No Sex Under Age 18? Think Again!

[amicus]

continued response to Verdad:

"...It's still the parents' responsibility to instill the values they deem appropriate, and if there's something on the societal level a parent has a hard time battling, it's not contraception. It's the cultural double bind in which the kids are put, especially girls.

On the one side there's the message that a girl is only as good as she pleases some schmuck in bed, and on the other, there's the ever-present threat of slutdom. Adding the impossibility of protection in the mix is not just cruel and unusual, but also provably ineffective as a deterrent. The number of teen pregnancies says all that needs to be said about that.

Raise the kids with a healthy regard for who they are and what role sexuality plays in their lives, and when the time comes, they'll know how to employ contraception in their best interest. This best interest doesn't normally involve spending one life on one's backs with feet pointed toward the ceiling, so it's silly to think that's where it would lead.

But what about your premise that 'casual' sex is immoral in the first place? Well, I'm afraid that doesn't fly either. It doesn't fly as an extension of your 'sanctity of life' principle because one doesn't follow from the other. "Life is valuable" doesn't lead to "it's immoral to refrain from creating life" any more than "music is valuable" leads to "it's immoral to refrain from making music." Much less does it allow one to say that because hands are used to play piano, a potential for playing piano must be there every time you use your hands.

Too, contrary to what you said, not every intercourse carries a potential for new life. There's only a narrow window every month, so your reasoning would lead to intercourse being immoral some 25 out of 28 days, immoral between couples who are infertile or past the child-bearing age, immoral whenever it ends in coitus interuptus, and every other sexual intimacy that doesn't lead to the 'goal', including solo masturbation, would be immoral too..."

~~~

"..."...It's still the parents' responsibility to instill the values they deem appropriate, and if there's something on the societal level a parent has a hard time battling, it's not contraception. It's the cultural double bind in which the kids are put, especially girls...."

A couple things here, first, 'parents' doesn't mean what it once did with half of all children being raised in single parent families; in many cases without contact with an extended family. Also the continuing challenge to traditional and conventional ethics and morals, leaves both parent and child without a firm, 'objective' grip on what is right and wrong, what is moral and immoral.

There is also the difference between a time where no girls wore, 'pants' or jeans to school; all wore long dresses and skirts and full coverage sweaters and blouses.

Now; low cut jeans with butt cracks, short short skirts way up the thigh, cleavage to a near point of nudity, are common place and have been for decades. Then you pack these hormone erupting kids together in a small room for eight hours a day five days a week and wonder at the results.

"...On the one side there's the message that a girl is only as good as she pleases some schmuck in bed, and on the other, there's the ever-present threat of slutdom. Adding the impossibility of protection in the mix is not just cruel and unusual, but also provably ineffective as a deterrent. The number of teen pregnancies says all that needs to be said about that...."

Amazingly enough, and much to your chagrin, the number of teenage pregnancies is still high and rising again, with, condoms dispensed at schools and a full plate of sex education, even to the extent of putting a condom on a banana. Why is that?

A great many teen aged girls, absent the dependable masculine presence in the home, turn to 'boys' as substitutes and never understand that the two sexes can never be, 'just friends', that sex is always in the mix.

As children, girls especially, wanting to please the adult in their life is transferred to the surrogate, the boyfriend, and it more often than not, leads to a bad experience.

When, 'casual sex' is used to replace the absence of affection, both physical and emotional, at home, then it does become an extension of the human psyche in seeking not to be alone in the world. Although, in normative times, this is a normal rejection on parental closeness as the new near adult strives for independence.

"...But what about your premise that 'casual' sex is immoral in the first place? Well, I'm afraid that doesn't fly either. It doesn't fly as an extension of your 'sanctity of life' principle because one doesn't follow from the other. "Life is valuable" doesn't lead to "it's immoral to refrain from creating life" any more than "music is valuable" leads to "it's immoral to refrain from making music." Much less does it allow one to say that because hands are used to play piano, a potential for playing piano must be there every time you use your hands..."

You are doing a little dance here to suit your own argument, but thas okay...so you separate sex, from casual sex, from sanctity or value of life, from moral decisions?

Is there any inherent relationship between those degrees of sexuality that you accept at all?

Can a girl have sex with ten different guys in one semester in the 9th grade and have no moral qualms? Or, five, or three?

Can a girl get so well practiced in applying a condom on her partner that it becomes habit, automatic?

Does it make a difference if she becomes so experienced she changes positions several times and perhaps experiments with oral and anal sex? Does any of that, in your opinion, color her future episodes, intimate relationships, perhaps even one with someone she has a true emotional attachment to who is sexually innocent, a virgin?

I suggest you too quickly and easily dismiss casual sex from human emotions, and morality and I ask you: to what purpose?

As you typed, we disagree on just about everything.

I advocate acknowledging more value to each sexual experience, that it not become a, 'casual', recreational exercise and that individual responsibility should apply to each and every encounter.

Look forward to your reply.

Amicus

 

[Verdad]

I knew I wouldn't get away with a drive by posting. But that's okay, you are a fine conversationalist, and I'll gladly answer.

I'll start with the idea that availability of contraception resembles the availability of ice-cream. Well, I would say that is somewhat correct. I agree that availability of goods in general has an effect on creating and shaping needs, and even that it can lead to some social ills, like obesity. And yet, it's easy to defend contraception from at least three angles:

One, this concern for a relation between the market and the manipulation of needs is a staple of Marxist philosophers. How does one reconcile it with libertarianism? If you're annoyed with the state's trying to pry your cigarettes away or worried that the next thing they'll do is pry your sandwich away too, it would follow you'd want them as far as possible from this, the most private area of life, as well. You can think sandwiches make butts fat; you can prohibit them in your home; you can insist on raising the public awareness; but you can't say sandwiches are inherently bad and shouldn't be available because some people can't control themselves.

Two, whatever could be said about ice-cream and sandwiches, in the case of contraception, the link is not direct, if there at all. For ice-cream you only need a spoon, while getting laid still involves everything it ever did—willingness, chance, determination, etc. In other words, contraception is not sex in a jar; it's what one uses when and if one decides to have sex.

Three, the reality. You say the number of teen pregnancies is still on the rise. Well, I say, let's look at Europe. Europe is not overwhelmed with teen pregnancies. What makes this a specifically US problem? Surely the answer is complex, but this much we can say: the availability of contraception has been proven as a part of the solution; it doesn't, however, cut it on its own. Instead of taking the contraception away and putting the kids in an even more impossible situation, I believe in having it as a helpful choice, in addition to everything else, adequate education, support, etc.

