Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site mit-vax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!think!mit-eddie!mit-vax!csdf
From: csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Planned Parenthood posting
Message-ID: <681@mit-vax.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 21-Aug-85 20:43:39 EDT
Article-I.D.: mit-vax.681
Posted: Wed Aug 21 20:43:39 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 25-Aug-85 02:15:21 EDT
Reply-To: csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe)
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 317

In article <944@bunker.UUCP> Gary M. Samuelson wastes a lot of disc
space on a lot of computers by pointing out all of the places where my
article "put words in other people's mouths." He also spends a lot of
memory saying "this argument is wrong" and "you overgeneralize too
much." I'm sure you have read all that, so I am going to respond to the
actual ARGUMENTS he made, and let you make your own decisions about what
Gary has to say about me personally.

>> Did you ever read Romeo and Juliet? I'm sure their parents were highly
>> responsible...
>
>Yes, I have read several of Shakespeare's works.  But they are, after
>all, fiction, so their conclusions (if any) are not necessarily valid
>in the real world.

But Romeo and Juliet is not science fiction, Gary. I was trying to
illustrate that the idea that teenagers won't pay any attention to their
parents is too old to argue against. Until some kind of "brainwashing"
technique is developed, one must accept the fact that teenagers are
prone to be rebellious and impulsive and deal with it, rather than
trying to argue it away.


>> I've inferred (I could be wrong) that your children have not reached
>> their teenage years.
>
>You infer correctly; we have only one child, a daughter, who will
>be 3 in December.

So what do you know about being a parent of a teenager? At least I can
claim that I know what it's like to be a teenager in the 80's!

>Oh, I thought I would just ask them, straight out.  I will try
>to let my children (assuming we have more later) know that there
>isn't anything they can't talk to me about.

Perfect example of your ignorance of parenting. I've seen this before.
Your daughter, if you do what you say, may come and talk to you about
your feelings on her becoming sexually active. I'm inferring that you
will let her know you disapprove. Then what? She might go out and do it
anyway. She wouldn't be the first to have done so against her parents
wishes. Do you think that she will continue to discuss it with you?
Maybe, but if she follows the pattern that I have hypothesized, then it
is not likely. She will know (or believe) that since you look down on
the behavior, she will be punished. If she said,"Daddy, I've been
sleeping with my boyfriend for the past three months." Would you wisk
her down to the gynocologist and have her fitted for a diaphragm? From
what you've said, I have reason to believe the answer is "no". If this
is the answer, then you will probably do something to stop her... the
saga continues and you end up as another estranged parent.

But that's only if she tells you. Face it Gary, unless you keep her on a
leash, you will never REALLY know whether or she's sexually active. 

Go ahead, tell me I'm wrong. Make my day. (By the way, I was
hypothesizing. I don't mean to claim your three year old daughter is
actually going to grow up to be a slut.)

>> I'll have you know that everything I say is based on experience and
>> observation -- not what the Bible says or what my parents told me or
>> what the Moral Majority (which is neither) puts in it's pamphlets.
>
>But I have more experience and more observation than you do, as did
>your parents and the writers of the Bible.  So why do these other
>sources have no value for you?  (If *everything* you say is based
>on (your?) experience and observation, then *nothing* is based on
>the what anybody else says.)

"Everything I say" referred to assertions I had made about teenage
behavior. These, apparently, have not been questioned. Also, where in the
Bible does it mention birth control (explicitly). I think you'll find
that women are only mentioned when they are being raped, murdered, or
giving birth to a male. As for what you say, talk to me again in ten or
eleven years when you have had the experience of being a parent of a
teenager.

>(Actually, I don't believe for a moment that "everything you say
>is based on experience and observation" -- you never learned anything
>from anyone else?)

"Observation" is the "art" of learning from other people.

>But you said that the answers being suggested were "silly" and
>"out-dated," implying that the answers you have are better.

I think they are.

>And you object to anyone trying to tell them otherwise.

I would like to see some "arguing them otherwise" you have spent a lot
disc space "telling" a lot of things. I countered with arguments and you
proceed to "tell" me otherwise. 

>So you would like me to believe that Planned Parenthood is impartial?

It would be nice. At least they are consistent.

>> On the other hand, teenagers are not interested in philosophy.
>
>Really?  It was a pretty popular subject when I was in school, back
>in the dark ages.

