ryanm wrote:
"Kurt Albershardt" wrote in message
...

My libertarian (small 'L') self says, "Any act performed by or between
one or more consenting adults which does not affect the person or
property of another is not a crime."


Replace the word "affect" with the phrase "damage or cause the
loss of" and we're good. Ok, now tell me your plan to eliminate the war on
drugs, legalize gambling, prostitution, and other consensual "crimes", and
what you plan to do about the state of education in this country


Read Peter Mc Williams' "Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do"--from which
I stole the above quote.

Justin Ulysses Morse wrote:

Les Cargill wrote:

Might not, either. It's not like there aren't avenues for kids
to obtain birth control at reasonable levels of hassle.

I'm an adult, and I'm annoyed at the amount of hassle involved in
finding decent contraception on short notice, especially late at night
when the topic tends to come up. Most 24-hour stores keep all the
contraceptives locked behind bullet-proof glass (because it's such
dangerous stuff, I guess). Add to that the unnecessary embarassment
and fear of being caught imposed on the average teen by the silly
puritanical anti-sexual stance of our various societies, and you can
see why kids are often unprepared when the time comes. Sure, they
might have access to handfuls of them when they DON'T need them, but
what are they going to do, keep them in their pockets til laundry day?
If parents, teachers, and governing authorities didn't freak out at the
possibility of minors having sex with each other, maybe they'd feel
comfortable keeping the proper materials on hand "just in case" the
need should arise.

ulysses

I think it's even simpler than that. If you have daughters of the
approriate age, drag 'em down to the doc for the prescription. It
won't prevent STDs, but it'll prevent premature grandparentism.

--
Les Cargill

"Blind Joni" wrote in message
...

I'm not advocating the government do anything..but if we can hand out
condoms
we can darn well teach abstinance...no?

Not if we expect to be taken seriously. Preaching abstinence makes you
as big a joke to teenagers as preaching "Just Say No To Drugs."

Fact #1: The urge to have sex is an instinct, a natural drive that comes
just after the urge to eat and just before the urge to find shelter. This
always has and always will be the case. No amount of "civilization" or
"morality" will change that. Fear of burning in hell doesn't keep priests
from molesting children, I don't know what makes people think it will keep
teenagers from having sex with other teenagers.

Fact #2: Kids experiment. With all kinds of stuff. They do drugs, they
have sex, they jump off the roof, they get in shopping carts and have their
friends push them across the highway. Is it smart? No. Is it going to happen
no matter how many times adults tell them not to? Yes.

Fact #3: Telling kids they *can't* do something is the surest way to
make them *want* to do it.

Once you understand and accept these three things, then you're in a
position to make a realistic suggestion about how to deal with issues like
this.

ryanm

"Kurt Albershardt" wrote in message
...

Read Peter Mc Williams' "Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do"--from which
I stole the above quote.

Actually, I have read it and agree with every word of it. If we
legalized drugs, gambling, and prostitution and taxed the crap out of it, we
could pay off our national debt and have a massive (hundreds of billions a
year) surplus, and that's without changing anything else about our spending.

ryanm

I'm not advocating the government do anything..but if we can hand out
condoms
we can darn well teach abstinance...no?

Not if we expect to be taken seriously. Preaching abstinence makes you
as big a joke to teenagers as preaching "Just Say No To Drugs."


Well I quess if you don't take it seriously it will never work..but if it works
in even a small percentage of cases why not even consider it? If baseball
players thought like this noone would ever try to hit again.



Fact #3: Telling kids they *can't* do something is the surest way to
make them *want* to do it.

I think what some are suggesting is not telling teens not to do it..but to
present a total picture of the real world consequences and hope SOME may be
open enough to choose not to. It's funny that some..myself included..believe
that young people can have some measure of self control and a view that
includes a responsible future and others.._____
do not.


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

Religious 'Morality" really doesn't jeapordize anyone.

Unless it's coupled with political and/or economic power and imposed on
others.


And this true no matter what you preferences..that's why we have elections..I
thought.
If we all agreed none of this would matter.