If that is clear—how I feel about contraception and why—I'll go through the rest of your points.

 

[Verdad]

I fully agree that becoming sexually active is indeed an individual choice. But, please view the word, 'choice' as the key word, and know that, 'choice', requires knowledge of the risks, both mental and physical, and that the concept of 'moral', plays a role in making choices.

Yes, indeed, any choice can be only as good as the knowledge it's based on. I'm, therefore, all for education. The difference is, I do not see the moral component, not unless you broaden morality to include anything that can be labeled as more or less desirable. In terms of the analogy, is too much ice-cream immoral? I wouldn't say so. It does make you fat and miserable at a point, though. I would caution against sexual excesses on the same grounds—not as a 'sin', but as something that will make you miserable—only with respect for individual differences as to what 'excessive' means.

Prior to the 'sexual revolution' said to have begun in the 1950's, for a girl to become sexually active while still in high school, was almost unheard of and had heavy social repercussions concerning her, 'reputation', not just among peers but the community at large.

It was commonly expected that a young lady would be chaste, a virgin, at marriage, and that too, was a 'value' at that time and place in our history.

As Xssve already said, this 'value' was reflective of a society that had at heart the interests of only one half of population. Its main purpose was ensuring a man's certainty about his offspring, in addition to making women generally subject to more social control. It was in no way helpful to women, unless you want to make a case that having less freedom and less to choose from makes choices that much easier.

Most similar studies will confirm that teenagers are more sexually active now than they were in previous times. Assuming you can confirm that and accept it, I pose the question: why?

Well, this depends on which previous times you have in mind. I'll remind you considering teens as a special group is a recent invention itself. My grandma married at sixteen, perfectly normal for her time, and I'm much younger than you. That is not to say getting married at sixteen is an ideal choice in this day and age, or that mature men should be hitting on modern sixteen year olds. It's just to say there's some flexibility as to what we consider sexual maturity. It slides back and forth within a certain range, adjusting itself to other societal factors.

So in answer to 'why', I could say there's faster physical maturation on the one side (e.g. the earlier average age of menarche) and on the other, certainly, there are changing social mores. I see no reason to think because 16 is okay today 9 will be tomorrow, though, nor do I see anything bad in young people having the possibility to begin the exploration without a sword of eternal damnation hanging over their heads.

There is also a difference between teenagers from strict two parent homes, those attending religious instead of public schools and those from rural or urban and inner city environs.

Thus, I make my case that sexual activity before marriage is a 'values choice', and that those values differ between families and individuals.

I agree with this, and I have made a similar point in my first post. I said it's up to the parents to instill the values they deem appropriate. That allows me to make two points. One, a degree of relativism has to be respected. You can't go in the religious people's homes and tell them to stop teaching 'that silliness' to their kids, but neither can you go in a liberal home and forbid them to allow their 15-year old from dating. The relativism ends only where the society puts the legal lines, so if a parent thinks it's a good idea to say, prostitute themselves in front of the kid, enter the child services and away goes the kid.

Short of breaking the law, though, little can be done about questionable parental choices except to try to address the social ills that lead to them. You see a relaxed attitude toward sex as one such ill, but I'd put poverty, hopelessness, ignorance, and so on, far before. Why else would the same thing be a fruitful self-exploration in someone's hands and a road to self-demeaning in someone else's? Why would there be a range of sexual attitudes from more liberal to more conservative that lead to equally good lives? It's not about sex at all; it's about everything else that surrounds it.

I reject the supposition that increased sexually active young people is the result of a more, 'enlightened era', an example of women achieving equality and simply a result of changing times.

I see the quotes around the 'enlightened era', and I want to say, I do not know if this era is the most enlightened ever. I do not think history marches forward in a linear way and that every today is necessarily 'better' than every yesterday. It would be naïve to say, OMG, what a dog's life my poor grandma had, having to depend on my grandpa, and she didn't even have the internet! People have lived fulfilling existences in all sorts of circumstances, and everyone is in the end a child of his time. Overall, I think we lose some things and win some, the balance, one would hope, remains positive, but in any case, one has to make one's way in the rising complexities. There's no putting the genie back in the bottle or curtailing the freedoms because more freedom makes the decisions harder. Like with consumerism, like with the net, like with anything else that inundates one with choices, there's only keeping one's eyes open and developing the ability to pick what works best.

 

[Verdad]

Amazingly enough, and much to your chagrin, the number of teenage pregnancies is still high and rising again, with, condoms dispensed at schools and a full plate of sex education, even to the extent of putting a condom on a banana. Why is that?

I'm not chagrined at all, Ami, and sympathize with many of your points on a descriptive level. I hope I have somewhat responded to this 'why', but I'll just briefly repeat. That contraception is no panacea doesn't make it useless. What you say here rather supports my point, and yours too, that factors way beyond availability of contraception make for irresponsible sexual choices. Withholding contraception only makes the cost of the irresponsibility incomparably more dramatic for everyone; the teen, their family, the new kid that will either be born to an immature mother—or not—and the society at large.

I do not think all the 'why's' can be answered, much less quickly cured, but I'll return the question to you: why are teen pregnancies a burning issue for the US but not for Europe?

A great many teen aged girls, absent the dependable masculine presence in the home, turn to 'boys' as substitutes and never understand that the two sexes can never be, 'just friends', that sex is always in the mix.

As children, girls especially, wanting to please the adult in their life is transferred to the surrogate, the boyfriend, and it more often than not, leads to a bad experience.

When, 'casual sex' is used to replace the absence of affection, both physical and emotional, at home, then it does become an extension of the human psyche in seeking not to be alone in the world. Although, in normative times, this is a normal rejection on parental closeness as the new near adult strives for independence.

This is well put and for the most part very true. What is your panacea, though?

You are doing a little dance here to suit your own argument, but thas okay...so you separate sex, from casual sex, from sanctity or value of life, from moral decisions?

I've not danced so much as pointed out a dance move you've made, which can be called 'denying the antecedent'. But I do not mean to be picky, and I'll rather respond to your questions than play with words.

As I've said in a previous post, I do separate sex from morality in most senses of the word. Which means that I don't see special moral issues that concern sex which don't apply to other areas of living and human relationships. Cheating, for example, is still immoral, but not because it's inherently immoral to have more than one partner. It's immoral when it involves lying and deception, or maybe coercion. There are appropriate moral concepts readily available from other areas, without need to invent special ones for sexuality.

