"Sexual" education

[Varislintu]

The children's holistic wellbeing and wisdom is supported by a teaching that takes into account the child - not the future adult and sexually active person.

But that is going about it backwards, in my opinion. Their wisdom and well-being is supported by us pretending they will be sexually inactive until we see it fit for them to become active, and until then keeping them in the dark about things? The purpose of both child rearing and education is precisely to prepare them for their next steps, ultimately adulthood. And more importantly, children have sex. They do sexual things to each other. The last thing we should do is leave them entirely dependant on sources of information like internet porn and each other. And entirely dependant on ideas delivered to them wrapped in peer pressure. Sex education, in its small way, is also supposed to be that little voice in teens' lives that tells them "Remember, you don't have to do what everyone else is doing. It's your body." Just in case they're not getting that message anywhere else.

In the second place, who says that religious teachings are against the boys' and girls' holistic wellbeing and wisdom?

It's not necessarily. I'm saying that if parents can pull kids out of sex ed and nobody requires them to give alternative sex ed, and nobody checks up on what that sex ed from the parents contains, then we don't know anything about what teachings the kids are getting. At least if they're required to sit through it in school, we know they've gotten the bare minimums. Then the kids can either take it or leave it (perhaps they prefer their own religion's teachings, or trust their parents' teachings more, where they differ from school's).

For instance, the complete abstinence is the most effective preventative measure against both pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. This fact has never been in dispute.

It has been very much disputed, though.

There is a really good blog post on this specific issue in one of my favourite blogs, Love, Joy, Feminism: Abstinence: A Birth Control Method That Is 100% Effective? I would be happy if you took time to at least skim read it -- not because I hope for it to change your position, but so that you could get an idea why we people who are against absinence-only are against it. To sum it up if you don't want to read it:

1) Calling abstinence a type of birth control is missing the point of birth control.
2) Birth control effectiveness should be measure in both perfect use and typical use, and numbers suggest the typical use of abstinence is very ineffective.

Here, of course, factors in also the question of whether one is, so to say, seeking to be right or seeking to be happy. Those seeking to be right would just say that "Well, if someone is going to fail at abstinence, then they are immoral hedonists who deserve every trouble they get for it", whereas those seeking to be happy want to apply measures that will, in practice, make fewer bad outcomes happen, without necessarily limiting themselves to the absolutely strict principles.

There are sexual educations curricula that teaches that.

Unfortunately, yes.

Unfortunately, this kind of education goes againts the interests of the factories that produce condoms (how could I stop thinking of it?) and is supported by (almost?) all the religions.

I... I almost don't even know what to say to this. The condom lobby? So all this time we've been talking, you've just been thinking I'm some poor pawn that's been brainwashed by the Condom Lobby's propagandistic marketing strategy? That's the only base you can see in my arguments? Gee, thanks.

Logically speaking, the sentence "there aren't absolute moral standards" states the existence of at least one thing that everyone can say it's an absolute good thing: in effect, if believing that there is not an absolute moral standard is like saying that "there are no absolute moral standards" - then only when you believe that there are no absolute moral standards you know you are doing the only absolute good thing a person can do.

I don't understand how it is stating any kind of "good thing". Where is the value statement in it?

From a pragmatic viewpoint, however, the sentence "there aren't absolute moral standards" simply asserts the non-existence of absolute moral standards. So, I'm not saying that that proposition is an example of an absolute moral standard. I'm saying that it expresses a philosophical point of view, as legitimate as any other philosophical point of view.

Okay. I agree here, I suppose.

An absolute moral standard is not an invisible thing. When someone says that something is good or it is not bad - everywhere and at all times - he/she is making an absolute moral statement (i.e. "paedophilia is bad everywhere and at all times").

In your paragraph here, I see one person saying that they will be considering pedophilia bad everywhere and at all times. So far so good, because I agree a person can make such a statement, and they can judge everything, everywhere according to their own conscience, and it may be that their consicence on this issue never changes during their lifetime. What I'm unclear of, is what your position is conserning how absolute moral standards affect eveyone else. I mean, do you believe this absolute set of standards is born inside an individual, and then govern that individual, or do you believe the absolute set of standards exists outside of humanity, and govern everyone?

a. Is it good to assume that my body is mine and that I can pursue everything I consider to increase my personal comfort?

Yes.

b. How can I remain within the limits of the respect of my body and other person's body and mental states if I think that "my body is mine and I should do with it only things I am comfortable with"? What if I love to have sexual intercourse with children? (I do not love to do that, however!!).

Because "My body is mine and I should do with it only things I am comfortable with" is not somehow the dominating part of the message. That "I should respect others' consent" part was there for a reason. Both are of equal importance, and necessities of each other.

I am coherent if I don't change my opinion about what is good or what is bad. If I assume that there is no an absolute moral standard, today I can believe X, and tomorrow I can believe the opposite of X.

Again, to reply to this I think I would need clarification on whether you think the absolute moral standards exist inside an individual or outside of humanity, and on what scale they govern people. But I can say at least that I believe our morality stems from our conscience, whatever it may be, and that doesn't seem to easily change. It can change, however. And I feel like it's a mistake to somehow pretend that it doesn't. To me, if someone continues to abide to a moral rule which their conscience does not require them to abide to (for example someone decides to abstain from sex before marriage even if they no longer deep down don't think there's anything wrong with it), they are fearing some kind of consequences, not "having an absolute moral standard".

I've posed my question to myself. The answer is that I believe in a moral objective order, which is independent from the different beliefs and behaviours of the people.

