructive to one's person.By the way a person that gives in to such manipulation chooses that they are ready. They obviously have NOT chosen they are not ready, or when faced with the choice would lose the person rather than do what they do not want to do. Kids do that all the time in issues involving nonsex as well as sexual issues.What you are discussing is regret and realization that they were manipulated. I find it is not as important to teach a "resist or die" approach, but rather good logic skills in general and coping skills for when logic and will have failed.Edited by holmes, : slightly better writing

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I'm not in complete disagreement with your statement. I'd just tweak it a bit. Events and doctrines have occured since the sexual revolution which make what is being taught and enjoyed by the culture different than just a philosophy of the sexual revolution.That said I thought your analysis of an agreement on the nature of diversity of sexual preference was about dead on, with abstinence being one of many valid choices, rather than being the only valid choice. While I may personally agree with that sentiment, I do not think it should be a part of sexual education and agree that you have a right to be repulsed by such missionizing from another cultural mindset.Not all programs do work that way, though I cannot say how prevalent moral added sex education is and in fact it may be the majority at this point. Sort of mental/cultural pork which has been added to what should be a simple educational program without grand social agendas. I accept that that is your position. However, I am hoping you'll keep an open mind on that position. Being dogmatic about it means you might miss something of value to your community and something that could be acceptable but you hadn't thought of before. Fair enough, but that's why I am not in favor of moral sex education programs. Whether you are right or wrong about the sexual revolution, you are right that preaching any moral position may miss overarching problems based on cultural beliefs. I see why you are saying this and have a valid point. Its essentially semantics regarding sources of beliefs where there is a difference. You are correct that the bit about diversity of valid choice springs from the SR (if we are discussing recent western morals). I was merely noting that they'd probably not accept that as a description of their position in total (mine wouldn't be either), and they'd be better termed from later events/ideas that tampered the SR. Okay, but then you ARE discussing some direct physical issues. I was trying to stress where you were different and so why the physical/mental were not enough for you. Several things on your list I agreed with even from a basic SR perspective. I honestly believe that your hesitancy is based solely on your fear of the unknown. A purely clinical analysis leaves no room for moralizing (for the SR) and can't really give anything to object to, except perhaps that it will involve graphic language? Of course that should not be objectionable to Xians as the Bible does not have issues with that. It is setting dependent... otherwise doctors would not be allowed. You are putting more into what I said than what I meant. You are correct that part of the SR is a moral relativism. I would point out that its roots are far longer than you are letting on, and not necessarily hinged on purely sexual politics, but certainly you are right that moral relativism's cultural popularity rose during the same period as the SR.That said, I was not meaning that good and bad should not be taught by educators in the sense that they should teach there is no good and bad. I am stating for practical purposes that some of the key principal issues are morally neutral and may be addressed in such a fashion. That is it is unnecessary to discuss moral issues at all including anything which supports relativism in order to alleviate problems we are facing.Whether a hedonist or an ascetic, the reproductive system functions in the exact same way and the same issues may be encountered. Thus those can be taught to alleviate suffering. Currently abstinence only education throws the baby out with the bathwater. This is documented in the fact that good Xians are getting hit with problems without failing morally, but not having had neutral/clinical education. Actually it has been, and indeed is essentially the topic of this thread. Please do not become disingenuous as your writing so far with me has been solid. The OP addresses the fact that abs-only education is not resulting in an alleviation of suffering for which it has been advanced as a solution. You may claim that it is a failing in how any individual abs-only program is handled. That is a valid point to raise. But the fact is these were put together by people within your community and advancing your interests with the claim that these programs would work.The evidence is that they are not working, and in fact programs from the "SR" community are having measured impacts to reduce suffering. Members of your community, and those instructed in its methods are finding they need some of the elements within the SR nonabs-only programs to avoid and alleviate suffering.You can discuss philosophy all you want but the focus