Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

bismark wrote:chilly, lets make beautiful babies together?

This isn't some cheap dating service... oh wait, it's the Board. My mistake. Carry on.

bismark wrote:hurray for non sequitur arguments...

It wasn't an argument... It was a fun fact (and clearly labeled as such). I was merely pointing out that there do exist cases where education on a topic is considered detrimental. Whether this is one of them is a decision the parent should make.

Personally, I lean towards not enabling them to make bad decisions... But if they were to go have sex I'd certainly want them protected if only for their own well-being.

It's like signing a prenuptial agreement... It makes divorce easier. But because of that, it increases it's viability as an option.

orb360 wrote:

bismark wrote:hurray for non sequitur arguments...

It wasn't an argument... It was a fun fact (and clearly labeled as such). I was merely pointing out that there do exist cases where education on a topic is considered detrimental. Whether this is one of them is a decision the parent should make.

Personally, I lean towards not enabling them to make bad decisions... But if they were to go have sex I'd certainly want them protected if only for their own well-being.

It's like signing a prenuptial agreement... It makes divorce easier. But because of that, it increases it's viability as an option.

Hmmn... Safe sex is like a prenup... I think that is another example of a non sequitur right there.

but thats just it, it wasn't just a "fun fact", it was an attempt to make a comparison between not teaching about secret combos and not teaching about sex. i showed with my example that making such a comparison is a non-sequitur. sex and secret combos have no relationship.

bismark wrote:but thats just it, it wasn't just a "fun fact", it was an attempt to make a comparison between not teaching about secret combos and not teaching about sex. i showed with my example that making such a comparison is a non-sequitur. sex and secret combos have no relationship.

Frankly bismark, my children better have their combinations secret. I don't their combinations to be public knowledge, dangerous things can happen if they are.

orb360 wrote:

bismark wrote:hurray for non sequitur arguments...

It wasn't an argument... It was a fun fact (and clearly labeled as such). I was merely pointing out that there do exist cases where education on a topic is considered detrimental. Whether this is one of them is a decision the parent should make.

Personally, I lean towards not enabling them to make bad decisions... But if they were to go have sex I'd certainly want them protected if only for their own well-being.

It's like signing a prenuptial agreement... It makes divorce easier. But because of that, it increases it's viability as an option.

it doesn't increase it's viability as an option. protecting your assets in the event of a worse case scenario doesn't mean you'll get divorced. my best friend just got married and she and her husband signed a prenup. i think they'll make it to the very end, but it is for more than just what happens if you get divorced. a prenup also ensures a spouses rights to property if one or the other dies. it can delineate who pays for what (like houses, cars, college etc.). it's smart. it's not just a document about what will happen in the case of a divorce. and plenty of couples who don't have one get divorced. it's ALWAYS an option.

Yes. Divorce is always an option.

However. Taking the same exact situation and changing only the fact of whether a prenup exists or doesn't DOES affect how likely one option would be taken compared to another. You can't say that it doesn't make a difference.
------------
All analogies become non sequitur if you break them down far enough. e.g. I'm not a samaritan, it's not biblical times, and the guy by the side of the road has a cellphone and can take care of himself.

I understand it's a loose connection but it is there.

Plenty of parents protect their children by not educating them on certain topics. Sex is one of those topics that some might choose that path. Point: Some people choose to protect from unsafe sex by ignorance.

Secret combinations were not written about for this same reason. To protect people from secret combinations through ignorance.

See the relationship? Protection through ignorance. Security through obscurity. It's quite valid. Some people use the method for sex, some for secret combinations, some for PC Firewalls, some for passwords, etc... It's used everywhere...

And no, other than both sex and secret combos using this method of "protection through ignorance" they are not related.

except here is where the analogy fails: sex is not something evil or wrong. sex is something that should be understood, prepared for, and desired. secret combinations and hackers are never beautiful or good. therefore, its a false analogy.

Texas Ranger wrote:Tao, are you conacious yet?

lol sadly, not by any legal measurement. I think I am approaching 40 hours of no sleep, and only a couple hours rest preventing that from being in the 70's. And it's going to be another all-nighter...