So the objective order exists outside of these people and their beliefs? It's that same clarification issue I mentioned above. Your wording here still makes me unsure what exactly your position is.

Thanks to this objectivity, I can say that "X is good", "Y is bad".

For me that would be the conscience, at least when speaking of moral goods and bads.

The existence of paedophiles doesn't imply that we have to reject the idea of an absolute moral standard. In effect, a moral standard or a law can be disobeyed. For instance, you know that you have to stop at a red traffic-light, but you can freely choose to go through it. In this case, you break a law which is an objective law. This doesn't mean that the law doesn't exist.

Okay, I'm starting to be convinced that your position is that the standards exist outside of humanity. I would have some things to comment on that, but this reply already got so long I think I have to leave it and the rest of the post for a second installment.

[Massimiliano B]

"Inside" or "outside" are just words with no meanings. The "standard" is involved by the proposition "X is always and everywhere good", or "Y is always and everywhere bad".

I will read the article about sexual abstinence. However, I wonder how can someone doubt that sexual abstinence is 100% effective against both birth control (unless women get pregnant through mysterious channels the existence of which I ignore!) and venereal diseases.

The "sex" children have is different from the sex adults have. And above all, children live in a different universe. Their sexuality is like a private sphere, that has nothing to do with the adult world. They don't even think that adults know they have a sexuality. I remember clearly when I was a child. I didn't think my parents could imagine that I had a solitary sexual life (I was more active when I was 6 years old than now ). I remember I thought my parents and the other adults had not to interfere with my sexuality.

[Saim]

The "sex" children have is different from the sex adults have. And above all, children live in a different universe. Their sexuality is like a private sphere, that has nothing to do with the adult world. They don't even think that adults know they have a sexuality.

My parents explained to me from a very young age what sex is and I don't think I was ever labouring under the idea that my sexuality was some weird secret that I had to hide. I think this depends on how open the family/culture is about it.

About you being active when you were 6 - in my case though I don't think I could've really been classified as "sexual" until 11. I played romance games when I was really young (when I was 2 or 3 I would talk about marrying my female friends), but I think that was essentially the same as me pretending to be a lion or playing with dolls, just a game.

I will read the article about sexual abstinence. However, I wonder how can someone doubt that sexual abstinence is 100% effective against both birth control (unless women get pregnant through mysterious channels the existence of which I ignore!) and venereal diseases.

It is 100% effective if you can or want to do it. The problem is when it's put forth as the only method when it's quite obvious there are others - and especially since it's important to dispel such myths as the pulling out 'method' (I had a girl suggest this to me once and I was totally shocked). Young people are going to have sex, we just have to make sure they don't hurt anyone or themselves when they do it.

[Varislintu]

Women get raped, for example, so technically only an IUD or tube tying or a hysterectomy is 100% effective.

However, the whole point of birth control is that sexually active people use it. Saying abstinece is a person's answer to not getting pregnant is like saying not using the internet is a person's answer to not getting a computer virus from the internet. It is not helpful, more like borderline asinine.

Also, most birth control, except perhaps Natural Family Planning (counting fertile days) and coitus interruptus have a near total effectivity rate with perfect usage. It's the typical usage that makes them look weak, and therefore the same measuring stick should be used for abstinence.

[mōdgethanc]

It is 100% effective if you can or want to do it.

The problem is that people might want to do it but end up having sex impulsively (say, under the influence of alcohol, or peer pressure, or whatever). In that case, you're going to want to have another method handy when it happens.

Young people are going to have sex, we just have to make sure they don't hurt anyone or themselves when they do it.

More or less why I think abstinence is not a good method even for someone who's committed to it. That doesn't mean their sex drive disappears (except for asexuals).

[Massimiliano B]

There is not a false dichotomy between an absolute good and evil and an individual or majority opinion of good and evil. You have written that you don't believe in a universal, absolute, objective good and evil. I think also that you condemn paedophilia. As you said, paedophilia has been accepted in many cultures and times. The non-existence of an objective moral standard would entail that you could change your opinion and finally even accept that paedophilia is good. This conclusion is consistent with your view about the non-existence of an absolute moral standard. How could a life be consistent and coherent, if such changes took place?

Well, how do you find life is consistent and coherent? Because you live in the same reality as me. It is also in your reality that there exist people who think pedophilia is not morally wrong. Even people of faith, and people who believe in absolute moral standards (Catholics, for example). And you share with me the history of humanity that went from utter disregard of childrens rights, in fact a consistent tendency towards child abuse, and an utter disregard of women's sexual rights, in fact a consistent tendency towards abuse of women, to considering children and women to be people, and people having a right to bodily autonomy, and to the idea that sex should be based on consent.

I don't really see how I could answer your question. You may as well pose it to yourself, because I am talking about the same real world that we both see, not some kind of alternative universe where people behave differently. In this reality that we occupy, changes in morals on a personal and a community or social level, happen exactly in the pace and scale that we observe or can deduce from recorded history. The level of consistency and coherency that you observe is the same level as I observe (although we might interpret it differently).

I've posed the question to myself. My answer is that there's a universal moral standard. My verdict about paedophilia and woman rape - as well as about a general "human being abuse" - is that it is bad, always and everywhere - independently from the changes that the opinions and ideas about all these topics have undergone through the history of humanity. Whoever has in any way abused a child, a woman, or simply a man, has been a bad behaviour. I cannot find examples where an act of paedophilia or of woman rape can be conceived as a good thing.
The fact that you can believe in a moral standard and, at the same time, behave badly, doesn't imply that a moral standard is not there.
What's your opinion about that?