> "will instead foist their pre-conceived ideas on students
and insist that their view of sexual life, however either
perverted or abnormally repressive it may be, is the way
to go"
And he's not? Or is it that you agree with his moral stance that you see it that way?
This particular instructor is an advocate for his standards, whether he intends to or not. He's gay, and according to the article approves of pretty much everyone being sexually active at 17 if they wish.
There are moral and emotional reasons to disagree with these, and I'm disappointed that the article doesn't highlight or speak approvingly of "waiting" or abstinence. To even suggest such things in this context makes one a pariah.
Yes, I agree abstinence-only education in public schools doesn't seem as effective as other curricular plans, particularly as it's usually not complemented by abstinence-only reinforcement at home. I'm pleased that he can discuss relationships, communication, and encourages students to think both long term and of those other than themselves. But all of that doesn't mean he's not advocating some moral stance.
I don't really see what specific stances he's taking in the article. The thing he seems to do and do well (from reading the article) is have open conversations about everything and let the kids have open dialogue in a controlled fashion.
He indicated that he may not have issues with 17 year olds having a healthy active sexual life but he wasn't preaching that they definitely should be.
Yes ... part of my point is our collective social morality is formed by whether (and which ones and how many) people agree with a particular philosophy. It's reflected in research on the stages of moral development (see, e.g., Kohlberg).
One can't help but advocate for things they believe in by the way they live their life. (As a corollary, trying to have independent journalists is an impossible ideal; compare NY Times and Washington Post.) Trying to suggest he's not advocating his view of morality is silly, just as someone suggesting I don't advocate for mine would be, even should I attempt to be even-handed.
This particular instructor is an advocate for his standards, whether he intends to or not. He's gay, and according to the article approves of pretty much everyone being sexually active at 17 if they wish.
There are moral and emotional reasons to disagree with these, and I'm disappointed that the article doesn't highlight or speak approvingly of "waiting" or abstinence. To even suggest such things in this context makes one a pariah.
Yes, I agree abstinence-only education in public schools doesn't seem as effective as other curricular plans, particularly as it's usually not complemented by abstinence-only reinforcement at home. I'm pleased that he can discuss relationships, communication, and encourages students to think both long term and of those other than themselves. But all of that doesn't mean he's not advocating some moral stance.