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of
the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the
government for a redress of grievances."

A wonderful and powerful statement that some in our current
administration would be well served to read again (carefully.)



On this we agree!!

John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

What is the unmistakable effect of a well-educated populace?


They don't believe the lies of their leaders, for one thing.


Scott Fraser

but if we can hand out condoms
we can darn well teach abstinance...no?

No. You might as well demand that people only **** in the afternoon. Kids are
programmed by the release of hormones to propagate the species. You really
think that telling them sex is bad is going to actually result in their finding
it distasteful?


Scott Fraser

Blind Joni wrote:

I'm not advocating the government do anything..but if we can hand out
condoms we can darn well teach abstinance...no?


Not if we expect to be taken seriously. Preaching abstinence makes you
as big a joke to teenagers as preaching "Just Say No To Drugs."


Well I quess if you don't take it seriously it will never work..but if it works
in even a small percentage of cases why not even consider it?


Consider it, sure--but not spend our limited budget on it to the
exclusion of better-proven solutions.

People should
count the costs before taking on something. I've found that "ready, aim, fire"
is not a particularly successful strategy for life.

Then I take it you're adamantly opposed to what passes for a foreign policy
within the Bush administration.


Scott Fraser

ScotFraser wrote:

I get it that your not into the faith aspect of this.

Well, we've been trying a faith based economy since Bush took office & we're
still hemmoraging jobs, so, I'd have to say, no, it takes more than faith.

Support faith-based missle defense.

Kurt Albershardt wrote:

Support faith-based missle defense.

Good one! LOL

As our nation's morality has declined (in comparison to what was considered
moral and immoral previously),

Let's see, previously it was considered moral to own other human beings, women
were not able to vote nor hold property, native Americans were subjected to
genocide, blacks couldn't vote, go to certain schools, obtain certain jobs,
reside in certain neighborhoods, and on & on, but you feel morality is in
decline, & this is because premarital sex is less stigmatized than in previous
generations?

I do
not consider us an "enlightened" society.

Nor do I, but for pretty much the opposite reasons you have.




Scott Fraser

IMO we need to study our Northern
European friends' approach to the problem which seems to be working much
better than what we've been doing at home.

This is true in many many areas; economics, education, international relations.
They're way ahead of the US in most quality of life issues.


Scott Fraser

ScotFraser wrote:

Religious 'Morality" really doesn't jeapordize anyone.

Religious morality jeopardizes the whole planet, & has caused more killing
than any political causes ever dreamed of.

Thank you, sir; that comes up again and again whenever my kids study
more history. It does not escape their perception.

--
ha

Kurt Albershardt wrote:

ScotFraser wrote:

I get it that your not into the faith aspect of this.

Well, we've been trying a faith based economy since Bush took office & we're
still hemmoraging jobs, so, I'd have to say, no, it takes more than faith.

Support faith-based missle defense.

Woody Guthrie:

"This is an air raid alarm
"This is an air raid alarm
"This is an air raid alarm
"Stick your finger up and run
"This is an air raid alarm"

--
ha

Kurt Albershardt wrote:

ScotFraser wrote:

I get it that your not into the faith aspect of this.

Well, we've been trying a faith based economy since Bush took office & we're
still hemmoraging jobs, so, I'd have to say, no, it takes more than faith.

Support faith-based missle defense.

Instead we get missle-based faith defense.

--
Les Cargill

ScotFraser wrote:

IMO we need to study our Northern
European friends' approach to the problem which seems to be working much
better than what we've been doing at home.

This is true in many many areas; economics, education, international relations.
They're way ahead of the US in most quality of life issues.

Scott Fraser

I dunno. All I know/knew are people sufficiently dissatisfied with
the European way to come to the US, but those guys all see dark clouds on the
horizon.

Grass is probably greener.

--
Les Cargill

Les Cargill wrote:

Kurt Albershardt wrote:


Support faith-based missle defense.


Instead we get missle-based faith defense.


Touché!

Religious morality jeopardizes the whole planet, & has caused more killing
than any political causes ever dreamed of.