Can a girl have sex with ten different guys in one semester in the 9th grade and have no moral qualms? Or, five, or three?

In one sense, she'll have as many moral qualms as the society imposes on her. At one time, she might have considered herself a terrible person for even having a certain thought about a boy. That doesn't mean she was right, much less that such a time was good for human flourishing.

In another sense, I think you're really asking if she can do that and feel good about herself and be better off for the experience. For almost anyone of that age, I would think that nearly impossible—but then, that is why we have age laws, isn't it? Later in life, it's still not what a majority would find optimal, but by then, they're individuals with full right of choice. You seem to imply that having the choice is the same as being forced to do it.

Does it make a difference if she becomes so experienced she changes positions several times and perhaps experiments with oral and anal sex? Does any of that, in your opinion, color her future episodes, intimate relationships, perhaps even one with someone she has a true emotional attachment to who is sexually innocent, a virgin?

Of course it makes a difference, but what point does that support? These experiences can occur within bounds of a committed young love, they can occur because she's ready for adult life, or they can occur because she has serious emotional issues and seeks solace in every wrong place. Are all these situations same just because they all end 'innocence'?

Innocence is inevitably lost sooner or later, in all sorts of ways, sexual and other, sometimes for good, sometimes for ill, and it's a perennial challenge of adulthood to keep life as fresh and interesting as possible. While it's certainly not trivial to worry about the how's and when's, not to mention, exercise good caution with how much a kid should be allowed how soon, innocence is not the most helpful of concepts for building the entire construction on. Some day it will be lost. What then? Build self-respect and appreciation for good things in life, instead. These will last much longer.

I advocate acknowledging more value to each sexual experience, that it not become a, 'casual', recreational exercise and that individual responsibility should apply to each and every encounter.

Here, you make it easy for me to agree with you. We do not disagree as thoroughly as it seems, not in some observations and perhaps not even in some ideals. The difference is in the connections we make. I'd only add to your last line, acknowledge more value to each experience, sexual or not. And if you happen to have a bite of junk food, don't beat yourself up over that either.

 

[Verdad]

Oh, and a wave and a "no problem" to Submissioness, and one of these for you, X:

 

[xssve]

A couple things here, first, 'parents' doesn't mean what it once did with half of all children being raised in single parent families; in many cases without contact with an extended family. Also the continuing challenge to traditional and conventional ethics and morals, leaves both parent and child without a firm, 'objective' grip on what is right and wrong, what is moral and immoral.

There is also the difference between a time where no girls wore, 'pants' or jeans to school; all wore long dresses and skirts and full coverage sweaters and blouses.

Now; low cut jeans with butt cracks, short short skirts way up the thigh, cleavage to a near point of nudity, are common place and have been for decades. Then you pack these hormone erupting kids together in a small room for eight hours a day five days a week and wonder at the results.


Amazingly enough, and much to your chagrin, the number of teenage pregnancies is still high and rising again, with, condoms dispensed at schools and a full plate of sex education, even to the extent of putting a condom on a banana. Why is that?

A great many teen aged girls, absent the dependable masculine presence in the home, turn to 'boys' as substitutes and never understand that the two sexes can never be, 'just friends', that sex is always in the mix.

As children, girls especially, wanting to please the adult in their life is transferred to the surrogate, the boyfriend, and it more often than not, leads to a bad experience.

When, 'casual sex' is used to replace the absence of affection, both physical and emotional, at home, then it does become an extension of the human psyche in seeking not to be alone in the world. Although, in normative times, this is a normal rejection on parental closeness as the new near adult strives for independence.

Such arguments are always based on contrast with some supposedly "better" time, a "Golden Age".

You cannot make a rational claim that any of the problems you cite are in any way novel, in fact anecdotally, I'd have to say I run into far fewer adults who were beaten and abused as children, a lot fewer women wearing oversized sunglasses to hide the Black eyes, we don't treat children born out of wedlock like second class citizens (a key ingredient of "moral" enforcement, generally extended to minorities in general), we don't lock up and electrocute the mentally ill anymore (much), seldom hang Black Men for sleeping with White women anymore, and the only genocidal conflict we've engaged in was initiated by the Right, you know, the "moral" ones.

On the other hand, your daughters might learn to fellatiate a Banana in case they happen to run into one of you impregnation fetishists, poor you.

 

[xssve]

The sad fact is, its fairly easy to talk women into using birth control, it's uphill all the way to talk men and boys into using condoms - research indicates that if you don't start well before they become sexually active, they'll just ignore you, it becomes a machismo thing.

So the current teen pregnancy rate reflects pretty much the whole abstinence movement that prevailed when these teens were children, go figure.

You have heard of the Baby Boom, right? This happened before "liberals" were working their evil spells on on you - in fact you'd have to say that the emergence of liberalism is really the result of the failure of the "traditional morality" - or is that the success?

You people live in a fantasy world, not surprising you get along so well with wrms and her imaginary friend.

 

[amicus]

Verdad...First off, I want to personally and publicly thank you for your style and knowledge in conducting your side of this discussion. Only a handful over the past few years, Roxanne, Black Shanglan and currently, Slyc_Willie, to name a few, have posted with such knowledge and civility as you have thus far.

It is this form of repartee' that I wish happened more often and one which I would perhaps sit on the sidelines and follow just for the pleasure and expression of two opposing points of view.

I started this thread after hearing that the new administration had changed a policy enacted by the previous one and the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, in making the, 'morning after' abortion pill available to 17 year old girls by 'over the counter' prescription without parental knowledge or consent.

Regardless of how many of the public at large approved or disapproved of this change, my concern, aside from the moral question concerning abortion and contraception, is the Federal government and the Public school system diminishing the role of family/parents, by going around parental consent.

You defend your position well, much better than the 'abstinence' contingent that is mostly religious and faith based and can present no logical argument aside from their belief that life is 'sacred', God given, and beyond questioning.

I on the other hand, continue to attempt to provide an intellectual basis for human actions based on an objective and rational moral foundation that does not look to Divine edicts to provide answers to difficult moral and ethical questions. And I am not a 'faith based' individual in the closet, I am an atheist with no belief in any deity.

I also do my utmost to weed out any personal opinions or prejudices that may seep through and I avoid anecdotal testaments and, as much as possible, statistical or pragmatic information that tends to reflect a majority, utilitarian conclusion.

In as few words as possible, I present an objective, intellectual approach to determining what is right and wrong, good and bad, concerning human actions.

