Why did you remove immoral practices? --user:Ed+Poor
I explained it on your talk page, Ed. You may find those practices immoral. Your particular religion may preach that they are. Mine might, too. That doesn't change the fact that they are both legal in most states and that many people don't find them immoral.
- The fact that an immoral practice is legal is irrelevant: it remains immoral.
- I changed "immoral" to "regarded by conservatives as immoral" (good catch).
You set up the sentence in a way that implies that Sex education encourages the acceptance of immorality. This is hardly NPOV.
- I think I have shown in the new version of the article that some sex education encourages the acceptance of immorality. If I've made an error, please point it out.
YOu seem to be fairly intelligent, so I am at a loss to understand why you even had to ask.J Hofmann Kemp
- Had to ask what?
Rather than simply cut what seemed to be a pretty poorly written and biased article, I simply have tried to restore some NPOV. I do hope that there are people out there who have actually researched pedagogy and educational practices and can develop this into an informative article.
- Thank you. You have always been one of my best editors. By working together, we can accomplish a lot.
My changes: I removed some editorializing language, and in order to counter the criticism, I added something on why people would support sex ed. I also cut this:
- break down students' natural modesty and
because it is doubly wrong: children are not "naturally" modest, and the purpose of sex ed is not to break down this modesty.
- Some sex ed practices were specifically designed to counter modesty, such as requiring girls to put condoms over cucumbers. Try reading Wendy Shalit's "Return to Modesty". --Ed
SR
Axel -- they are controversial because a large chunk of the US population finds sex itself to be controversial, instead of a normal human function.
- That's a false dichotomy. Sex is, indeed a normal human function, but immorality is not normal. Since a huge proportion of Americans advocate immorality, sex is controversial. --Ed
It gets wrapped up in religious codes, and then the separation of church and state, and then we have (as with alcohol use among teens) a society with puritanical undertones that most civilized countries find amusing.
- Another false dichotomy. The alternative to immorality is not puritanism but morality. I also find puritanism amusing, but immorality is no joking matter. --Ed
Sex and Alcohol are banned, adult things, so kids often are drawn to them for the thrill and to prove they are adults.
- Sex should not be a banned thing; it's actually a wonderful thing, but only between husband and wife. As for alcohol, some groups ban it for all people (adults as well as children); some others introduce children to it gradually, teaching its responsble use.
- This is really the essence of morality: the responsible use of sex. -- Ed
So, instead of kids who think that being productive, successful citizens who take an interest in their society makes one an adult, we have a bunch of kids who drink too much, have irresponsible sex, and still live at home after high school expecting mom and dad to foot the bills. My opinion, which is why it's not going into the article.J Hofmann Kemp
Morality aims to produce kids who think that being productive, successful citizens who take an interest in their society makes one an adult, as you so eloquently put it. Sex ed which promotes immorality contrbutes a bunch of kids who drink too much, have irresponsible sex, and still live at home after high school expecting mom and dad to foot the bills. -- Ed Poor
I un-reverted Axel's revert, while including his incremental change. Please do not censor articles, if you disagree. Edit them to make them NPOV. --Ed Poor
I'm kind of new to Wikipedia, so forgive my ignorance here, but how can the wholesale use of morality/immorality in an article be considered NPOV. Danny
- It's easy, provided you say whose definition of morality/immorality you're using. I referred specifically to the conservative view. Ed Poor
- I agree with Danny, however, that the phrasing needs some work to move it further toward the goal of NPOV. -- April
March 2nd version is pretty well-balanced, lacking only a rebuttal to Axel's strengthening of the pro-immorality side. But it's close enough to NPOV at this point that I'll leave it for a while. Ed Poor
Don't mischaracterize the pro-Sex ed side as "pro-immorality". Some people find it immoral to deny crucial and potentially life-saving information to teenagers. AxelBoldt
- Don't mischararacterize the pro-immorality side as the pro-Sex ed side. Everyone wants sex education; the controversy is over the curriculum, not whether there should be any educatation at all. Furthermore, it is crucial and potentially life-saving to tell teenagers not to indulge in premarital sex. -- Ed Poor
SR, if liberals see the sex education issue in terms of "who controls the body", then say so. I don't want to censor you -- any more than I want to be censored myself -- but your reframing didn't actually clear anything up. Please try again. If you need help, ask for it (that's what I do). Ed Poor
- Ed, I reverted for two reasons: first, I do not think I failed, and second, your objection seemed to be only to the first sentence. If you can explain your objection cogently, we can work on improving the first lin eof my contribution. But what follows is certainly better organized and clearer, and more NPOV, than what was there previously.