Thank you, sir; that comes up again and again whenever my kids study
more history. It does not escape their perception.


...if we all are so much smarter and civilized..so that we can recognize so many
more things about our behavior sexually, societally..etc..etc..why can't we see
that the horrors done in the name of religion..or any other belief system..is
the result of the actions of bad people. We're not ready to throw out our
Representative Republic because we happen to hate some politicians..it seems
curious that many feel perfectly comfortable painting religion with such a
broad brush.


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

but if we can hand out condoms
we can darn well teach abstinance...no?

No. You might as well demand that people only **** in the afternoon. Kids are
programmed by the release of hormones to propagate the species. You really
think that telling them sex is bad is going to actually result in their
finding
it distasteful?


I just spoke with a couple last night..outside a club..smoking. They were
lamenting the smoking ban in NY state..one intersting point..the husband said
that because of teaching the consequences of smoking at school his kids had
...as far as he is being told..NO INTENT WHATSOEVER.to ever smoke a cigarette.
Kids are programmed by hormones but taught what to do by someone
...somewhere..if that process can be interupted there must be at least a CHANCE
.. of some not indulging.
I don't get th all or nothing resignation..I really don't. Much is possible but
not if you give up.
John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

.but if we can hand out
condoms we can darn well teach abstinance...no?

Consider it, sure--but not spend our limited budget on it to the
exclusion of better-proven solutions.


I guess that's valid..but I know that my church has programs for all sorts of
teen problems..all paid for by the parishoners donatiopns..and I will tell
you..they work for the ones who choose to sign on.
This is not a very popular point but there are many things in life that can
GUARENTEE certain results..but you have to get on board and stay on board..not
easy..maybe not for everyone..but you can't say that they don't work. It all
depends on the individuals character and resolve..things which I never see
brought up on any daytime TV shows...and which I'm sure they don't teach in
school anymore..except maybe private and religious schools.






John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

Blind Joni wrote:

But if we can hand out
condoms we can darn well teach abstinance...no?


Consider it, sure--but not spend our limited budget on it to the
exclusion of better-proven solutions.



I guess that's valid..but I know that my church has programs for all sorts of
teen problems..all paid for by the parishoners donatiopns..and I will tell
you..they work for the ones who choose to sign on.
This is not a very popular point but there are many things in life that can
GUARENTEE certain results..but you have to get on board and stay on board..not
easy..maybe not for everyone..but you can't say that they don't work. It all
depends on the individuals character and resolve..things which I never see
brought up on any daytime TV shows...and which I'm sure they don't teach in
school anymore..except maybe private and religious schools.

And it's completely appropriate in that setting.

Just not (in my book) an appropriate use of public funds.

Blind Joni wrote:

So your saying that even as an adult it's possible to not be prepared or
responsible in this situation

If it's so important to kids to have sex..why isn't it important to be
prepared?..because they're KIDS!! They don't have the wisdom to understand
things the way an adult hopefully does. And you stated above that even an
adult isn't always on top of the situation.

Being unprepared isn't the same as being irresponsible. Whether you're
an adult or a teenager, having the facts in hand allows you to make
informed decisions. That means when the mood strikes but you find
yourself unprepared, you find yourself not having sex. People who
don't have proper sex education find ways to convince themselves they
can get away with not using proper protection. People who know better,
and know for sure what makes a baby (or an infection) and what doesn't,
do a lot less stupid stuff. One important part of sex education is
teaching people how to enjoy their sexuality without taking risks.

There are plenty of people who don't know exactly why unprotected sex
sometimes results in pregnancy and sometimes doesn't. Without the
facts, people find themselves attributing it to luck or divine
intervention or some imagined physics that are often erroneous. I heard
of one sect that believes even a virgin can get pregnant if God
intervenes. You can imagine the anxiety *that* causes among their
young followers. Without education, you end up with people having
unsafe sex and then resorting to rabbit's feed, rosary beads, or other
"good luck charms" instead of actual contraceptives or responsible
behavior.

ulysses

John LeBlanc wrote:

"Justin Ulysses Morse" wrote :
So you agree that our president's delusion of being called upon by god
to fulfill biblical prophesy is a threat to the future of mankind?