was clearly practical matters, and that should concern you. You can't call the SR on all sorts of social ills, and then say you don't want to discuss solutions eccept to punk theoretically on one's SR advocates have put forward... despite the successes they are showing. You have to put your side in for examination as well. Again, let us not get disingenuous. I think we can reach a positive conclusion, despite the gulf between our philosophies. Here is what you said about my side... Okay, and I hold a similar low opinion of your basic philosophy. Now lets get over it and discuss what really matters for alleviating the suffering all of our people are facing in daily life. This is not true. Moralism is on the rise and certainly in power. If it were not abs-only sex ed would not even be getting discussed. Other programs are being cut in favor of them, and are what are being pushed particularly in other nations.The US may still have lots of remnants of the SR hanging about in its culture, but strict sexual moralism does hold sway in some areas of the US and entire nations outside the US.But regardless it is not "social science" that is in some conspiracy against you. And that is not helpful for your own community. This is clinical analysis. Specific health events are occuring within areas covered by abs-only education which are reduced in other programs. It is pretty consistent, and some very good Xians who have been caught out in medical problems despite adhering to monogamy and chastity have not been happy to find out they could have been saved some pain by knowing what doctors know about the human body. For a person who is so quick to discuss what happens to everyone else, and what they know, I am a bit puzzled by this. In any case I was discussing communities whose education consists of what you have been promoting. I have been discussing events I have read about from within the Xian community, where some have been rethinking the wisdom of abs-only ed.I guess maybe they aren't YOUR community. But I tended to think you'd associate yourself with Xians who are interested in abstinence only education in line with Biblical teaching. Go figure that that'd be an insult to you. Sex education helps people whether they are strict moralists or not. One cannot state that abs-only is appropriate as that makes assumptions regarding the source of sexual problems which is not accurate. As my example was giving even HIV is not solely sexual and so a godfearing family may find itself with one partner infected without moral lapse, and faced with a clinical issue. Abs-only ed will not help that family avoid the spread of the disease to the spouse or any further children. Clinical sexual education would.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

No I didn't. You have been the one injecting commentary that a program must teach about things that are illegal. My whole point was to point out that illegality is a poor criteria for teaching about anything in sex ed.Heck, sex ed itself has been illegal in certain places at certain times.The realities of sex and risks within them are indifferent to laws regarding sex. Thus your desire to teach kids that "If you love me" is rape and like aids, because it is illegal, is dependent on locality at best in order to allow such instruction, and wrong in the objective world of facts regarding sex. Then it is exactly as I said in the first place anyway. You have yet to show any support for your contention that "if you love me" is illegal anywhere. So why are you suggesting it is a natural part of sex ed? This only supports my position and undercuts your own. How does this at all argue that sex ed courses should include instructions regarding laws? Its interesting that your standing argument is that in the case homosexuality is outlawed you'd be for protests against it, and the state indoctrinating kids that the protesters are unhealthy and criminal and they should not try and become one of them.Oh and by the way, certain kinds of porn (and I am not just talking about child sex) is illegal in the US. Come to Europe to find the true variety of porn available, and NOT allowed in the US by law. Within the last several years fisting and some violence or blasphemy themed porn has been deemed illegal (or is in court to determine its new status). And in ANY case, it is illegal for kids to look at porn. The point was about sex ed which is generally to children.Given your argument that what is illegal must be taught to kids as something to be avoided and fought against, do you believe that kids ought to be taught that porn is bad and unhealthy? I said "resist or die". I was using that to describe your approach which specifically argued that children must be armed in order to ward off manipulation. According to your own words failure to resist is equal to being raped and/or getting aids. It was clear hyperbole, which was inaccurate, unhealthy, and unuseful.I was contrasting that to an approach that taught (outside of sex ed classes) skills in logic to help identify forms of argument including emotional appeals, as well as coping skills to deal with how one learns from mistakes and other things one does not like having happened to them. In this way people are armed to deal with a variety of manipulations, but not to view having "bought" such an argument as anything more than a learning experience.I will most likely be returning to lurker mode. Next couple days tops. You can answer this or not. I tried to make it less asking of questions, and more clarifying my position. If I do not reply to your reply, it is because I am back to work.