~~~

Post #27,

"...One, this concern for a relation between the market and the manipulation of needs is a staple of Marxist philosophers...."

Let's no go there. To widen this discussion to include economics was not my intent by the ice cream metaphor.


Same: "

...Two...it's what one uses when and if one decides to have sex..."
The metaphor holds, as to indulge in either ice cream or sex, the above applies.

Same:

"...Three, the reality. You say the number of teen pregnancies is still on the rise. Well, I say, let's look at Europe..."

Let's not look at Europe, as you do not explore the question but offer anecdotal statistics to support your position.

~~~

Post #28

"...Yes, indeed, any choice can be only as good as the knowledge it's based on. I'm, therefore, all for education. The difference is, I do not see the moral component, not unless you broaden morality to include anything that can be labeled as more or less desirable...."

The rightness or wrongness or null component of every human action requires, 'choice', even if it is a choice to do or not do a particular thing, there is a reason, a 'value' inherent in the choice.

An education in 'morals' is the province of the family and if religious, the church. The moral education imposed on public school students was at one time reflective of community morals; it is no longer so. Both religion and religious morality has been prohibited in the public schools and replaced by situational or relativistic moral teachings which often set student against parent and even against community. So while I fully agree that education holds great importance, moral and ethical foundations are not the province of public schools.

You may not appreciate this argument, but reverse the dogma being taught at public schools to that of a Catholic School being the source of all morality taught instead of the secular public school. Would you promoted Catholic indoctrination of your child? View the public school in the same manner, an indoctrination of a specific moral and ethical foundation provided by government funded teachers and schools and a mandated curriculum that all schools must teach.

Sex education may or may not be helpful in preparing children for adult life, but that is not the question; that the school, outside the religious one, offer a moral education at all and if so, what kind?

Again, I implore you, stand off and view this objectively, without your personal preference guiding your thoughts. Is public moral indoctrination a rational approach? Has it ever worked, in any country? You can parse my referents on this.

Same:

"...As Xssve already said, this 'value' was reflective of a society that had at heart the interests of only one half of population. Its main purpose was ensuring a man's certainty about his offspring, in addition to making women generally subject to more social control. It was in no way helpful to women, unless you want to make a case that having less freedom and less to choose from makes choices that much easier..."

Here is where being, 'objective', becomes controversial: "...this 'value' was reflective of a society that had at heart the interests of only one half of population...."

There are many who question that the emancipation of women has represented their best interests. Many have expressed yearnings to be set free of having to compete in the market place and manage a home and family simultaneously. Many yearn for the time when a woman was a wife and mother and devoted her full time and interest to her family.

Women have had almost full equality for less than a century, about the same length of time it took the experiment in Socialism in the USSR to fail, and fail miserably.

What if this 'experiment' in gender equality is doomed to failure? One can view the destruction of the conventional family structure as evidence that it has failed. What will the results of a generation of fatherless children bode for the future? You can't answer that; neither can I, but I can question it and suffer the barbs of those who are appalled at the mere suggestion.

That may be perceived as a bit off topic, so be it...writing, expressing ones' thoughts, for me at least, goes where the muse leads.

Besides...this is already, as before, overly long.

regards...

amicus

 

[phelon]

Here is where being, 'objective', becomes controversial: "...this 'value' was reflective of a society that had at heart the interests of only one half of population...."

There are many who question that the emancipation of women has represented their best interests. Many have expressed yearnings to be set free of having to compete in the market place and manage a home and family simultaneously. Many yearn for the time when a woman was a wife and mother and devoted her full time and interest to her family.

Women have had almost full equality for less than a century, about the same length of time it took the experiment in Socialism in the USSR to fail, and fail miserably.

What if this 'experiment' in gender equality is doomed to failure? One can view the destruction of the conventional family structure as evidence that it has failed. What will the results of a generation of fatherless children bode for the future? You can't answer that; neither can I, but I can question it and suffer the barbs of those who are appalled at the mere suggestion.

That may be perceived as a bit off topic, so be it...writing, expressing ones' thoughts, for me at least, goes where the muse leads.

Besides...this is already, as before, overly long.

regards...

amicus

I am not as well spoken, but I would like to put my 2 cents into this particular part. I have no real evidence, but my opinion. I believe that equality of genders is a transitional state, much like racial equality, though we often make goal statements, we have yet to truly reach them and find a balance that society can call stable. many of the factual gaps are closing, such that the pay differences tend to be shrinking, less industries find loopholes to exclude women than before, and yes during this transition the 'traditional' family has changed in ways not always beneficial to society. In addition other changes have caused major ruptures in that more 'traditional' set. The number of families living states apart from their relatives has grown as technology and other economic factors have shifted jobs. There is a great reduction in companies that want stable loyal employees that stay around 10+ years. All these factors causing less parental interaction and influence. This does cause problems, a lessening of the strength of values being passed from parent to child, increases in crime and problems with teens often defining their own structures to fill in the gaps.

Again, in my opinion, this is transitional, eventually things will change enough there will be a reversal.. and things will swing back towards a middle. I think we see some of the early signs already.. women that work home-based businesses, as well as Fathers moving to part time or at home status to counteract these things.
That leaves one primary problem, 'single parent' male or female, society will need to figure out if it wishes to assist them so they can have time to be a parent, or if they will step back and watch most of them fail and deal with the issues those children have because of their home situation.

Charles

ps. sorry for meandering off the original topic so far, but i think its but one link in a web and to solve or consider properly the situation, one must view a larger bit of that web

 

[Verdad]

Verdad...First off, I want to personally and publicly thank you for your style and knowledge in conducting your side of this discussion. Only a handful over the past few years, Roxanne, Black Shanglan and currently, Slyc_Willie, to name a few, have posted with such knowledge and civility as you have thus far.

It is this form of repartee' that I wish happened more often and one which I would perhaps sit on the sidelines and follow just for the pleasure and expression of two opposing points of view.

I started this thread after hearing that the new administration had changed a policy enacted by the previous one and the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, in making the, 'morning after' abortion pill available to 17 year old girls by 'over the counter' prescription without parental knowledge or consent.

Regardless of how many of the public at large approved or disapproved of this change, my concern, aside from the moral question concerning abortion and contraception, is the Federal government and the Public school system diminishing the role of family/parents, by going around parental consent.

You defend your position well, much better than the 'abstinence' contingent that is mostly religious and faith based and can present no logical argument aside from their belief that life is 'sacred', God given, and beyond questioning.

I on the other hand, continue to attempt to provide an intellectual basis for human actions based on an objective and rational moral foundation that does not look to Divine edicts to provide answers to difficult moral and ethical questions. And I am not a 'faith based' individual in the closet, I am an atheist with no belief in any deity.

I also do my utmost to weed out any personal opinions or prejudices that may seep through and I avoid anecdotal testaments and, as much as possible, statistical or pragmatic information that tends to reflect a majority, utilitarian conclusion.

In as few words as possible, I present an objective, intellectual approach to determining what is right and wrong, good and bad, concerning human actions.

~~~

Post #27,

Let's no go there. To widen this discussion to include economics was not my intent by the ice cream metaphor.