I know of no facts that point to our president being delusional about being
called upon by God to fulfill Biblical prophesy.

You mean other than the fact that he has flat out said so in numerous
public speeches? Well, okay, he hasn't actually said he's delusional.
But he has said that he feels he's been called upon by God. The
delusion is implicit.

ulysses

Blind Joni wrote:

Religious 'Morality" really doesn't jeapordize anyone. Those who follow it get
the results ..those that don't..don't. Free choice is still the rule I
believe.

Do we really need to get into a discussion of the long, sordid history
of "Religious Morality" and the accompanying death toll? I'll argue
Sex Ed with you if you like, but this can o' worms is just plain
off-topic. No thank you.

ulysses

Kurt Albershardt wrote:

Read Peter Mc Williams' "Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do"--from which
I stole the above quote.


I've had that book right in front of me for a couple years and haven't
read it yet. Is there anything in it that isn't implicit in the title?
Will it hold my attention as well as the New Audio Cyclopedia?

ulysses

Do we really need to get into a discussion of the long, sordid history
of "Religious Morality" and the accompanying death toll? I'll argue
Sex Ed with you if you like, but this can o' worms is just plain
off-topic. No thank you

I think the History involves people misinterprting religious morality..I don't
know of any legitimate "religion" that advocates violence of any kind.
John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

People who know better,
and know for sure what makes a baby (or an infection) and what doesn't,
do a lot less stupid stuff. One important part of sex education is
teaching people how to enjoy their sexuality without taking risks.


This sounds like swimming without getting wet, getting sand in your pants,
having a chance of drowning. It's amazing that sex in the proper hands has no
consequences.
I know a few cocaine heads that have the same "enlightened" perspective.
Again..YMMV

Without the
facts, people find themselves attributing it to luck or divine
intervention or some imagined physics that are often erroneous. I heard
of one sect that believes even a virgin can get pregnant if God
intervenes. You can imagine the anxiety *that* causes among their
young followers. Without education, you end up with people having
unsafe sex and then resorting to rabbit's feed, rosary beads, or other
"good luck charms" instead of actual contraceptives or responsible
behavior.


I don't diasgree that eduaction is always best. I personally don't know of any
followers that are anxiety ridden over a belief in the virgin birth..and if you
do then they are the one's who are uneducated...at least contextually. I'm not
saying anyone should believe anything, but to believe that someone who does is
delusional..which cannot be proved anymore than any other belief system...is
just plain bigoted. I just happen to see a lot of what you propose to be
improbable.
All I'm saying is that if it works for someone..don't put their belief down
because you disagree. I thought the idea was to improve situations..not judge
who's methodology is better..when both may have positve results.


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

In article ,
(Blind Joni) wrote:

I think the History involves people misinterprting religious morality..I don't
know of any legitimate "religion" that advocates violence of any kind.

"Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth."

Ring any bells?

CT

The radicle right eliminating 'birth control programs' and driving the
economy into the ground is to create new generations of unemployable poor
as cannon fodder. Should we count the people that get killed by trickle
down morality?

That's a little confusing..care to elaborate?
It seems that all my friends are choosing to not have many children..yet many
clients I get seems to have larger and larger families..I thought it was
because of the social welfare system helping them.


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

"Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth."

Ring any bells?

Yeah..I think that falls under the catagory of "justice"..no?..and that was
later changed to "turn the other cheek"
John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

In article ,
(Blind Joni) wrote:

that was
later changed to "turn the other cheek"

Too bad more religious leaders don't see it that way.

CT

John LeBlanc wrote:


But that doesn't answer the question of "Should they be riding the
motorcycle", does it? It just says some are already doing it.