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I thought my statement and meaning were clear. Clinical sex education may be of value to your community and something that could be acceptable, despite not coming from a standard Biblical viewpoint or including any Biblical reference. Perhaps you hadn't thought about clinical sex education in this way, because of your concern for larger cultural issues as well as entanglements which have occured between SR moral vantage points and Sex Ed programs. Just to let you know that is exactly the same as "I honestly believe that your hesitancy is based solely on your fear of the unknown." You lack knowledge and fear that it might contain something you would not desire.If you notice, your default position for not having an opinion was promotion of (or at least defense of) another form of sex ed. And you do not seem to be accepting my statements (which seem pretty much at face value and not requiring much investigation to prove) that sex ed which is limited to factual statements about how the body works does not intrinsically advocate any moral position, and by its nature cannot conflict with your own. Look I get that you'd be interested in reviewing any specific program to make sure it is purely clinical, but I am at a loss at how clinical commentary of any kind can exert a permissive moral force of any kind.In a chemistry class we will talk about acids and bases, and in some classes pharmacological effects of certain chemicals. In no way can that be understood as tantamount to suggesting drinking acids and bases is up in the air for your choice, or using the lab to produce street drugs for sale to other students is fine. Neither does any of it mean people should or should not use their knowledge for making armaments.That's like saying you have to review a cooking show because Julia Child's not reminding people that they shouldn't gut living people, while gutting and cleaning a chicken, might be morally permissive.Clinical knowledge is by definition lacking moral force. It is just facts so you know how mechanical processes function in the world on a physical level. I suppose that can act as a rorschach test. If you see the fact that a penis rises during stimulation as an argument that you should do this at any time, that says something about your inate beliefs and faith rather than what anyone is telling you.And that is why questions about appropriate use should be directed to a person's family and other important people in their lives. Those people will help them understand how the facts of how things work physically, fit into the nature of how they live and view the world. Even my world view requires explanation beyond a clinical description. Ohhh I'm willing to agree to disagree on this, as the evidence can be read in many ways, and practices differed wildly among past communities. But let me point a few things out (and remember I am limiting this to western culture) which I think paints a slightly different, and more accurate picture.Before the rise of monotheism, sexual freedom was commonplace (even if restricted for some classes of women) and not in the least an elitist form of accepted entertainment and discussion. After the rise of monotheism, sexual freedom was intellectually hobbled and bound but still commonly practiced. Prostitution was no longer sacred, but was accepted and more than commonplace. Even St. Augustine had argued vocally for the existence of prostitution in order to make sure nothing worse could come about.The enlightenment brought sexual freedom back into intellectual "acceptance". The libertines of the 1700's make the one's of the SR pale in comparison. Sure, it was villified in many quarters, but it existed in greater force than it does today and practiced more widely (even if denounced). It wasn't until the 1800s, after the purging and settlement of the west that the so called "progressives" rose to power and smashed down sexuality, including expression, particularly in the US.I think most of your vision of the past is rooted in somewhat mythical histories created during that time period, and which existed to some degree in fact during that late time up through the 1950's. This is the period where the great brothel districts were closed down across the US, and the concept of Europeans being more decadent arose.Homosexuality certainly waxed and waned differently than sexual freedom in general. I'd grant you that after the rise of monotheism, you did not see it in intellectual acceptance (besides a brief stint among the 1700s libertines) until the SR. Also public sexual communication definitely took off to make it more of an every day thing than in the past (post monotheism). Though that may have more to do with improved communication technology and changes in business practices.I don't know, maybe you can agree with that assessment. If not, its not critical. You can keep repeating this statement, but that does not make it true. Xian doctors learn the same clinical facts, and that did