abstinece-only sex education

Man this is so old I had to read back several pages to figure out what the hell was going on. I'm not sure how my position could be any less clear than anyone else's starting from where we were at in the argument.Your statements don't really effect me (yeah like I don't believe "people fuck", gimme a break) so I read back until I found out what was the cause of the dispute.I argued that sex ed programs need only focus on physical issues involved with reproduction and protection (from diseases or pregnancy). This would deliver all that is REQUIRED to prevent harm, without adding cultural baggage which would cause people to reject the programs, or involve cultural indoctrination of others.The programs schraf and brenna recommended involved cultural artifacts that did not make sense and would potentially be counterproductive. You CAN come up with a single program which discusses all of the physical dimensions of sexual activity as they will be the same for everyone everywhere, regardless of moral concepts and laws. One CANNOT come up with a single program that involves both physical and other dimensions of sexual activity.Laws change from place to place. You mean questionable situations such as fornication, or homosexuality? These are against the law in many cultures. Do you think it is smart to have a sex ed program that either discusses legality from just the US point of view, or one that attempts to understand and discuss sex from the legal standpoint of all the different cultures they'd be taught in?Or we could skip it and deal with what happens once one finds onesself in a sexual situation no matter how or why one got there. The risk is the same.Indeed I may paraphrase your later statements. Not only does abstinence fail, but so does avoidance of questionable or illegal activity.The last quote of mine you were attacking was taken out of context. I was mocking brenna's claims for her own program. I don't think you can teach people to say no, and I don't think you can (or should) teach people what she wants. Abuse synonymous with death? Emotional manipulation (ie "If you love me you'll have sex with me") equated to rape? Sheesh.Everything you said in reply supported my position.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

First, the discussion involved a description of the "best" kind of program and it certainly did include international programs. If you meant something more limited, then I will accept that.Given US scope, if homosexual activity was still illegal you would have been for teaching that? Where it is currently illegal to buy or use things like vibrators you are for teaching that? You will teach children exactly what about age appropriate LEGAL sexual activity and questions related to using graphic sexual material?

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Let me start by saying I am totally uninterested in restarting this long lost thread. Uh... okay? I did not say abstinence could not be part of the education. I think that stands to reason. Clearly not having sex will mean one does not suffer any physical consequences from sex. It just doesn't require much instruction. In fact there wouldn't even have to be a course.I do agree that restricting sex ed to just abstinence would be counterproductive. At the very least after people are married they will decide to have sex and the same issues will arise. ? Okay? As far as health effects inherent to sexual acts you can't get mentally pregnant or get a mental disease and spread it. Perhaps I should be more clear. If questionable situations are allowed, why do liberals get to decide which are the ones that get talked about? Some rather large sections of the population would love to talk about lots of situations INCLUDING drinking alcohol. See this is exactly why I am uninterested in this. The discussion was about both moral and legal issues. You can see that in schraf's reply above (even if she is saying it should be restricted to US programs/law). You came to question me about my position and pulled quotes that were part of a discussion that is apparently very different than what you want to discuss.I will state this regarding rape. I don't think a sex ed course should be burdened with all the potential scenarios of how sex might happen. If you want to address that then run a general life safety course, perhaps a self-defense class. The important thing to impart is how to deal with risks inherent to sexual activity. Great. That appears to be an opinion. I am not going to fight a pure opinion. I don't agree, and I can give you reasons why, but it really doesn't matter. Clearly sex ed classes can be run in many different ways.My position is that bringing in legal and cultural issues will take away from the most important issue people NEED to take away from the course, in order to add potentially helpful bits of advice that has the tendency to include cultural/societal bias. I don't see how you will not run into such bias issues. In any case it can get overloaded with side topics and away from the main issue.But of course "main issue" may be different to you. I am looking at it from a purely health crisis perspective. Having sex with someone because they say "you would if you loved me", is not rape. That's like saying buying something because they said "you would if you loved me", is theft. Or moving to live in another city because they said "you would if you loved me", is kidnapping.Whoever says such a thing is putting out a conditional and YOU are making the choice. You DO have the power. If you didn't love them you wouldn't. Or should I say if you did have sex with a person you didn't love, just because they said that, then you are an idiot. I mean how much weight could that carry?Rape requires a lack of choice. In that particular case if one does not want sex, one can say NO.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Yeah but once you open the door to "legal issues" why does it get confined to what you want? And as far as consent goes, whose concept of that are you going to use?

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Just some minor points... That doesn't legitimate the practice or broad definitions. So if a person says they don't want to go on a date with you, and then you buy them some flowers and say "If you liked me you'd give me a chance" that would be kidnapping?Manipulation in a way that removes the possibility of choice I get. Say for example hinting you'll tell others some secret, or you may not help them get a job. That removes their choice.A person saying "if you loved me you'd sleep with me" simply reopens a choice. The choice remains their own, even if put in a different perspective. It is one partner telling the other how important sex is for them. It is just as much a manipulation as a person saying "if you loved me you'd wait for sex until marriage". People are setting up what they see as important in the relationship.Many things in a relationship are negotiations. The idea that sex can't involve negotiation, or that people may not use emotional appeals in such negotiations, is arbitrary and I would say inhuman. Hyperbolic commentary on highly emotional personal issues is human.Again, how many women use the temptation of sex to get free drinks or meals. That makes them thieves? Edited by holmes, : u

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I don't want to get into a he said/she said thing. And I don't blame you for not remembering exactly what was going on here (I had to read back through). But it appeared that it was not just what you wanted to see but what you felt would be the best sex ed course.My argument was, and still is, that a phys discussion will hit all of the necessary points to help anyone in any situation (and of any culture) deal with the full physical repercussions of sexual activity. Thus a relatively uniform set of points can be created and used.Once one tries to deal with other issues in addition to the physical, one allows cultural biases and loads of extra information in which could swamp the CRITICAL information people MUST have on sexual safety.This would also include agendas which you might be against. Given that you are in the minority opinion on some of these things (including on legal aspects) it seems odd to recommend a course of action which others would accept and use against you (or your kids at any rate). There is no singular legal concept of consent, much less one that embraces the many faceted nature of claims to "consent".We don't need to reopen this whole argument and I'd prefer we drop it so I can focus on other (more recent) topics.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)