Same: "

Same:

Let's not look at Europe, as you do not explore the question but offer anecdotal statistics to support your position.

~~~

Post #28

The rightness or wrongness or null component of every human action requires, 'choice', even if it is a choice to do or not do a particular thing, there is a reason, a 'value' inherent in the choice.

An education in 'morals' is the province of the family and if religious, the church. The moral education imposed on public school students was at one time reflective of community morals; it is no longer so. Both religion and religious morality has been prohibited in the public schools and replaced by situational or relativistic moral teachings which often set student against parent and even against community. So while I fully agree that education holds great importance, moral and ethical foundations are not the province of public schools.

You may not appreciate this argument, but reverse the dogma being taught at public schools to that of a Catholic School being the source of all morality taught instead of the secular public school. Would you promoted Catholic indoctrination of your child? View the public school in the same manner, an indoctrination of a specific moral and ethical foundation provided by government funded teachers and schools and a mandated curriculum that all schools must teach.

Sex education may or may not be helpful in preparing children for adult life, but that is not the question; that the school, outside the religious one, offer a moral education at all and if so, what kind?

Again, I implore you, stand off and view this objectively, without your personal preference guiding your thoughts. Is public moral indoctrination a rational approach? Has it ever worked, in any country? You can parse my referents on this.

Same:

Here is where being, 'objective', becomes controversial: "...this 'value' was reflective of a society that had at heart the interests of only one half of population...."

There are many who question that the emancipation of women has represented their best interests. Many have expressed yearnings to be set free of having to compete in the market place and manage a home and family simultaneously. Many yearn for the time when a woman was a wife and mother and devoted her full time and interest to her family.

Women have had almost full equality for less than a century, about the same length of time it took the experiment in Socialism in the USSR to fail, and fail miserably.

What if this 'experiment' in gender equality is doomed to failure? One can view the destruction of the conventional family structure as evidence that it has failed. What will the results of a generation of fatherless children bode for the future? You can't answer that; neither can I, but I can question it and suffer the barbs of those who are appalled at the mere suggestion.

That may be perceived as a bit off topic, so be it...writing, expressing ones' thoughts, for me at least, goes where the muse leads.

Besides...this is already, as before, overly long.

regards...

amicus

You like to keep me busy. But okay, one more post.

The true problem you have in mind seems to be the lessening of parental control. If you want to frame it that way, without claims as to contraception being undesirable per se, I do sympathize. I can only add a few words that are not meant to invalidate your concerns; they're merely describing things as they are.

With older teens, parental controls gradually diminish anyhow. A 16 year old can drive, and can have sex also, at least in some states. An 18 year old can join the army. Since not everyone will become a responsible driver or ready for sex or war at the exact same moment in their lives, these legal lines are arbitrary of necessity. They're drawn where they're likely to benefit a statistical majority, in the least intrusive way. "Under 16," we say, "so many are likely to be a danger on the road we can't have any of them driving. Over 16, the calculus is likely to become positive, so it's between a teen and their parents now."

In these years, recognized as transitional, the parent is still free, and indeed, responsible for enforcing his rules. As the young person acquires more of their rights, though, the parent can no longer count on the state arbitrating a possible disagreement. The parent had full 16-17 years for imparting every lesson he thought desirable and still has considerable means of control; if at 17 and one minute, or for that matter, 18 and one minute, the kid runs off to do every thing they'd been cautioned against, it's way late for pointing a finger at the state.

I think, though, you're not disagreeing so much in terms of the law as in terms of a broader cultural indoctrination. You're finding some of your values to be at odds with the majority climate. It always did suck to be a minority, but I have to wonder how correct you are. Isn't it possible you're imputing a more extreme view to the 'other side' than they hold?

True, the idea of two people, for life, no prior, later, or parallel experiences has lost a lot of popularity, though not all of it. Has it been replaced with the idea of "nail everything that moves," though? "With less thought than you'd give to picking a pair of shoes?" I don't think so. Doubtless there are a few who subscribe to this extreme, as there are those who subscribe to the former one, but I certainly wouldn't call it the dominant cultural assumption. The dominant 'enlightened' assumption seems to favor some experimentation, leading to a small number of committed partnerships. Sounds eminently reasonable to me, especially as a middle view that doesn't throw stones at those with different ideas of either kind.

But too, there are two senses of cultural indoctrination. One would pertain to formal education and the other to everything one imbibes through cultural osmosis. In the case of formal education, I have to wonder again how much your worries apply.

I'm speaking here without concrete knowledge of the school programs, but it seems to me the schools are extremely cautious to impart information and leave the value judgments to the parents as much as possible. Values, of course, can't be divorced from any story or poem that is read at schools, but these are usually chosen so as to reflect the least controversial ones, such as "it's good to be kind to one's friends." Where are these school materials that imply to the kids it's good to drop pants at every corner? If you mean sex ed specifically, anecdotal as that is, I can only remember mine; it was as dull as any lesson in biology and contained no encouragement whatsoever.

As for cultural osmosis, well, that's where it gets really complicated, isn't it? On a personal level, one is always challenged to resist this or that mass 'wisdom' of a moment, be it low cut jeans, eating more spinach, or stoning a group of people.

You will say it's values that enable one to do so, and I'll agree. You'll further say that a society's adherence to universal values makes it that much easier for individual to do the same. Seeing, however, what a hard time we have in arriving to concrete policies even from the most undisputed values, such as "do not kill" or "do not torture", I'll just as soon leave that alone for now. I'll make a few observations instead.

A culture this obsessed with sex and this divided about it seems to me to result precisely from excessive prohibitions. A part of my answer as to why Europe doesn't share the problem of teen pregnancies is that they, generally, don't freak at a sight of a nipple, but neither are they quite so eager to sneak sex into everything, child beauty pageants included. Which I, by the way, think incomparably more obscene than any number of condom-clad bananas, and without a good side to speak for, too.

These two—the hysterical concern for control of sexuality and its forceful erupting from every pore—seem to me to be the two sides of the same coin.

Secondly, the question of gender is doubtless tied in, only I'd venture the connection is different from the one you draw. I think it's not the erosion of gender lines that hurts girls but rather their pervasiveness. As Phelon correctly stated in his post, this is still a transitional period. Girls are subject to two kinds of pressures at the same time. It's often "do it like a guy" when it suits a guy, and "good girls don't", again, when it suits a guy. Were we to achieve true equality, things would settle in a new balance. Were we to erase the assumption that 'masculine' is superior in the first place, or that virtues (e.g. courage) or flaws (e.g. insincerity) have a gender component instead of being human virtues and flaws that can apply to anyone equally, even better.

I do not think it would be a bleak unisex world, though. I think it would be one where people would be raised and treated like persons instead of plural nouns, and where majority would retain many of the traditional characteristics of their respective genders. They just wouldn't be forced in the extreme vapid caricatures of Barbie dolls and Action Men, and aren't these two the most likely couple for some meaningless early sex?

A good Marxist, of course, wouldn't escape mentioning the forces of the market that do influence all this, putting economic pressures on families, also profiting from excessive genderization so at to make sure to sell a blue bar of soap to one person and a pink one to another, and so on and so forth. I've been really lengthy this time, though, so I'll just end with, thank you for the food for thought, even if not all of it can fit on this page.

 

[amicus]

I am not as well spoken, but I would like to put my 2 cents into this particular part. I have no real evidence, but my opinion. I believe that equality of genders is a transitional state, much like racial equality, though we often make goal statements, we have yet to truly reach them and find a balance that society can call stable. many of the factual gaps are closing, such that the pay differences tend to be shrinking, less industries find loopholes to exclude women than before, and yes during this transition the 'traditional' family has changed in ways not always beneficial to society. In addition other changes have caused major ruptures in that more 'traditional' set. The number of families living states apart from their relatives has grown as technology and other economic factors have shifted jobs. There is a great reduction in companies that want stable loyal employees that stay around 10+ years. All these factors causing less parental interaction and influence. This does cause problems, a lessening of the strength of values being passed from parent to child, increases in crime and problems with teens often defining their own structures to fill in the gaps.

Again, in my opinion, this is transitional, eventually things will change enough there will be a reversal.. and things will swing back towards a middle. I think we see some of the early signs already.. women that work home-based businesses, as well as Fathers moving to part time or at home status to counteract these things.
That leaves one primary problem, 'single parent' male or female, society will need to figure out if it wishes to assist them so they can have time to be a parent, or if they will step back and watch most of them fail and deal with the issues those children have because of their home situation.

Charles

ps. sorry for meandering off the original topic so far, but i think its but one link in a web and to solve or consider properly the situation, one must view a larger bit of that web