I'm not talking about Socrates, I was talking about morals.

>> This is just the kind of value-judgments that teenagers hate. Anyway,
>> who says the advice is faulty? The Bible? Society? These sources mean
>> NOTHING, to the average teen. NOTHING. NOTHING. NOTHING. 
>
>You know NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING about what my statements are
>based on.  The epidemic of various kinds of sexually transmitted disease
>and unwanted pregnancies say that the advice is faulty.  The psychological
>harm which can result from an intimate relationship with a relative
>stranger says that the advice is faulty.

You know NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING about what my statements are
based on.  PP is not advising kids to have sex, they are trying to
protect them from being harmed by it.

>> >> >Groin control works if you try it.
>> So does LSD. Does that mean it's good?
>LSD has a number of nasty side effects (not that its main effect
>is particularly desirable, either, but I suppose you would say
>that that was a matter of taste).  If you are suggesting that
>groin control has similarly nasty side effects, state them.  If you
>are not suggesting that, your reference to LSD is worthless.

How about "an inability to veiw sexual congress as a positive
experience?" This "Groin Control" insinuates that sex is bad. Well,
Gary, a lot of people believe that sex is NOT bad. A lot of these people
are teenagers. 

>> I'm not talking philosophy, I'm talking fashion.
>
>I hope you are not seriously saying that "fashion" is a good measure
>of, well, goodness.

I AM serious. Teenagers are very much driven by fashion. The industry
knows that. Example: a couple years ago, cocaine was all the rage. I've
spoken to so many "class of '82" and "class of '83" people who went to
their senior prom coked out of their minds, it makes me ill. Well, this
year it's MDMA (known as XTC, or Ecstasy). Now, go down to your local
high school next time a prom comes around and look at all the faces with
unusually broad smiles; look at all the kids who seem to be dancing a
little bit hyperactively, and start wondering how many are X'ed-out.

There are many more benign examples: clothes, music, ect., but I chose
the last one to show that no amount of parental pressure can completely
overcome peer pressure. "Groin Control" is just not fashionable!

>> Maybe you can do a rock video or something and make
>> celibacy fashionable again, but I really doubt it.

I'll say it again, if I have to.

>> Because a teenager that had decided not to have sex (for sure) would
>> not venture into a Planned Parenthood office. I'm sure, every now and
>> then, one does, but that's a fluke. If they had decided to "abstain",
>> they wouldn't look into birth control.
>
>And what about the teenagers who haven't decided one way or the other?
>Mightn't they venture into a PP office?  You have apparently overlooked
>them.  You continue to overlook them, even though Ray and I have both
>explicitly pointed out this group.
>.................
>No, it only takes once to become pregnant even if you use birth control.
>Contraceptives lower the risk; they do not eliminate it.

You can take the above two arguments to net.math.stat. They don't seem
to be based very well in reality. The chance of getting pregnant using
birth control is VERY small. Also, I think I have argued successfully
that the number of "undecided" or "virgin" people who go to PP is also
VERY small. You have not rebutted that.

>> No, but I ask: were they curious about birth control or sexual activity?
>> If it was the former, then I was right -- they were probably planning to
>> have sex. If it is the latter -- that is a value judgment that they
>> will make by themselves.
>
>You say that teens need information and guidance with respect to
>birth control, but deny that they need information and guidance
>with respect to the larger issue of whether to have sex in the
>first place.  This is inconsistent.

No, I say that they need that advice. I also say that any quantity of
advice is not going to stop (all of) them. Thus, they need some "if you
do" kind of advice.

>> You have clearly demonstrated an incredible lack of understanding of the
>> teenage mind.
>
>Are you recanting your earlier statement that I seemed aware of the
>teenage mindset?  And what were you saying about judgmental attitudes?

Are you aware of nuclear physics? Do you UNDERSTAND it? (excuse me if
you do, but I'm sure I could find an example of something you don't)
Now, you can behave using the fact that you are aware of nuclear
physics, but you can't claim to understand it. (like avoiding large
piles of exposed plutonium because you are aware that they are harmful.)