Imogen, I understand somewhat where you are coming from, I really do. my high school had a unhealthy % of girls having their second child out of wedlock before graduating. The town I was raised in was a college town that had little by way of entertainment outside of the bars and the whorehouse. One year prom was held at the local bar. My first introduction to the big city was in Southern California where I was soon introduced to the disturbing knowledge of preteens having sex. I realize all too well that it is going to happen. And I can better see your view knowing the stigma contraceptives have in the region you live in. My statements are not a crusade against you nor the ideals you hold, I simply enjoy having the opportunity to try and see multiple facets of an issue.

I also understand the frustration of the social dichotomy that you are pointing out between guys and girls who are sexually active,(heck I was on the football team), what I couldn't see so well was the responsibility placed upon the girls to say no. Looking at it now, I can see better where our mental approaches to the subject diverged.

As for teaching morals at school, I know I attempted to mention this in my last post, but it is my opinion that it is the parents responsibility to instruct their children as they feel it best. Church can be a secondary line, and schools so far in the back so as not to be counted. Schools should teach the health and biology, ethics and morality should come from the home. The difficulty with this ideal is twofold (inasfar as I can tell right now...) first different people have different views on where the fine line needs to be placed. I am sure some would consider teaching abstinence as the preferred method of contraceptive as teaching morals. The other problem is akin to the fact that you mentioned, just as kids are going to go ahead and have sex regardless of what we would see as ideal, there will also be parents who abdicate the responsibility to raise their children to the hands of... well, anyone who will take them. The TV, the Internet, the video games are all well and good, but some utilize them as methods of getting out of raising their kids. Perhaps these parents were raised in the 60's and 70's and were hell bent on establishing "free love" and the devil make take the consequences. A teacher seeing this might try to do their best to 'fill in' what they feel is missing, with stopgap morals and patchwork injunctions that as you said, often leave kids feeling more confused than before.