not change them, or their opinion of what is right or wrong with regard to sexuality. I can agree that any specific program may CLAIM to neutrality, and actually contain moral content. But that is different than saying clinical sex ed promotes a moral position, including a moral relativism based on not mentioning morals. Actually, you didn't. You made one argument along those lines, the rest were assertions it was true. Here is your singular argument... This description is inaccurate. The realm of sex does contain anal sex, whether one is an ascetic or not. Thus it would be described, though it doesn't have to be done graphically, along with the risks involved. The idea that an ascetic is not aided in knowledge of things he does not perform is not apparent to me.That would be like saying since no one should immolate themselves and want to burn themselves, no people should be taught about burn wounds?What about ascetic doctors who may have to deal with people that have already had anal sex? Its sort of too late to say "say no". Or with people that are practicing it and are not willing to change their practice? Granting them knowledge to protect themselves from harm would be more than the Xian thing to do. Indeed lack of knowledge regarding that might lead to misdiagnosis or understanding of something going on.The facts of it existing and what happens within it, do not go away by turning a blind eye to it. And it almost seems to indicate a lack of faith or willpower to think a person might be turned based on a statement of facts. Indeed one would think knowledge regarding anal sex would be welcomed by Xian advocates. It is by far the most risky of sexual behaviors, with condoms or no.Isn't it better for a Xian... instead of saying "I don't know about that, I just don't do it"... to be able to say "Yes I know about that {laying out the facts so knowledge is seen on that subject}, and beyond its physical risks which are greater than other practices, there are moral and spiritual repercussions discussed within my faith. That's why I do not practice it."?And that is without the issue that some people will fail. The continued mystery of anal sex might heighten a person's interest, rather than defuse it. And the lack of knowledge regarding how it can be practiced in a safer way, could lead to more devastating circumstances than anyone would desire. Acknowledgement =/= validation of a practice. However ignorance = potentially greater threat from a practice whether one acknowledges it or not.Do you believe that if you were given the clinical facts about anal sex, you would abandon your own faith in order to engage in it? That it would tempt you? I know I have read plenty of clinical facts regarding sex I would not want to engage in and it certainly hasn't tempted me in the least.And finally, I should add that the Bible itself describes sexual activities. It even describes some lusty encounters that some girls were enjoying as involving men hung like donkeys and cumming like horses (or is that vice versa?). Thus the Bible itself mentions possibilities of what people can do, and pleasure they may gain. It then mentions risks they faced... though some never really did such as King David whose wild sexual practices are legendary and lauded (to some degree) as examples of his greatness.If the Bible can mention sex acts, it seems strange to claim that people cannot discuss their existence and factual repercussions of those activities. Such instruction would seem to fit nicely with any ongoing Biblical instruction.As far as my worldview goes, clinical instruction is actually inhibitive of true absolute hedonism. Instruction is not simply going with the flow of what feels good at the time. Sure it doesn't say stop, but while one is learning one is not doing, and knowledge about the world of sex makes one understand it is not (just like any human activity) completely carefree.I hope I didn't come off too edgy or pointed. I see something that is of value to use both in this. More than advocating my philosophy I am interested in reducing a plague which is hitting everyone. Edited by holmes, : minor fixes

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Sheesh, what kind of doubletalk is that? Unless you mean a person is damaged just by the fact that someone tries to manipulate, even if they do not succeed. How would that occur? Yeah, I have no idea what you are talking about when you discuss foreskin adhesions and it sounds like a meaningless argument.I like how you and schraf both resort to the "you don't understand what I am talking about" argument, when my replies to both of you contain questions requiring you to clarify what you are saying... and you both ignore them!I'll tell you what it looks like to me. You make claims and are called on them, and you don't have any evidence or logic to support them. And since your position is not well thought out to begin with, when asked to flesh out general motherhood positions in detail, you decide to run rather than admit you are not sure how it can be done. Lobbing bombs back at me as if it is my failure to understand.Let me put it to you this way: If you can't get me to understand your position, how on earth are you going to get a bunch of kids or most other people to understand it for the purposes of a sex ed course?