Who's doing the "shoulding?" Should kids have sex? Should they ride
motorcycles? Should I open a recording studio? These are questions to
ask yourself or somebody you trust, if you want their opinion. There
is no universal truth in "should." The question is not very useful.
Ask a kid if he should be riding a motorcycle, and you'll most likely
get a different answer than if you ask his mother. His father's answer
might be someplace in between. There are pros and cons to all sides.
Whose answer do we run with? It depends who's around when the question
gets asked. Ultimately the kid's going to enjoy life responsibly,
irresponsibly, or not at all.

Can it be done enjoyably? Yes. Can it be done safely? Absolutely. Is
there any reason not to? Yes, there are plenty of reasons not to. Can
the risks be managed? Yes, they can if you have all the facts ahead of
time. Could something bad happen anyway? As long as you're alive,
yes. That's life. The difference between a tragedy and an epidemic
lies in managing the odds. That's where the societal education
mechanism comes into play.

There are lots of examples of human behavior that have been found to have
longterm negative consequences that have caused people to change their opinion
about who, and whether anyone should be engaging in that behavior. And some
people will go ahead and ignore that advice, often at their own peril.

There are lots of examples of human behavior that are fully WORTH the
negative consequences. Mountain climbing, space exploration, scuba
diving, sky diving, etc. Most of these are things anybody can do
regardless of age. They're all potentially more dangerous than sex,
and they'd all most certainly kill you if you did them without proper
education and equipment. But lots of adults and adolescents do these
things (except the space exploration, so far) without harm all the time
becuase they're fun and rewarding. In large part the thrill comes
directly from the danger.

In this nation, for all intents and purposes a fourteen year old is
not emotionally or intellectually capable of becoming a mother of a
baby. As that is a very real possibility of having sex, isn't the
consequence of that behavior great enough to disuade the behavior? If
it is not, then sterilization is the only bulletproof solution to
avoid the consequence, but then that encroaches on the rights of the
fourteen year old, doesn't it.

"bulletproof" is a good metaphor. Bulletproof vests, for example,
don't entirely eliminate the risk of injury from being shot in the
chest. But they drastically reduce it. Condoms, when coupled with
thorough instruction in their use, are even more effective than that.
The fact is that condoms fail to prevent pregnancy when they're used
incorrectly or inconsistently. Teaching young people how to use them
is like teaching them how to look both ways before crossing the street.
It's not 100% effective, but it's effective enough to allow them to
cross the street.

We have lots of laws on the books that are there to protect children.
One of them deals with adults having sex with minors. Why do you
suppose those laws are on the books if it should be permissable for
minors to engage in sexual relations?

Sex between minors and adults is an entirely different topic. Adults
hold positions of power over minors, even if there's no official
relationship. The laws against it are there to protect minors from
being abused by adults. Consentual sex between minors doesn't hold
this inherent power differential. That's why there aren't laws against
it.


ulysses

Justin Ulysses Morse wrote:

Kurt Albershardt wrote:


Read Peter Mc Williams' "Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do"--from which
I stole the above quote.


I've had that book right in front of me for a couple years and haven't
read it yet. Is there anything in it that isn't implicit in the title?

The tips he gives for arguing with religious and right-wing zealots are
excellent, some interesting biblical tidbits as well. The quotes on the
upper outside corder of every page are gems--just open the book to any
page and enjoy a five second dose.



Will it hold my attention as well as the New Audio Cyclopedia?

Held mine better.

"Justin Ulysses Morse" wrote in message
...
John LeBlanc wrote:

But that doesn't answer the question of "Should they be riding the
motorcycle", does it? It just says some are already doing it.

Who's doing the "shoulding?" Should kids have sex? Should they ride
motorcycles? Should I open a recording studio? These are questions to
ask yourself or somebody you trust, if you want their opinion. There
is no universal truth in "should." The question is not very useful.
Ask a kid if he should be riding a motorcycle, and you'll most likely
get a different answer than if you ask his mother. His father's answer
might be someplace in between. There are pros and cons to all sides.
Whose answer do we run with?

Whose answer do we run with? The person charged with the responsibility of
getting the kid safely to adulthood. I don't know how things work in your part
of the world, but in mine, that would be the parents.