~~~

Welcome, Phelon, and I think you express your thoughts better than most and your angle of approach is interesting and informative.

I suggest that more need to consider that a major transition in American society, at least, is taking place and more, that one can either just go along for the ride or act to steer the vehicle of change.

You seem to approach the mechanics of this transition as one that will bring women into more equality in the market place, which is fine, as far as it goes, but I offer a slightly different viewpoint.

Part of my former career in broadcasting and journalism, was to attend and write about sports in both middle and high schools and both boys and girls competitions.

Girls have more fun. Way more fun, on the court or field and on the sidelines. They hug, jump up and down, scream, shout victoriously when they win and shed tears when they lose.

Boys virtually do none of that; they are much more emotionally contained, more stoic, win or lose. I have seen this so many times that it is not just a supposition of mine, but an evidential truth of sorts.

Women take that into the workplace, into higher education, out into the world and bring that, 'emotionalism' into play and have effected change in every venue they venture into.

Before anyone again accused me of hating women, being a misogynist, let me nip that in the bud, I love women, their femininity, their emotionalism and spontaneity and having raised five daughters I am surely aware of all levels of girlhood and womanhood.

Because of this thread, just last night I began a story wherein a young married woman comes home one night and says, "I quit my job, I am not going to work anymore, I want to have a baby, I want a family."

I have no idea at this point, how the story will conclude; I do know that the characters will discuss and work out the very things we are discussing on this thread.

Rigid feminists insist on absolutely equal treatment in not just the workplace, but in all walks of life and I suggest that is an irrational goal that can never be realized.

One can discuss the economical reasons for both parents working, higher costs to support a family with two tax payers, the lingering effects of women in the workplace, the reasons and causes they are there in the first place.

What is not being considered in the depth it should be, is the inherent differences between male and female and what those differences translate to during the transition and the aftermath.

Once again, welcome and thank you.

Amicus

 

[amicus]

Hello again, Verdad, your, 'one more post', is entirely up to you, I am not forcing you to continue the conversation.

"...I think, though, you're not disagreeing so much in terms of the law as in terms of a broader cultural indoctrination. You're finding some of your values to be at odds with the majority climate. It always did suck to be a minority, but I have to wonder how correct you are. Isn't it possible you're imputing a more extreme view to the 'other side' than they hold?..."

Here, I think, we begin to diverge on conceptual matters. "My values', are not arbitrary or anecdotal or empirically gained. Human values are Universal and exist at all times and places as they emerge from the definition of what it means to be, 'human'.

To illustrate that, I refer you to life under the National Socialist regime of Adolph Hitler and the Socialist regime of Joseph Stalin and others in the USSR, or modern day China. The human values I advocate still existed even during those terrible times, but they were oppressed and depressed, forbidden and prohibited; that does not alter their existence or quality.

"...The dominant 'enlightened' assumption seems to favor some experimentation, leading to a small number of committed partnerships. Sounds eminently reasonable to me, especially as a middle view that doesn't throw stones at those with different ideas of either kind...."

That sound eminently reasonable, Verdad, until you consider the huge increase in single mother families, the increase in the number of 'fatherless', children. You seem to take in stride the drastic changes in culture that have occurred because of the women's movement and other factors in the economy that have not just, 'shaken up' the ingredients, but created a major change in the culture at large.

"...I'm speaking here without concrete knowledge of the school programs,..."

I will take your word for that and suggest again that you attempt to view, "Indoctrination U." I am told it can be found on 'Youtube' and was originally broadcast on the 'Documentary Channel'. A huge percentage of kids at both high school and college level, come out of school believing what most identify as a left wing liberal interpretation of history and current events and ethics and morals. All provided by the schools and provided in such a manner as to be unassailable to a poor parent; ask me, I know.

From the same paragraph:

"...Where are these school materials that imply to the kids it's good to drop pants at every corner?..."

Let me ask you to envision a class room in the 40's, considering the dress code, the, 'propriety', afforded girls, the separation of the sexes in gym class and sports and the overall, 'hushed up' attitude concerning sex. You will no doubt view that as extremely old fashioned and I agree, but, just compare that with contemporary educational environments and note the striking difference. The open acceptance of GLBT existence and behavior, the much more casual attitude about sexual experience in general and the underlying theme in sex education, 'you are going to do it anyway, just practice safe sex...'. I suggest it is not as clear cut in your favor as you suggest.

"...A culture this obsessed with sex and this divided about it seems to me to result precisely from excessive prohibitions...."

I don't buy that at all.

Prohibition about speeding on highways is not encouraged at all by the rules and regulations of driving.

"...These two—the hysterical concern for control of sexuality and its forceful erupting from every pore—seem to me to be the two sides of the same coin..."

I suggest you overstate with, 'hysterical', there are many choices available to all, breaking windows, stealing, cheating, all things with an ethical or moral component as is sexual activity. Like everything else in life, it comes with a set of rules and regulations that establish guidelines for acceptable behavior.

I recall one delicious girl in 9th grade Algebra class that with a single smiling glance, caused me to exit the class when it was over with a large book strategically placed to hide my rather embarrassing arousal.