- As for the first line, I am not a liberal and I do not think it is liberals who claim that what is at stake in sex ed is control over the body; I think this is an objective statement that provides an objective point of view from which one can compare and contrast conservative and liberal positions. Your characterization of the conservative position is that people should not engage in sexual relations with members of the same sex, and that people whould not have sex before they are married. "sex" is a physical act. Please explain to me how your description of a particular morality is not about contol over this physical act? By the way, I am not suggesting that there aren't non-physical REASONS for controling the body, or controling it in particular ways. I am just making a very non-controversial observation, that the article includes a discussion of what people should and should not do with their bodies. I look forward to your response as we work towards improving this one sentence.
- in the meantime, since you seem to have no objection to the remainder of the revision, please do not vandalize it. I did not cut ANYTHING of substance that you wrote -- I merely added pertinant information, and reorganized it so there was less confusing jumping from one perspective and topic to another, SR
Ed, I appreciate the way yo are revising while working with my contribution. One request: You rewrote some of my contribution thus:
- As seen by liberals, what is at stake in sex education is control over the body; it is thus an area where politics and questions of morality necessarily intersect.
and
- Liberals cast traditional morality as involving control over the individual will.
Could you now include two more sentences, that begin "As seen by conservatives," and "Conservatives cast?" If you could do so -- at the same level of abstraction as the "liberal" sentences, you will have accomplished two things. First, the characterization of the two positions will be more symmetrical and balanced. Second, we would have more information about the conservative position.
Thanks, SR
Ed, you are incorrect in stating that liberals advocate individual mores over socially imposed ones; many liberals actually favor socially determined ethics to predominate over individual moral codes in a legal and societal context. Please do not oversimplify "conservative" and "liberal" by representing your view as the totality of the former, and your idea of the opposite position as the latter. Actual positions tend to be considerably more complex. -- April
SR & April, thank you for your constructive criticism. I am going to give it a rest -- for a few hours or days. It's an even bigger controversy than I first thought. By the way, I originally started the page because I had begun a compendium of educational issues.
To do: clearly and correctly describe the major viewpoints on sexual education. As far as I know, the only viewpoints of importance are the conservatives (champions of morality) and the liberals (opponents of traditional morality).
- Wrong as usual, Ed. Why must you constantly oversimplify things to one or two basic ideas when there are obviously hundreds of ideas held by many very educated people over hundreds of years? It's the same thing you tried to do to the evolution/creation business, and it's just as idiotic here as there. To the extent that certain groups of more-or-less related positions on the issue can be categorized and described, that's fine. But let's not pretend that any of us even knows what all the positions are, much less that we understand them all. I, for one, don't care to associate myself with either of the positions your describe here as the primary options. --Lee Daniel Crocker
Morality entails proper sexual behavior, which (traditionally?) means no sex except between husband and wife. This is the conservative viewpoint.
Does some group of people see morality as constraining them? Do they seek release from that restraint? If so, who are these people? Who are their leaders? The article should include this information.
No one controls me. I follow traditional moral rules willingly. Does that sound unusual? Is it only the Unification Church which shares my moral views and not conservatives, too?
Help me out, here. --Ed Poor
- Ed, I appreciate the tone of your request. For me, the important thing is this: whether you personally understand it or not, the article must reflect the fact that there are many people for whom conservatives are not champions of morality but far from it champions of immorality; that their notions of "proper sexual behavior" such as compusory heterosexuality and the prohibition against premarital sex are immoral; form whom sexual freedom is the real morality. Such people do not see morality as constraining them, because they consider themselves to be moral. But in what passes for conventional conservative morality, they do see other people -- those who would advocate conservative morality, and who would use the state to enforce their conservative morality by making it illegal to distribute condoms in high-school or by making abortion illegal, or by making it impossible for medicaid to cover abortions -- as constraining them.
- You may follow traditional moral rules willingly, but these rules nevertheless limit what you can and cannot do with your body, and these rules by your own admission are not of your own making. Whether they come from the community, or perhaps you think they come from God, they come from outside of you, and they limit what you do. My point is not that this is wrong (although many have argued that it is); my point is simply that this is one dimension of your morality; that it is not a dimension of all moralities; and that an encyclopedia should be clear about different kinds of moralities and not simply assert or assume that there is one kind. SR