Picture of the author
Topic :
Thread Created at Invalid date | Started by
Number of Post in this thread: 7Please Sign In to comment on this Thread
richwil replied 11 years ago (Apr 3rd 2012, 2:35:28 pm)
James Ok, i get it now :) The camp statement supporting pse should be general while the details differentiate the subcamps. That's the way to do it! cheers Richard
jlcarroll replied 12 years ago (Mar 29th 2012, 5:04:41 am)
And as you pointed out, the "safe sex only" sub camp disagrees with its parent camp already... The point is to push the issue of disagreement out to the leaf nodes, so that the parent camp can become something all the leaf nodes can agree upon. So my next edit was going to be to the parent camp, to remove all mention of the TYPE of public sex education the people want. But I was kind of waiting to see how people's support shifted first.
jlcarroll replied 12 years ago (Mar 29th 2012, 5:01:36 am)
Those are some good thoughts, But here's my reasons for doing it this way. You wrote: "The subcamps state the the varying views as to what type of pse there should be." EXACTLY... and that is the point of my camp. There is no way to determine WHICH people want ONLY abstinence, which want ONLY safe sex, and which want BOTH, unless you have all three as SUB camps, that people can join. The parent camp is no place to express the TYPES of education people want, because that is a contested view. It is just the place to say that we want SOME form of public sex education, because THAT is all there appears to be consensus on. The type issue is controversial, and so should be battled out in the sub camps. There is a sub camp for abstinence only, and one for safe sex only. Why should those that believe that there should be both be in the parent camp? After all, if we wrote the parent camp in that way, then the two sub camps would have to leave it, since they wouldn't agree. Does this make sense?
richwil replied 12 years ago (Mar 28th 2012, 1:35:30 pm)
James I agree with you that the "Safe sex is OK" camp statement does differ from yours and it also differs from the statement under "Comprehensive public sex education is important" which is the one which i was referring to and which does mention abstinence. There are 2 sub camps under "Public sex education": either you're for or against it. The general case for pse is stated under "Comprehensive public sex education is important" and IMO your statement should be merged with it and not be placed under it as a subcamp. The subcamps state the the varying views as to what type of pse there should be. cheers Richard
jlcarroll replied 12 years ago (Mar 27th 2012, 10:38:17 pm)
The current majority camp is "all safe sex is ok". It's camp statement reads: It is difficult for parents and children to talk about Sex. Because of this, societies tend to be sexually repressed and under educated, especially if the society is religious based. This is never healthy for anyone. This needs to be completely overcome so everyone is literate on all sexual issues and potential problems. "Safe Sex" includes much more than just prevention of disease and unwanted pregnancy. It also requires that no socially unhealthy behavior is engaged in. We believe a very high set of standards should be laid out which are difficult for all people to achieve, especially if they are still socially immature. But, if these high standards can be met, there is no problem with some amount of sex. Children's natural curiosity and desire for sex should be bridled and leveraged in this way to drive and increase awareness of what is required for behavior that is healthy in all ways for all people involved. Abstinence is not mentioned. So it seems to me that there is a significant difference. I didn't just try to change the camp statement though, because I couldn't see how any camp with the NAME "all safe sex is ok" could EVER match my opinion, which is that we should teach them that abstinence is best, while still teaching them how to have safER sex if they choose to not be abstinent.
richwil replied 12 years ago (Mar 27th 2012, 7:00:01 pm)
James I don't see any significant differences between your statement and the current majority camp which also recognises abstinence as one possibility. cheers Richard
jlcarroll replied 12 years ago (Mar 22nd 2012, 10:43:57 pm)
There is a new sub camp in the public sex education camp, called the "Combination Sex Ed Best" camp. It's current camp statement reads as follows: "We believe that public sex education is important. "We believe that public sex education should teach the benefits of abstinence, but should also teach the benefits and principles of safe sex which should be employed if the individual chooses to become sexually active." It is hoped that many of the "abstinance" camp and "safe sex" camp might be interested in moving to this more moderate, middle of the road approach. If you are one, then please adjust your support. Thanks! James