But I didn't jump her bones on the way to the next class even though the thought did cross my mind.

"...Were we to erase the assumption that 'masculine' is superior in the first place, or that virtues (e.g. courage) or flaws (e.g. insincerity) have a gender component instead of being human virtues and flaws that can apply to anyone equally, even better..."

I did partially address this in the response to Phelon's post, another word or seven won't upset the applecart. I don't think you can erase the masculine superiority in size and weight and propensity towards the sciences. The male and female mind are different. We are not robots popped out of an assembly line, completely identical in all aspects. Even males of different stature occupy different levels of the pecking order; you know, the 'Napoleonic' complex in psychology of shorter men being more driven and obsessive.

Everyone seems so determined to observe and enforce total equality that, in my opinion, much is lost in the wonderful nature of both male and female, which, again by nature's design, are different but complimentary.

If you think or believe it was only the oppression of women that placed the masculine male at the helm in exploring the natural world, taking the risks, often foolish ones, to cross oceans, climb mountains and harness nature, then, I suggest, you have a built in bias and prejudice against masculinity and a disrespect for that which is, by nature, feminine.

I am going to leave it here...not scroll back to find perhaps a closing summary fitting of your post or the subject in general, but bid you a 'good day' and go tend my garden.

regards...

Amicus

 

[Verdad]

Hello again, Verdad, your, 'one more post', is entirely up to you, I am not forcing you to continue the conversation.

I don't feel forced to continue, not at all. I'm rather grateful for a fine antagonist, but I always feel guilty because I reply with such delay. If that's okay, let me see what I can add on this topic before we reach the point of circularity.

I will take your word for that and suggest again that you attempt to view, "Indoctrination U." I am told it can be found on 'Youtube' and was originally broadcast on the 'Documentary Channel'. A huge percentage of kids at both high school and college level, come out of school believing what most identify as a left wing liberal interpretation of history and current events and ethics and morals. All provided by the schools and provided in such a manner as to be unassailable to a poor parent; ask me, I know.

You have mentioned this elsewhere and you have piqued my curiosity. I will look it up as the time allows; thank you. Before I do, I obviously cannot comment, but, pardon my naivety, does it go beyond the old dictum that winners write history? Objectivity has often been evasive, but aren't we approaching the goal more in a time that seeks to include more diversity, more sources of information, more cross-validation, than in times that knew only one 'Truth'? This approach is less vulnerable to any winners getting away with their dogma; it's what makes it one of the tenets of science, and surely it serves education too. Like I said, though, I can't speak to the specifics without knowing what they are.

I don't buy that at all.

Prohibition about speeding on highways is not encouraged at all by the rules and regulations of driving.

Well, when talking about such a huge amount of factors that make for an entire society, I can do only as much as the next person, which is to say, speculate. I do have the prohibition of alcohol and the craze for that particular good, to counter your speeding prohibition. Also any number of anecdotal stories of people who go crazy with something they weren't allowed, where those who kept their options open just shrug and say, "and why would I want to do that?" I agree it's no proof one way or other, though. It's just a bit of a common 'wisdom': pressure tends to find a release. If not in the 'best' way, than in some other.

Let me ask you to envision a class room in the 40's, considering the dress code, the, 'propriety', afforded girls, the separation of the sexes in gym class and sports and the overall, 'hushed up' attitude concerning sex. You will no doubt view that as extremely old fashioned and I agree, but, just compare that with contemporary educational environments and note the striking difference. The open acceptance of GLBT existence and behavior, the much more casual attitude about sexual experience in general and the underlying theme in sex education, 'you are going to do it anyway, just practice safe sex...'. I suggest it is not as clear cut in your favor as you suggest.

I do believe in context-appropriate dressing, so I do disapprove of overly suggestive clothing as far as schools go. As far as girls and boys mixing from the early age, though, getting to know each other as humans and, gradually, sexual beings, I think that a good thing. It should make them less prone to 'objectifying' the other side, and also less prone to falling for the dirty tricks of the other side. If I knew where a perfect balance resides between killing the mystery and making the other so mysterious as to resemble an alien life form beyond hope of communication, I'd say so. I do not, but I've finished my schooling in a different place, neither gender-divisive nor especially brimming with overt sexuality, and I'd say my peers and I turned out reasonably fine.

I maintain the strong genderization has something to do with the excesses. The more one is invested in one's sexual identity, the more they'll play on the card of this in-your-face sexuality. But then, it's also a fashion of the moment and soon again a time may come when mothers worldwide will be begging the girls to wear something 'pretty', just as today they have to battle the extremes of a striving porn star look. I really don't have enough data to say more than that; I just think I see a sinusoid rather than a continuous loosening of inhibitions, and I'm disinclined to treat it as symptom of a higher-level moral confusion. If I did, I'd have to take factors way beyond sexuality in account; I might as well hypothesize the war had something to do with it too.

That sound eminently reasonable, Verdad, until you consider the huge increase in single mother families, the increase in the number of 'fatherless', children. You seem to take in stride the drastic changes in culture that have occurred because of the women's movement and other factors in the economy that have not just, 'shaken up' the ingredients, but created a major change in the culture at large.

I don't question that female liberation contributed to the drastic changes. I've two things to say about it, though. As has been already said, the factors are many, and the situation is still settling. Not every modern problem can be traced to female liberation, and probably none of them inherently so. Secondly, whatever changes the liberation caused, it was no less necessary, in the same way that no changes following the abolition of slavery could be called too pricey for what it achieved. It's easy to imagine any number of 'utopias' where everything works great because some 'others', either slaves or an army of housewives, do the boring stuff and enable the higher pursuits of the rest. Where no one can be sacrificed without having a say in it, it gets more complex.

I recall one delicious girl in 9th grade Algebra class that with a single smiling glance, caused me to exit the class when it was over with a large book strategically placed to hide my rather embarrassing arousal.

But I didn't jump her bones on the way to the next class even though the thought did cross my mind.

This is a very sweet story. Thanks for sharing. I should hope no contemporary boy is tempted to do the jumping either, though—that'd be a sexual assault!

Here, I think, we begin to diverge on conceptual matters. "My values', are not arbitrary or anecdotal or empirically gained. Human values are Universal and exist at all times and places as they emerge from the definition of what it means to be, 'human'.

I'd say there a couple of levels of values. The most universal get to be embodied in laws, such as "do not kill." The next level is almost as universal, but impractical or impossible to legislate. Many moral concepts fall in this area, where, for example, you won't go to jail if you tell a nasty lie or purposefully treat a fellow human like shit, but there's little doubt as to the action's being immoral. On the next level, I'd put actions that sometimes get to be called moral but are merely commonly desirable, such as exercising moderation. And on the lowest level, there'd be the actions of which even the desirability depends highly on a time and place, such as "do not swear".