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Okay, but you have to admit there is no way I had to understand "what for instance?" in the way you meant it. That wasn't so clear, particularly given the quote of mine before it.What Xians need to know was getting somewhat fleshed out by the points raised by both Schraf and Jar as well as others. Although there may have been a seeming concentration on moral "failures" to abstain as having been the recipients of problems, that is not necessarily the case. It has also been documented (and I am sorry but because of time pressures which will soon have me not posting anymore I cannot dig this up right now) that those who have waited dutifully for marriage have been stung by not understanding what pregnancy or health risks are posed by sex and how to avoid problems.Thus they are benefitted by such knowledge, even if later, rather than earlier. Heheheh... that smacks of pride. In any case, there is a difference between prudence and hesitation. The reports from the front (as presented in the OP and supporting documents) more than suggest that rushing ahead with abs only education was imprudent, and the relative success of nonabs only ed more prudent.This is why I am suggesting it is not wholly prudence on your part. You did not withhold all judgement, but did support one while detracted from another. If it was to be based on lack of info it should have been all over the board. This is why I said I was willing to agree to disagree. Given the fragmented nature of past civilizations it would require a bit of detail to flesh this out, and I just don't have the time anymore to do this. I wish I did as I like this subject.But let's put it this way, your own text THE BIBLE, which you hold to be pretty much indisputable goes on at length regarding the widespread sexual immorality of ALL NATIONS surrounding Israel. The Hebrews enacted moral laws which have been extolled by Jews and Xians alike as the first in the world. And they were then imposed on others and wars fought to crush their opposition. Sodom and Gomorah are thought to be tales of such rampant hedonism, but similar tales may be found throughout (for example Judges and the prodigal son). Even as late as the times of the New Testament, prostitution is clearly existent among the lower classes. Thus that source alone should be enough.If you want more, you can look at texts discussing writings and archeological evidence regarding sex and its treatment, among ancient cultures. Its graphic display was in common use from as early as Ancient Egypt (if not Sumer), including ornamentation. Bath houses were the centers of civil affairs throughout the mediterranean. These involved sensual pleasures, including prostitution and it was not just the upper class that could get this (though lower classes had lower class establishments). The graphics on walls in these places make this quite clear.Indeed I am hard put as to what nations you viewed as being nonhedonist in temperament. Even a large section of Moses's followers were slain for returning to hedonistic practices. Before the rise of monotheism in the west, yes I dispute that claim. In the East, generally yes I dispute that claim. Once monotheism rose to power using a sexually negative philosophy (arguably shaped by Paul) it is true that communities had more conservative mores than today, but the practices (and tolerances) tended to be greater than today. As much as prostitution was blasted against, it existed at all levels of society throughout the dark and middle ages. And generally it was more open than anything we have today in the US (as far as prostitution goes). While you seem to think mores are more important than practices, I don't agree at all. Again a reason I am agreable to disagree, as long as this difference (between what people said and did) is recognized.I definitely agree that homosexuality and public sexual displays or writing were more tightly controlled and looked down upon throughout the monotheistic societies, until more recently. The libertines were widespread, but I am certainly willing to admit they were a general minority and somewhat of an "elite" in the sense that they were educated and so had money for education which was only available to the wealthy. Unfortunately for your point regarding this, they actively engaged in their debauches with commoners. What they did was free up intellectual expression so that common practices were revealed. In other words they exposed the hypocritical gulf between the mores and the actual practices of the times.Of course they then argued for greater acceptance and widening of borders, but that is besides the point. The fact is they revealed a world more open than the one today in practices. That is true, but how does that address my point? Is it that the reason doctors were not effected by clinical knowledge is because of previous moral teachings? Well why is that not the case for kids? If you know your kid is going to have a sex ed course, then explain your moral stance on it, before and after. Ministers and priests may do the same thing in churches. Okay, here's my problem. You say you have not developed your thoughts along these lines, yet are convinced about your position. When I create a counterargument, your response is that you have not developed your thoughts yet, but I am wrong.This is not worthy of what you are capable of. A lack of introspection does not argue that one should feel any confidence, much less refute