Beyond Abstinence

[Roxanne Appleby]

BTW, you know what this "debate" is really about? Government schools. If we had vouchers and every parent could choose either the KinderKondom Acedemy, the No Rods Left Behind Bible Camp or the Ayn Rand School for Tots then no part of this intrinsically private matter would be a subject for debate or public discussion. Same with the "creationism" and a lot of things. A bit absurd, really, this status quo system.

 

[Liar]

BTW, you know what this "debate" is really about? Government schools. If we had vouchers and every parent could choose either the KinderKondom Acedemy, the No Rods Left Behind Bible Camp or the Ayn Rand School for Tots then no part of this intrinsically private matter would be a subject for debate or public discussion. Same with the "creationism" and a lot of things. A bit absurd, really, this status quo system.

Well, i've been answering the thread starters question, that was about the concept of teenage abstinence in general. (A propos Palin and sex eduxation, but only a propos.)

But ok, about education vouchers... can I buy any education with those? And if so, it's free for me to set up my own pseudo school market it to the gullible (the educational equivalence of quackery) and rake in tax payers' hard earned money, right?

Or just government approved education? And if the government can mandate a certain standard of quality for education (in order to pay for it via vouchers), can't that include a proper sex ed? And then what's the real difference except a layer of corporate buerocracy on top of the good old state buerocracy?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Well, i've been answering the thread starters question, that was about the concept of teenage abstinence in general. (A propos Palin and sex eduxation, but only a propos.)

But ok, about education vouchers... can I buy any education with those? And if so, it's free for me to set up my own pseudo school market it to the gullible (the educational equivalence of quackery) and rake in tax payers' hard earned money, right?

Or just government approved education? And if the government can mandate a certain standard of quality for education (in order to pay for it via vouchers), can't that include a proper sex ed? And then what's the real difference except a layer of corporate buerocracy on top of the good old state buerocracy?

If I were czar it would be anything goes under some general standard of what constitutes a "real" and "adequate" education. Schools would have a rebuttable presumption that they met the standard. Caselaw would develop defining what clearly does not, while leaving lots of wiggle room for experimentation and my libertarian streak. The argument that some kids might get screwed has to outweigh the reality that under the current system in the US millions of kids get screwed, especially poor urban minorities.

 

[WRJames]

BTW, you know what this "debate" is really about? Government schools. If we had vouchers and every parent could choose either the KinderKondom Acedemy, the No Rods Left Behind Bible Camp or the Ayn Rand School for Tots then no part of this intrinsically private matter would be a subject for debate or public discussion. Same with the "creationism" and a lot of things. A bit absurd, really, this status quo system.

But even under that scenario parents are making a "private" decision for their children which may have "public" consequences.

There are already cases today for parents denying their children medical treatment because of religious beliefs -- and the state intervening. Does denying children access to information about sex constitute child neglect? What about denying them access to prophylactics and birth control? What about refusing them the opportunity to abort an unwanted pregnancy?

Unfortunately, these are not purely issues of "private" morality. As with anything involving the welfare of children, there is an uneasy balance between the parent's freedom of choice, and the interest of government in protecting all of its citizens.

 

[amicus]

Without WRJames, even as devil's advocate, and finally, Roxanne, it took five pages before someone realized that this is the 'Author's Hangout', and not just a coffee klatch, or social network, or a place to express one's personal opinions like washerwomen over a back fence.

Since each of you who write fiction, create characters that do have sexual preferences and at least can spell, 'moral' and 'ethical', one would have thought the content of such a thread might be somewhat more objective and speculative.

To amplify Roxanne's comments on public education, just when did school replace parents as the conveyor of moral and ethical premises, and why?

Perhaps a thumbnail consideration concerning the previous sources of information on sex might be in order for some?

Maybe even questions concerning the meaning of sexual relationships in terms of the human factor, ya know, the real world?

Many, perhaps most in the world, still adhere to one or another religious dogma concerning moral issues about sex.

Sans religion, just how do most answer or deal with, those pesky moral questions that arise concerning one's personal behavior?

Is there a right and a wrong anywhere to be found?

The gist of this thread seems to be that issuing condoms to prevent STD's is viewed as an absolute, regardless that it opens the doorway to approval for, 'safe sex', or do I overemphasize?