As per the conversation concerning divorce and ignorance as a defence, My thoughts are stuck where they were before, fear is an effective tool, and ignorance ranks up there with it, it works, but it is not ideal. Having the knowledge that you can "get away" from something lessens your aptitude to stick it out. The Art of War mentions that, men who fight knowing they have an escape will always lose to those who have their backs against the wall. Perhaps the correlation can be drawn to marriages, I knew an old couple who were celebrating their 50th, they were asked if they had ever considered divorce, she said with a straight face: "Divorce? Never." then with a grin... "Murder? sure, sometimes." Divorce wasn't an option to them, so they stuck it out survived the inevitable fights and ended up with a reward few achieve, a companion that knew them as well as they knew themselves, 50 years of sharing. I know yet another couple who were on the verge of a divorce over how he ate his pancakes. That was the only tangible thing that was causing contention between them, yet it nearly ended their relationship and left their kids in a lurch. I see this as being akin to Orb's argument, due to the option of divorce, it became a choice that had to be struggled with over something trivial, whereas those who wouldn't consider divorce short of infidelity or abuse don't spend the time and energy debating its consequences over anything trivial. Another thought on the topic of Orb's posts, there is a thread of continuity in all of his arguments, just not the ones you may be looking for bismark. Perhaps another point along that thread (but out of the sexual morality spectrum) would be whether or not the Kennedy admin should have informed the mass public of all the details of the Cuban Missile Crisis. To the informed, rational citizen, knowledge is power, and withholding that could well be considered an abuse of privilege. Yet at the same time one must take into consideration the mob mentality, that men are not always rational and that information can be misconstrued and whip people into a frenzy causing senseless danger, and hampering further progress. Thus: information on a topic that could be detrimental. Does it correlate directly into the overarching context of the conversation? Perhaps. I think the topic really comes down to who you feel needs the help the most.For convenience I'll claim 5 groups, those who will have unprotected sex regardless of what they have been taught. Perhaps not fully modern-day Hedonists, but following the Epicurean school in many cases. On the other end of the bell curve, the purists, both those who have strong convictions to remain celibate till marriage and those to whom sex is an abomination. While I personally feel these last have their own problems to deal with, teenage sex isn't one of them. Therefor we can effectively ignore these groups, they need no help or will receive no help regardless of the actions of others. Unfortunately I'd say the majority of people fall under the parts of the bell curve not yet defined, on one end you have the kids who are most likely to be having sex at some point out of wed lock, these are they to whom Sex ed has the most to offer Imo. "They have found the matches and are beginning to play with fire, lets' at least teach them about a fire pit." Pointless suffering and sadness due to foolish teenage mistakes made without enough information. Sitting congruent to them on the other side of the medium are those who don't think they will be having sex in their teens. Again, whether secular or spiritual, they have decided that premarital sex is not for them. But like most of us, these can fall into the slippery slope of raging hormones and end up doing things they never planned on. I see this group as bifurcated into 2, perhaps hybrids of the 2 extremes beyond them, there will be those who are willfully ignorant, they know there is flesh under all that cloth, but that doesn't mean they have to approve of it. These are they who have the potential to evolve into the sex-haters, or perhaps sadly fall prey to the users, being led by their ignorance to violate their own decisions and are often left shattered by the abrupt change in philosophical outlook. there will also be the ones who have been persuaded by fear of repercussions, knowing the tragedy of trying to raise a kid while still one themselves. These are not likely to give up their decision for anything the hedonists have to offer, they know better. What remains are the fence sitters, those who have chosen not to decide, perhaps they have heard from one side how much fun it is, while hearing from the others that there are some seriously scary things that could result. These are the ones who would be "protected" by ignorance. While some would learn of the consequences and migrate into the 'against' category, many would have their fears elevated by the knowledge that combined contraceptives are over 90% effective, that many STD's can be avoided through condoms, the fact that there remains the deadly few not being enough to sway them. Sex ed assuredly helps those who "were going to do it anyway" while tipping some of the fence sitters into the wrong pasture. Ouch sorry Midwest phraseology coming out again, must be time to stop prattling on once again.

To conclude, while I feel that sex ed is a necessary element for a majority of people, there is one function of this demographic that really lends credence to those advocating otherwise. As time progresses the bell curve skews. It is a much more difficult path to leave the hedonistic side and advance toward the puritanical side, whereas it isn't that uncommon for the once pure to end up as slaves to their passions. Who benefits most? Is there, and at what point would there be a happy medium allowing the maximum amount of information to be helping those that need it, while not encouraging destructive behaviors in others? I don't know. If I did, I'd be out there implimenting it, but at least this discussion is deepening my understanding of the issue at hand.

you are wrong because thats too long for me to want to read.

bismark wrote:except here is where the analogy fails: sex is not something evil or wrong. sex is something that should be understood, prepared for, and desired. secret combinations and hackers are never beautiful or good. therefore, its a false analogy.

Ah... But we are talking about pre-marital sex of underage youth in the context of mormonism.

Which is wrong.

Or at least that's what I was talking about.

ok, read it. much too flowery IMHO. an nope, i still disagree with orb.

orb360 wrote:

bismark wrote:except here is where the analogy fails: sex is not something evil or wrong. sex is something that should be understood, prepared for, and desired. secret combinations and hackers are never beautiful or good. therefore, its a false analogy.

Ah... But we are talking about pre-marital sex of underage youth in the context of mormonism.

Which is wrong.

Or at least that's what I was talking about.

that's not what i'm talking about at ALL. i'm not mormon, i don't think having sex before marriage is a sin or bad or wrong. I'M talking about giving people who need information to stay safe what they need. bismark is totally right. you should be prepared to have sex BEFORE you have it. whether you have it before or after marriage is a personal choice.

tao, i agree with your (long, but very interesting) post. a lot of parents do pass off their responsibilities on whoever will take them. but that's why i think schools should focus on giving kids good factual information, and not morality. maybe this is naive, but i really believe a person with all the facts will make good choices. information is power, and knowing the consequences can stop people from making dumb choices. to me, having sex isn't dumb or wrong. but doing it in a way that may put you or others at risk is.

orb360 wrote: Ah... But we are talking about pre-marital sex of underage youth in the context of mormonism.