someone's counterarguments.I see you feel that anal sex (or things like it) would not need to be explained, because an ascetic would not engage in it, and its neutral handling would suggest that it is just as valid as a practice the ascete might engage in. I am challenging that notion.1) An ascetic still benefits from knowledge regarding the world around them, including regarding acts they may not engage in themselves. Unless of course the point of the ascetic is to deny all corporal reality in total. That is not available to the Xian as the creation myth is that God created this world for us to live in and our proper role is to be sexual beings so as to be fruitful and multiply. As such physical realities regarding sexual activity are useful knowledge, even if something one does not engage in personally. It allows one to speak knowledgably to others who do and or might. That is particularly the case as kids may grow into positions where that knowledge may be useful in counsel to others.2) Neutral discussion of existence of something is merely an acknowledgement of existence. That is not the same as validation. To understand how a gun is used or armies fight battles is NOT the same as advocating violence and warfare. If that was the case then you should be more against the teaching of history and gunsafety to kids than sex, as violence (killing) is an even greater sin. In fact, discussion of other religions should be removed as that is validation of other beliefs.As I said, facts are morally neutral and so if one views their revelation as endorsing or condemning, that is caused by one's moral vantagepoint and not the revelation. If anything it points to where one should be concerned for one's own child. Not revealing facts, may simply allow a concern to hide away in the darkness, as you will not see what moral understaning they actually have regarding any fact.3) Closing one's eyes does not make it go away. And in reality a kid can find out about anal sex without any lectures and if all porn on the planet disappeared. That part is on the human body and has pleasurable sensations and may draw sexual attention, despite admonishments.This may lead to moral failure, and lack of facts will not help them avoid it. Indeed warnings with no factual revelation may create a mystery which is more compelling. That is really not helpful as it is a guide to action without the facts necessary to avoid harm (as much as that can be avoided).I'm going to finish by making a point from the Bible. Solomon was praised for his wisdom and indeed Ecclesiastes (whether by Solomon or not) was the explanation of wisdom from experience. It did not say I never looked around at the facts, and stared only at a book. Or I shut my ears and so was never tempted. The point was that knowledge and experience granted a wisdom of some sorts, a temperence regarding physical and mental pursuits and an importance of following God's plans.Whether I agree with his conclusions, the point is the same. It is not that knowledge will lead away from God, but in fact will lead back toward God. If one truly has faith, how can it not? That some people engage in an activity which may lead away from God does not argue you must. That you learn of its existence and the risks within, or factors to minimize risk, further does not constitute and argument you must engage in the activity.Yeah, someone might engage in that activity and use the information to avoid some physical repercussions. If the activity is futile or profane, the person has not been helped to escape this fact by anything that may be taught clinically, only to avoid problems which could go on to effect others.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I admit I would like to improve the clarity and brevity of my writing. That said, I am not sure regarding your particular complaint. If you look at where this originated, it was Faith's large post to me outlining her position. Given the amount of material I could address, I thought I was doing a good job being brief.Heck, given that we both have received POTMs for our posts, I thought we were doing a good job!Edited by holmes, : putting the t back into thought

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Well that's just great. Clearly this suggests you understand general sex ed is an issue within THIS thread. As such I am going to reply to you and her here, rather than beginning a whole new thread. And this connection does make sense as you will see...Abs-only sex ed is a way of teaching about sex which places higher value on cultural (aka mental/spiritual) aspects of why and when to have sex, rather than how sex works. You and brenna have both condemned that method while arguing for a physical sex education (the how) plus cultural aspects... sort of making them equal. I have been arguing against both of your positions, suggesting that phys sex ed (the how) is the only necessary and practical way to deal with sex ed.While I agree that the why and when is important, unlike phys issues there is no true (or agreed true) answer to issues of why and when. This is why it seems more important to let the family and other social instructors handle this with kids, rather than making it an integral portion of public sex ed programs.Now here are some relevant questions...1) IF mental issues, such as WHEN and WHY to have sex, have such deep emotional impact that they must be addressed along WITH physical issues, then why can they not to be thought so important