You want teenaged kids to know all about sex and how to protect themselves, but you are confused about the age of actual participation? Should it be based on the choice of the teen, be he/she twelve or sixteen?

Children without fathers have been a subject of moral concern forever, but now, you say, it ain't no big thing? Really?

I am a smoker, if I gave my kid a package of cigarettes and a condom at age twelve, where is the problem and why?

Hell, I gave my kid a sip of gin when she was three, cuz she wanted it? Did I do something immoral?

Without that fuzzy faced fellow upstairs sneering at your actions, how do you know if you do right or wrong, or is there no such thing?

Again...as authors, whether you are aware of it or not, you infect your characters with your moral viewpoints. Seems to me you ought at least to know what the are?

Nevermind...



Ami

 

[Liar]

If I were czar it would be anything goes under some general standard of what constitutes a "real" and "adequate" education.

My point exactly. Whose standard? Yours? Mine? Gilbert Gottfried's? And what's to say his standards (or mine) doesn't include basic information on how to not fuck up fucking?

You see where I'm going with this, right?

 

[Corylea]

how to fuck and not fuck up?

*laugh* That may be the most succinct description of the subject matter of sex education I've ever heard!

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

My point exactly. Whose standard? Yours? Mine? Gilbert Gottfried's? And what's to say his standards (or mine) doesn't include basic information on how to not fuck up fucking?

You see where I'm going with this, right?

How about this:

"Schools accepting a voucher shall provide what a reasonable person would determine is a real and adequate education."

 

[Guest]

How about this:

"Schools accepting a voucher shall provide what a reasonable person would determine is a real and adequate education."

Sure, that works.

(You were being sarcastic, weren't you?)

 

[Weird Harold]

How about this:

"Schools accepting a voucher shall provide what a reasonable person would determine is a real and adequate education."

Roxxy, we can't even agree on what constitutes a "reasonable person," let alone get obviously literate "reasonable persons" such as the denizens of the AH to agree on what a core curriculim should include -- I know, I've tries several time over the years to get a consensus on what should be taught in public schools as a bare minimum for people to be considered "educated."

Part of the problem with "sex education" is that people insist on separating it from other educational areas -- it should be mostly encompassed by "Health and Hygiene" and/or "Biology" in the formal educational system and encompassed within "inter-personal relationships" by whomever is teaching out children how to interact with each other; that should be the parents, but far too often it's the police or the "school of hard knocks."

 

[WRJames]

and encompassed within "inter-personal relationships" by whomever is teaching out children how to interact with each other; that should be the parents, but far too often it's the police or the "school of hard knocks."

Ah -- there's the rub. What are the standards of conduct for sexual interactions at that age?

 

[shereads]

Roxxy, we can't even agree on what constitutes a "reasonable person,"

What Harold said.

 

[Weird Harold]

Ah -- there's the rub. What are the standards of conduct for sexual interactions at that age?

At what age?

I never mentioned any particular age, nor did I specify any "sexual" interaction.

You simply illustrated the problem: It's NOT about "SEX," it's about disease control and learning to respect yourself and others. It's about interpersonal relationships and basic biology.

If you're past puberty, you can become a parent; whether you do or not depends on whether you let your hormones rule you or your mind rule you is all the sex education anyone ever needs. Anything more than that basic reality is either disease control or ettiquette and applies to shaking hands as much as it does to "sex."

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Sure, that works.

(You were being sarcastic, weren't you?)

No, I'm serious. The reasonable person test is the basis of all common law, and without it no law is possible. You can't have juries, you can't have rules, nothing.

As I said in my original response on this, there would be very general description of what the standard is - this is the most general possible - and a rebuttable presumption that any school a parent send their own child to, and which can attract enough business to open its doors in the first place and keep them open, meets that standard. If some person wanted to challenge the presumption in a particular instance they could do so, and a body of case law would develop definining what is and is not adequate and reasonable. The definition would be organic, flexible and ever-evolving - as is proper and sensible.

This is not a radical concept - it's very traditional and proven. Whats new and demonstrably ineffective is the practice of imposing elaborate, intricate, complex, stultified bureaucrat rules and definitions that attempt to cover every possible contingency. That doesn't work. What we need instead is simple rules for a complex society.