mauney@ncsu.UUCP (Jon Mauney) (01/17/85)
> pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) writes: > > The "slippery slope" > argument that says if pornographers loose their right to publish we will > lose our freedom of speech. Some people have related this to freedom > for the expression of political ideas. I see one difference that I think > is significant: With political, philosophical, and religious ideas there > are a plurality of views. The only thing that counters the message of > porn (it's not "speech" if there is no message) is its absence. It either > exists or it doesn't. I disagree. You don't prevent teenage sexual activity by not telling kids about sex; instead, you tell them about sex, including why they should wait awhile before trying it. Telling people what is RIGHT is more powerful than keeping them from hearing what is wrong. I have at home (gathering dust) a 'marriage manual' written by Herbert W. Armstrong and published by Ambassador College. It is, unashamedly, a presentation of the Worldwide Church of God's official doctrine on sex. It describes the physiology of sex, the 'best' techniques for sexual satisfaction of both partners, and the reasons why it ruins everything if you engage in pre-marital, extra-marital, or too-frequent sex. It probably explains why looking at explicit material is harmful, but I don't remember for certain. The information is tastefully presented, and fairly useful, if a bit stodgy. The book delivers a message that directly counters whatever message is contained in "Debbie Does Dallas." Another option is to make a politically correct propaganda movie in which the teenage tramp, the adulterer, the orgyist, the homosexual, the nudist, the porn actress, are all unhappy with their meaningless lives and are eventually all killed in a train wreck, while the Catholic couple that has had sex one time for each of their twelve kids is supremely happy, and inherits the estates of the 6 sinners killed in the train wreck. Propaganda can always be countered. -- *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH ONE YOU LIKE BETTER *** Jon Mauney mcnc!ncsu!mauney C.S. Dept, North Carolina State University
ag5@pucc-k (Henry Mensch) (01/20/85)
<<Quotes from <4605@cbscc.UUCP> and <2773@ncsu.UUCP> appear at the>>
<<end of this item. >>
Indeed. All this nay-saying inspires curiosity; anybody
who has ever interacted with small children knows this. Everytime
somebody hears "no" they assume that something is being hidden and
they want to know what is going on...
Not informing children about sex simply leads to things like
unwanted teenage pregnancies ... they only can learn from experimentation,
because the parents simply say "no." If a child expects that pregnancy
is possible if she/he 'fools around' then they might let the experimentation
wait until they know more.
<<article text follows signature.>>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Henry C. Mensch | User Confuser | Purdue University User Services
{ihnp4|decvax|ucbvax|purdue|uiucdcs|cbosgd|harpo}!pur-ee!pucc-i!ag5
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"...Always reach for a Hamilton Beach..
It slices, it dices, and it disciplines the children."
*> pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) writes:
*>
*> The "slippery slope"
*> argument that says if pornographers loose their right to publish we will
*> lose our freedom of speech. Some people have related this to freedom
*> for the expression of political ideas. I see one difference that I think
*> is significant: With political, philosophical, and religious ideas there
*> are a plurality of views. The only thing that counters the message of
*> porn (it's not "speech" if there is no message) is its absence. It either
*> exists or it doesn't.
*I disagree. You don't prevent teenage sexual activity by not telling kids
*about sex; instead, you tell them about sex, including why they should
*wait awhile before trying it. Telling people what is RIGHT is more powerful
*than keeping them from hearing what is wrong.
*I have at home (gathering dust) a 'marriage manual' written by Herbert W.
*Armstrong and published by Ambassador College. It is, unashamedly, a
*presentation of the Worldwide Church of God's official doctrine on sex.
*It describes the physiology of sex, the 'best' techniques for sexual
*satisfaction of both partners, and the reasons why it ruins everything if
*you engage in pre-marital, extra-marital, or too-frequent sex. It probably
*explains why looking at explicit material is harmful, but I don't remember
*for certain. The information is tastefully presented, and fairly useful,
*if a bit stodgy. The book delivers a message that directly counters whatever
*message is contained in "Debbie Does Dallas."
*Another option is to make a politically correct propaganda movie
*in which the teenage tramp, the adulterer, the orgyist, the homosexual,
*the nudist, the porn actress, are all unhappy with their meaningless lives
*and are eventually all killed in a train wreck, while the Catholic couple
*that has had sex one time for each of their twelve kids is supremely happy,
*and inherits the estates of the 6 sinners killed in the train wreck.
*Propaganda can always be countered.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Henry C. Mensch | User Confuser | Purdue University User Services
{ihnp4|decvax|ucbvax|purdue|uiucdcs|cbosgd|harpo}!pur-ee!pucc-i!ag5
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"...Always reach for a Hamilton Beach..
It slices, it dices, and it disciplines the children."