Do you even acknowledge the role of parents in the rearing of children these
days, Justin? Because is seems to me you advocate allowing kids to just do
whatever the hell they want to do. The problem with that is kids are not
emotionally or intellectually equipped to take the experience they don't have
and make reasoned choices that are in their best interest.

Kids are not capable of being their parents, and their friends aren't any better
at it. Although it seems we have an entire generation of parents who are
perfectly happy to abrogate that responsibility to the people not only least
capable of carrying it out, but also have no dog in the race.

I happen to think that's sad and unfair to the kids.

John

It depends who's around when the question
gets asked. Ultimately the kid's going to enjoy life responsibly,
irresponsibly, or not at all.

Can it be done enjoyably? Yes. Can it be done safely? Absolutely. Is
there any reason not to? Yes, there are plenty of reasons not to. Can
the risks be managed? Yes, they can if you have all the facts ahead of
time. Could something bad happen anyway? As long as you're alive,
yes. That's life. The difference between a tragedy and an epidemic
lies in managing the odds. That's where the societal education
mechanism comes into play.

There are lots of examples of human behavior that have been found to have
longterm negative consequences that have caused people to change their
opinion
about who, and whether anyone should be engaging in that behavior. And some
people will go ahead and ignore that advice, often at their own peril.

There are lots of examples of human behavior that are fully WORTH the
negative consequences. Mountain climbing, space exploration, scuba
diving, sky diving, etc. Most of these are things anybody can do
regardless of age. They're all potentially more dangerous than sex,
and they'd all most certainly kill you if you did them without proper
education and equipment. But lots of adults and adolescents do these
things (except the space exploration, so far) without harm all the time
becuase they're fun and rewarding. In large part the thrill comes
directly from the danger.

In this nation, for all intents and purposes a fourteen year old is
not emotionally or intellectually capable of becoming a mother of a
baby. As that is a very real possibility of having sex, isn't the
consequence of that behavior great enough to disuade the behavior? If
it is not, then sterilization is the only bulletproof solution to
avoid the consequence, but then that encroaches on the rights of the
fourteen year old, doesn't it.

"bulletproof" is a good metaphor. Bulletproof vests, for example,
don't entirely eliminate the risk of injury from being shot in the
chest. But they drastically reduce it. Condoms, when coupled with
thorough instruction in their use, are even more effective than that.
The fact is that condoms fail to prevent pregnancy when they're used
incorrectly or inconsistently. Teaching young people how to use them
is like teaching them how to look both ways before crossing the street.
It's not 100% effective, but it's effective enough to allow them to
cross the street.

We have lots of laws on the books that are there to protect children.
One of them deals with adults having sex with minors. Why do you
suppose those laws are on the books if it should be permissable for
minors to engage in sexual relations?

Sex between minors and adults is an entirely different topic. Adults
hold positions of power over minors, even if there's no official
relationship. The laws against it are there to protect minors from
being abused by adults. Consentual sex between minors doesn't hold
this inherent power differential. That's why there aren't laws against
it.


ulysses

On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 1:56 pm, Blind Joni wrote:
Religious morality jeopardizes the whole planet, & has caused more
killing
than any political causes ever dreamed of.

I was under the impression that powers supporting communism in the
Soviet Union
killed over 50 million.



20 million Soviets were killed by the Germans in WW2
2 Million Vietnamese by the USA
50,000 Americans by the Vietnamese
Dresdan, Hiroshima, Nagasaki

I'm not sure where the 50 Million stat comes from.. But if we go back to
Ireland.. Spannish Inquisition, the Crusades, various ethnic/religious
cleansing operations I'm sure we can top 50 million.

The radicle right eliminating 'birth control programs' and driving the
economy into the ground is to create new generations of unemployable poor
as cannon fodder. Should we count the people that get killed by trickle
down morality?


Did teh movie Buffalo Soldiers ever get released in the USA? It's a good
one


---------------------------------------------------------
"You Teach A Child To Read, And He Or Her Will Be Able To Pass A Literacy
Test"
- George W Bush - Townsend Tn . Feb 21rst -2001
---------------------------------------------------------

Blind Joni wrote:

People who know better,
and know for sure what makes a baby (or an infection) and what doesn't,
do a lot less stupid stuff. One important part of sex education is
teaching people how to enjoy their sexuality without taking risks.