Which is wrong.

Or at least that's what I was talking about.

doesn't matter. still need to understand, prepare for, and desire post-marital sex in the context of mormonism. perhaps you would recommend a crash course be given at the temple right after the sealing ceremony? i would think that preparing kids to want to be married in the temple would include teaching kids about a MAJOR aspect of that marriage. last i checked, sexual union is just as big of a part of the symbolism in priesthood sealings as the ordinance part in the temple....

Tao... You get where I'm coming from! And I agree with most everything you say

And bismark... I agree that children need to be taught about the birds and the bees. But it's different for when you should tell each child and how much they should be told. I think that some students go into class at 9th grade and learn nothing, and others learn far more than they are prepared to deal with. It should come from home where discussion can better fit the situation.

I was just playing devil's advocate.

Now back to being advocate...

But people do protect their children by lying to them all the time...

We lie to protect their feelings
Yes Santa is real. Yes the Easter Bunny is real.

We lie to maintain authority and change behavior
You will go blind if you sit too close to the TV. That will rot your teeth. If you don't stop squeezing your face like that it will stay that way.

We lie to avoid lengthy explanations or because we are lazy
Mommy and Daddy were just cuddling. He's not dead he's just sleeping.

http://www.paulgraham.com/lies.html

We are constantly using lies, half truths, and entire omissions to control authority, emotion, behaviors (which sometimes includes sex), and many other aspects of children's lives.

Imogen wrote:i'm not mormon

You don't have to be. That just means we are at an impass since your opinion does not apply to the situations I'm talking about. And my opinion doesn't apply to the situations you refer to.

orb360 wrote:

Imogen wrote:i'm not mormon

You don't have to be. That just means we are at an impass since your opinion does not apply to the situations I'm talking about. And my opinion doesn't apply to the situations you refer to.

Psh, don't use that as an excuse not to share ideas or opinions. I'm mormon and I disagree with your opinions.

wow...way to make me feel like you think i'm a terrible person, guy. that's really sporting of you.

Imogen wrote:wow...way to make me feel like you think i'm a terrible person, guy. that's really sporting of you.

Way to make me feel like you think you feel like I think your a terrible person!

I'm just saying... They are different situations, and although I do not disagree with your opinion for your situation... I think applying it to the scenarios I refer to is taking it out of context.

Similarly... applying my opinions to your situations is short-sighted and inconsiderate because you do not share my beliefs.

In an environment where pre-marital sex is acceptable... There is no reason to hide anything. So my arguments are completely invalidated because they are irrelevant in that situation.

In an environment where pre-marital sex is forbidden... Omission of facts is one way of dealing with the issue.

Cognoscente wrote:Psh, don't use that as an excuse not to share ideas or opinions. I'm mormon and I disagree with your opinions.

Perhaps I should put a disclaimer in my sig? I think I've made it clear that over half of what I write is designed to generate a heated response. Most does not reflect my actual opinion. (after all... agreeing with a bunch of people is SO boring...)

orb360 wrote:We are constantly using lies, half truths, and entire omissions to control authority, emotion, behaviors (which sometimes includes sex), and many other aspects of children's lives.

This, while a valid point, has no bearing on folks in their MID 20'S knowing about sex, which is what we were getting at. Children deserve a period of innocence, of course, but post puberty teens and young adults SHOULD know what's happening to their bodies, because boys WILL have a spermarche and girls WILL start their periods and they deserve not to go through a decade of shame and ignorance because they don't have access to honest, compassionate, factual information. Even then, I'm willing to give it a pass if parents want to raise their kids a certain way... but once you're an adult in your lower-to-mid-twenties ignorance, even for the sake of modesty, is simply misguided. It's possible to have clean thoughts and souls AND have all the facts straight before you're married. For crying out loud grow up people.