By saying 'your values' might be under attack, I meant those of the lower two levels. The source of the conceptual disagreement might be that you're trying to get in an unbroken chain from the highest to the lowest level, from respect for life to the appropriate dress code. If so, I have no qualms about disagreeing, because I don't think such thing possible. The top of the pyramid may well be the same, but in my view, the roads that lead there are several.

Am I onto the heart of the matter here?

 

[Verdad]

I don't think you can erase the masculine superiority in size and weight and propensity towards the sciences. The male and female mind are different. We are not robots popped out of an assembly line, completely identical in all aspects. Even males of different stature occupy different levels of the pecking order; you know, the 'Napoleonic' complex in psychology of shorter men being more driven and obsessive.

Everyone seems so determined to observe and enforce total equality that, in my opinion, much is lost in the wonderful nature of both male and female, which, again by nature's design, are different but complimentary.

If you think or believe it was only the oppression of women that placed the masculine male at the helm in exploring the natural world, taking the risks, often foolish ones, to cross oceans, climb mountains and harness nature, then, I suggest, you have a built in bias and prejudice against masculinity and a disrespect for that which is, by nature, feminine.

I think you misunderstood me on gender, because we seem to be saying almost the same things. By erasing the bias in favor of 'masculinity'—and here I speak of the abstraction—I meant the type of bias that tends to view one side of a dichotomy as more desirable than other. If you have "light" and "dark", for example, they're neutral descriptors of two opposites. Yet the mind almost automatically jumps to "light=good" and "dark=bad", even though in most applications of the concepts (such as "day" and "night") a judgment about superiority is entirely meaningless.

Something similar is at work with 'masculine' and 'feminine'. A way to illustrate it is on a number of expressions that associate desirable traits with masculinity and undesirable with femininity. When someone is clumsy, for example, we will say, "You throw like a girl," instead of simply saying, "Jeez, you're hopeless." Or, when someone displays a less than courageous behavior, we will say, "For God's sake, be a man about it!" where we could rather say, "Don't be such a goddamn coward." As subtle as these seem, they reflect and perpetuate the bias, and insert gender where it has no place.

They lead to further implications of their own. For a guy, that he's clumsy becomes more than that one defect; it makes him unmanly, too. For a girl, it's even more complicated; if she's not clumsy, but clumsiness is feminine, she might suppress a talent so as not to appear unfeminine. If she is clumsy, well, at least her gender identity is not endangered, but she still throws like a girl, and who the hell wants to be a girl when girls are so uncool? It's a lose-lose for her, because for a guy, partaking in activities admired by the society almost always leads in the same direction as being that much more of a man, where for a girl the two often lead in opposite directions, i.e. more 'success'=less 'femininity'.

It's that kind of a conceptual bias I would like to see gone, a bit because of the profound effects it has, and a bit because it's simply unnecessary. There's hardly any human trait, good, bad, or neutral, that needs to rely on gender for description. Smart is smart, and smart is desirable, be it a man or a woman. Rude is rude, and rude is less than desirable, displayed by a man or a woman. Brave is brave, kind is kind, strong is strong, dishonest is dishonest, boring is boring, and so on. None of these are masculine or feminine, and none should have one valence when displayed by a man and another when displayed by a woman.

Only after that comes the question of how an individual embodies these traits and whether there are differences on a group level. Of course there are; I don't know of anyone who claims different. The days of feminists who regarded every sex act as rape or approved of every female choice so long as it didn't involve becoming a housewife were brief and are long gone. The concern of today goes toward equal treatment by the society, with little interest for prying into how one conducts one's personal affairs, and it goes toward acknowledging individual variations.

Where archetypal 'masculine' and 'feminine' might be a dichotomy, actual males and females are two overlapping continuums. The variety should be respected, and the particular actions should be viewed on their own, gender-neutral merits. If there's glory in being a stay-at-home mom, there should be glory in being a stay-at-home dad, too. But if, all things being equal, a majority of people still chooses to organize it so that the mom stays at home, who's to protest?

The archetypal, further, shouldn't be confused with the ideal. The ideal, if there is such a thing, lies rather somewhere in the middle. Which is not to suggest androgyny, but rather embodying some of the desirable traits traditionally associated with either archetype, in a way that still leads to a more 'feminine' or 'masculine' overall package, only with more freedom of interpretation.

There was a time when wearing pants sufficed to put a woman's femininity in question, or where any display of emotion made a man a sissy. Overcoming that doesn't lead to women who'll never wear anything pretty again, or men who will forgo great endeavors in favor of sobbing in a tissue. It means, one, acceptance of those who do fall at these counter-extremes, and two, more flexibility for the majority. It means a wider range of available situation-appropriate responses, and a lesser vulnerability to becoming a stereotype instead of a person.

For that is what Barbie and Action Men are; victims of the 'archetype', so possessed by it and so literal and uncritical in interpretation as to become living caricatures. Such Barbie won't so much as open a book beyond a romance novel because it's a 'man's job', and her counterpart won't so much as help a drowning kitten because it would be like, gay, to do so. These people, invested in their gender identities to the point of exclusion of anything else, are what I sneer at; women who, among whatever else they are, like to wear skirts and like broad shoulders on a guy, or men who have in them the fearless explorer in addition to everything else they are, are more than fine by me.

 

[xssve]

A couple things here, first, 'parents' doesn't mean what it once did with half of all children being raised in single parent families; in many cases without contact with an extended family. Also the continuing challenge to traditional and conventional ethics and morals, leaves both parent and child without a firm, 'objective' grip on what is right and wrong, what is moral and immoral.
~~~~~~~~~~

A great many teen aged girls, absent the dependable masculine presence in the home, turn to 'boys' as substitutes and never understand that the two sexes can never be, 'just friends', that sex is always in the mix.

As children, girls especially, wanting to please the adult in their life is transferred to the surrogate, the boyfriend, and it more often than not, leads to a bad experience.

When, 'casual sex' is used to replace the absence of affection, both physical and emotional, at home, then it does become an extension of the human psyche in seeking not to be alone in the world. Although, in normative times, this is a normal rejection on parental closeness as the new near adult strives for independence.

This is precisely the reasoning for justifying sex education.

And before you blame it on "liberal morality", again, this particular dynamic got rolling after the Civil War, and increased during the Two World Wars that followed - it isn't "liberal morality" that drives the divorce rate, atheists have the lowest divorce rates in the world, Baptists the highest - you seem to prefer that women are not given the option to get out of abusive relationships, because it's "more moral".

Teach your kids anything you want, meantime, we have more to worry about than whether you get your panties in a knot, we have to deal with reality, not some hypothetical state of perfection.