as to OVERRIDE discussing physical issues?2) You have shown that education geared toward helping kids say no does not have that effect, and may also have the opposite effect. If that is true, why is anyone to believe that teaching kids how to say "no" under your paradigm is going to have any better effect? If it is based on the method of instruction, then isn't Faith correct in her assessment that better Abs-only programs could be devised?3) Why are the positive effects seen in nonAbs only programs which rely on phys ed, not arguments for the sufficiency of phys sex ed programs?4) I have been explaining at length how a phys only ed program would not conflict with moral instruction from more ascetic communities (including fundamentalists). Please explain how the course you and brenna suggest will NOT conflict with the moral instruction Faith would want for her children? Don't parents have a right not to have education contrary to their moral position?5) How would your course deal with contentious social issues such as homosexuality, pornography, youth-sex, promiscuity, prostitution in the confines of when and why? That is to say while you both promise it will give kids tools to evaluate what is right for them, what tools will those be, and is everything open for them to say "yes" to as well as "no"?6) If you argue that sex ed must include social considerations, then how will you make sure it is the values you want taught (for example the ones outlined by brenna existing at a college dorm) rather than the ones that the majority of a community might want?7) How do you prevent indoctrination of children with specific mores (even if they don't always follow them) from such programs?8) What teachers are qualified to deliver the tools you are talking about? How will this be ensured? Indeed please give an example of any humans you know to have these tools and enact them?Bonus questions based on schraf's "agreement" with brenna...9) You just agreed with brenna, yet brenna has stated upthread that she believes (apparently from this educational lecture she just touted) that manipulative sex is rape. Do you agree with the assessment that someone saying "if you love me you'll have sex with me" is rape? Is that what kids should come away believing?10) Brenna also said that manipulative sex IS a sexually transmitted disease like AIDs. Do you believe that that is an accurate assessment and something kids should come away from an ideal sex ed course believing?11) If you disagree with brenna on these points then does it not support my contention that this additional subject matter is not necessarily helpful and opens the door to problems in sex ed, which a purely physical discussion would avoid? If you do agree, what are parents to do if they don't agree with that assessment, and indeed believe that such views are unhealthy?Thank you.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Please stop insulting me. I have given you questions and they were fair ones. If you don't want to answer then don't. If you want to then do it. But quit trying to attack me personally. My point is that what sounds like a very simple idea, particularly when it comes to education, is not so simple in practice. Even points I agree with do not translate into points that would be easy to handle within a class, NOR (and this is more important) be thought right by others.The devil is in the details. Otherwise we could simply teach "being the nicest and most successful human possible" and solve most of the world's problems. Yeah I went through some of that too. And I have come away with a different opinion on its merits as part of a sex education curriculum for kids. I have a post to schraf with a number of questions along this line. I will make some very specific ones to you here.Your experience is from a voluntary situation, correct? Perhaps that is why it seemed to work as well as it did for you. There are also Xian lectures of the same kind (though Abs-only) and I have seen them and the people seem to believe those work (and according to one study above did with regard to saying no).Now the question becomes, is what you went through going to be appropriate or felt appropriate by everyone? Particularly parents? Just because it "worked" for you does it mean that it is universally workable?Should I agree that some Xian's experience at a college chastity group is supposed to argue that it will work or should be good for my kids? If your experience is supposed to make it good enough, then why not theirs?How did your group deal with contentious sexual issues, and would that have been useful for those below college age?What are objectively factual realities that may be taught regarding: boundaries and emotions and impact of sex? Indeed I am still waiting for an adequate explanation that sex has an "impact" of some kind that is not cultural in origin.The concept of "date rape" itself is contentious. What objective definition was used, and would be agreeable to all parents or students? Given your legal observation that "if you love me..." counts as rape, I am still awaiting some evidence that you or your group provided accurate evidence regarding regular rape, much less "date rape".If your group was so successful, why could its methods not be used to teach people how to say no until they were ready, and before they actually have sex that they should THEN privately seek clinical answers from a physician regarding sex?

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)