>> Wha...? Read what you said, Gary. Teenagers are too impulsive. Granted.
>> They should take more time to think things over. Fine. Unfortunately,
>> this "solution" fails BECAUSE THEY ARE IMPULSIVE. The solution won't
>> work because it won't work. An analogous set of arguments:
>> Man A:I hate my C compiler. I could write better code in LISP.
>> Man B:Then write in LISP!
>> Unfortunately, as we all know, you can't compile LISP with a C compiler...
>
>I propose a better analogy:
>Programmer A is only half as productive as Programmer B, and
>therefore has to work late at night to accomplish the same
>thing B accomplishes during a normal 8 hour day.
>Programmer B suggests taking a course in structured programming
>techniques, to which B attributes his higher productivity.
>Programmer A says he doesn't have time to take such a course.

Substituting back into your analogy:
Teenager A is only half as informed as Teenager B, and
therefore has to risk pregnancy while Teenager B does not.
Programmer B suggests taking a course in birth control
techniques, to which B attributes her higher safty.
Programmer A says her parents won't let her.

>> Also, if you don't give them birth control, will that make them less
>> impulsive?
>
>Never said it would.  If they are given *all* of the facts, they
>might be less impulsive.  If *all* you do is give them contraceptives,
>that will probably encourage impulsiveness.

Good for you! But, remember, you said *all* the facts, that includes
accurate data about those nasty pills and such.

>Nope.  Sex was being sold before MTV; perhaps the medium has changed
>(slightly), but the message hasn't.

Slightly?  If you had described cable TV to somebody in the
mid-60's they would have been blown away. The popularity of VCRs is only
about five years old. If I'd asked my parents for a VTR in 1975, they
would have said, "too expensive". 20 years ago a good microphone was the
size of an eggplant. Nowadays, you can sneak a good digital recording
unit past concert security. I thought you worked with technology...

>Power through sex existed before Madonna.

Yeah, but Horatio Alger would have never written a story about it. Power
through sex used to be a sleazy thing to do, but thanks to Madonna, it's
fashionable (therefore acceptable). Read her lyrics. They would never
have been played in to sixties.

>The "sexual revolution" is hardly original with 20th century
>America.

Neither is democracy, but it's only 200+ years old here. "Free love" was
actually a favorite idea of George Wells, but it didn't really catch on
here until the sixties.

>> If I
>> saw an advertisement that mentioned birth control as well as casual
>> sex, I would faint.
>
>The point being?

Because sex, as long as it's not blatent, is acceptable to us. Everyone
loves it. Watch a soap opera. Watch a commercial, or any TV show
(non-religious :-). Listen to a rock song. Sex sells. Birth control,
however, is unacceptable. Recently a TV commercial was submitted to all
three of the major networks. It did not mention sex per se, just birth
control. All it said was "there are ways to prevent unwanted
prenancies." It didn't show any teenagers in it, actually older women.
It was rejected by all three. I wonder why?

>This is getting so repetitive.  Have I not said several times that I
>am in favor of giving teens the facts?

No, you are in favor of giving YOUR teens the facts. Teens with
negligent parents are left to fend for themselves. Planned Parenthood
gives facts to teenagers who need them.



----------------------------------------------------------------
Now, to finally clear up this bullshit:
>> >> I happened to have liked, and respected, my parents during high-school.
>> >> If, however, I told anyone this, I was immediately put on the defensive
>> >> wherein I'd have to illustrate some "cool" behavior they'd exhibited in
>> >> order to win the respect.
>
>> >That may be the saddest thing you have said.  You didn't have a whole
>> >lot of respect for your parents, if you were ashamed to admit it.  Nor
>> >did you have a lot of respect for yourself, if you felt you had to
>> >give in to others' demands that you be "cool."
>> 
>> I wish you would read what I write (you're just like a typical parent :-),
>> I said I was put in the defensive BY THEM. 
>
>You also said that you had to "illustrate some 'cool' behavior" to win
>the respect of your peers.  That shows me that your respect was shallow.

I said I was "expected to" why do you think I did? You seem to think
that all teenagers do what is expected of them. Well I never did. So
there. Now if you keep insulting my relationship with my parents, which
happens to be very close to ideal, I will follow you home and beat you
senseless with a kosher salami.

>I think it can be improved, and want to help with such improvement.  You
>don't think it can be improved, as so are content with stopgaps and
>workarounds.

Oh, Gary, stop putting words in my mouth.
-- 
Charles Forsythe
CSDF@MIT-VAX
"We pray to Fred for the Hopelessly Normal
	Have they not suffered enough?"

from _The_Nth_Psalm_ in _The_Book_of_Fred_