This sounds like swimming without getting wet, getting sand in your pants,
having a chance of drowning. It's amazing that sex in the proper hands has no
consequences.

Maybe you need some sex education for yourself. I talked about
managing risks, and then I talked about enjoying one's sexuality
without taking any risks. I know of lots and lots of fantastic ways to
enjoy one's sexuality risk-free. I can think of even more great ways
that involve very little risk. If you'd like explicit details, I don't
think this is the best forum and I don't think I'm the person for you
to ask. There are resources out there for you.

I know a few cocaine heads that have the same "enlightened" perspective.
Again..YMMV

I don't pretend to know a whole lot about the dangers of cocaine use.
I never had any interest in the stuff. But I do know the facts about
some other drugs, so they'll serve as a decent analogy.
When the DARE program comes into junior high schools and flat-out lies
to kids about the *specific* dangers of drug use, they may scare kids
away for a while. But eventually those kids will find out that they've
been lied to, and the end result is a complete failure of the anti-drug
campaing because now they won't believe anything they've been told
about the real dangers. Kids respond much more when they understang
the true reasoning behind a rule. Unless the reason is a lousy one, in
which case they tend to go ahead and break it. My position is that
kids (and adults) shouldn't have to break rules that have lousy reasons
behind them.

I don't diasgree that eduaction is always best. I personally don't
know of any followers that are anxiety ridden over a belief in the
virgin birth..and if you do then they are the one's who are
uneducated...at least contextually. I'm not saying anyone should
believe anything, but to believe that someone who does is
delusional..which cannot be proved anymore than any other belief
system...is just plain bigoted. I just happen to see a lot of what
you propose to be improbable. All I'm saying is that if it works for
someone..don't put their belief down because you disagree. I thought
the idea was to improve situations..not judge who's methodology is
better..when both may have positve results.

I'm not a full-time religion-basher, but sometimes these kinds of
discussions remind me of the more ridiculous aspects of some religions.
Some things are so blatantly synthetic that I can't believe anybody
associates them with faith. I'm not picking on you, I'm just reminded
of other things I've seen. And yes, I've known women who have had
thorough sex education and still held irrational fears of pregnancy and
divine retribution under circumstances that clearly did not warrant it.
I suppose you'll tell me that I can't PROVE there was any link to their
indoctrination, but in a few cases it was obvious even to them. It can
be argued that this has effectively prevented disease and pregnancy,
but I think it's unhealthy in other ways.


ulysses

in article , Justin Ulysses Morse at
wrote on 9/15/03 16.58:



We have lots of laws on the books that are there to protect children.
One of them deals with adults having sex with minors. Why do you
suppose those laws are on the books if it should be permissable for
minors to engage in sexual relations?

Sex between minors and adults is an entirely different topic. Adults
hold positions of power over minors, even if there's no official
relationship. The laws against it are there to protect minors from
being abused by adults. Consentual sex between minors doesn't hold
this inherent power differential. That's why there aren't laws against
it.


ulysses

In fact if you read some of the actual writings around the sex with minors
law, there are judges, lawyers, and government types who specifically state
"The purpose of the law is not to prevent minors from engaging in sex, but
to prevent them from engaging in sex with someone in a position of power,
real or imagined" some go even further to say that they would not likely
prosecute a 19 year old for having sex with a 15 year old (for example)
because the age difference, and type of relationship would not warrant a
statutory rape charge.
There is no law anywhere that prevents minors from having sex.

Check out some stats and links to the laws themselves at
www.ageofconsent.com

I'd also like to point out that the legal age being 18 in most states is
only in the US. Here in Canada the legal age is 14. In other countries it
is 14 or 16. Even if your law did include sex between minors, other
countries have a very different definition of the word minor. Or did I
forget again that the USA is the only country in the world which cares about
protecting it's children...

*ducks*

J

--
josh.snider
cave.productions
416.524.6927