Did anybody else see James Spader’s character deliver his closing arguments Tuesday night on Boston Legal?
Yes, it’s a TV show. Yes, it’s fiction. But the writers of that show have a way of writing to today’s topics and having their characters make tremendous social arguments. And Spader – as Alan Shore - ripping to shreds the idiotic movement that is ”abstinence only education” was pure poetry, and should go down as one of the most legendary TV scenes ever.
Anyone who watched that episode and still thinks that “abstinence only education” has ANY place in our society…or anywhere else on the planet for that matter…should go right ahead and do that – abstain – so you don’t reproduce. Because we don’t need any more people that still think like a 1692 Puritan hunting witches at Salem.
Show creator David E. Kelley and his writers get a big standing O from me on this most recent episode. Way to tell it like it IS!
4 responses so far ↓
1
kris seklur
// Oct 12, 2007 at 3:19 pm
There are a number of problems with sex education:
- Government can’t figure out how to hand our flu shots, I don’t want government deciding on what, when and how sex is taught
- No two teachers are alike, and every of them one has his/her own inclinations and biases, no matter how standardized or controlled a curriculum might be – one teacher’s idea of loving sex might be the other teacher’s idea of NAMBLA
- Many parent s do assume their appropriate responsibilities by teaching their children about sex whenever they deem appropriate
- Yes, I know sex happens with kids anyway; and yes, I know too many parents neglect to teach their kids about it – but no matter what anyone might say to the contrary, sex beyond marriage is immoral, at least in a world of reason where people understand morality to be a universal constant lest we have chaos. Is that always practiced? Nope. But that doesn’t make it any less true.
- There is but one certain prevention to STD’s, pregnancy, sexual deviation, the emotional angst that comes with youthful sex (and adult sex, for that matter) – don’t do it.
- Since the fifties/sixties, sex ed has been endorsed (by left and right) in such a lamenting, panicky way – something that MUST be done to save the children. Sex is wonderful, to be sure. But what is lamentable is that one legacy of the sixties, i.e., placing so much emphasis on sex, sort of took away our youth’s innocence (I was one of them) – rather than leaving our kids to worry about and focus on issues that really matter in a democratic republic: knowledge, leadership, faith (or not), etc. Not nihilistic, self-indulgence.
In the end, it’s not what should be taught in sex ed…it’s that sex ed should not be taught at all. Education is intended to make our children greater adults – civically inclined, capable in the workplace, exploiting our own greatest talents. What does sexual education have to do with any of that?
And despite my deep desire to call you names, Mr. Stone, as you have with folks like me, I’m reminded that it’s your blog and you can be as angry and spiteful as you’d like – and if you’re not angry, maybe you’re just trying to get a rise. That’s fine. But I have children coming of age, and I’m horrified at the prospects of their development, in every aspect – driving, exposure to bad language, etc. And I’m even more horrified at the decisions we have to make as parents (you’re only as good a parent as your oldest kid!). So I must admit, I struggle with this whole notion of sexual development. But our kid’s parents need to control this step into maturation, not the government (and by extension, the schools). If other parents aren’t willing to assume some sense of responsibility, and choose rather to leave it to the schools or assume the mantra “they’re going to do it anyway, so make sure they do it right†– they are hurting our efforts far more than no-sex-ed or abstinence-only hurts their’s.
2
kris seklur
// Oct 12, 2007 at 3:20 pm
Oh and by the way . . . Boston Legal is indeed a truly incredible television show.
3
BJ Stone
// Oct 12, 2007 at 8:40 pm
Kris, thanks for stopping by, appreciate you taking the time to comment. A couple of responses.
1. I agree, it is an incredible show. Well cast, well written, thought provoking from both ends of the spectrum.
2. I’m still looking through the original post trying to find where I called anyone names, I don’t see it. I made a couple of analogies and comparisons, but I don’t see anywhere where I called anyone “names”. That’s Vonster’s territory.
And you’re right, sometimes I’m just trying to get a rise. Sometimes I am truly angry (like when I write about driving), sometimes I try to write from the “comedic angry guy” slant, as Lewis Black is a hero.
3. You say “sex beyond marriage is immoral, at least in a world of reason where people understand morality to be a universal constant lest we have chaos”. I have long said that everyone…every person…has a slightly different take on what is moral or immoral. No one has any absolutes on what is and isn’t moral. We like to say “killing” is immoral, but then we turn around and do it every day in war, and claim it to be “undesirable but necessary” as we try to justify “war”. The paradox and ultimate hypocrisy that this country’s current christian leadership (their words, not necessarily mine) has to face everyday, the one where while they are opposing women’s rights and opposing gay rights and trying to tell us what is or is not acceptable (re: “moral”) behavior, while at the same time killing innocent civilians and our own finest countrymen, is indeed a lot for any of us to grasp.
Let’s talk about “sex before marriage”: I believe consensual sex between two non-married individuals is “more moral” – or “less immoral”, if you prefer – to non-consensual sex, or rape, involving two married people. And it has happened.
I also think it is “less immoral” for two people, regardless of their gender, to be in a peaceful, loving, nurturing, caring, monogamous relationship; than it is for two people to be in a loveless, abusive, (physically and mentally), hurtful, harmful, and in some cases non-monagomous marriage, and I think we all can agree there are many, many, many of those.
Many of the very people who stand in front of crowds, whether they be Senators (Craig), Congressmen (Foley), Governors (McGreevey), or ministers (list starts with Haggard and goes from there), publicly spank those “immoral” among us who feel that it’s no big deal that two people have sex outside of marriage while they’re doing something far more hurtful to their wives, those same wives they use to help them get into power by claiming (lying) to be so morally correct.
Please understand I’m certainly not calling you or anyone else who visits this or other local blogs “immoral” or claiming moral superiority in any way over anybody else, or trying to call anyone names. I’m just trying to put as directly and into as few words as possible (because I know how long winded I am) my thoughts on how one person’s “morals” are another persons “immorals”, and vice versa.
4
kris.seklur
// Oct 15, 2007 at 9:56 am
You’re right, re. name-calling – I had extended the adjective “idiotic†to be such. My mistake.
The claim of “moral superiority†is precisely, I believe, that which gives the world all its’ vigor, spice, and joy…in addition to its’ horror, divisiveness, and everyday bugaboos. As a conservative I believe, first and foremost that there is an enduring moral order that was made for mankind and mankind made for it. The congruence of moral order in the souls of individuals with the moral order of civil-society is precisely what gives us a peaceful world. And the converse is true: World history shows us again and again, and without exception, the horrific consequences of a collapsing moral order, i.e., when the indulgence of personal appetites are justified as personal morals.
Now, I’m not about to sit here and tell you or anyone else what is moral and what is not moral. But I will tell you that when people proffer hasty departures from what tradition, convention, and custom as new moralities, society is in for some big problems.
I guess what I’m getting at is this: The bigger question is not ‘what is moral and what is not’ – it’s the question of whether one believes that there is universal order and continuity of morality or that morality is what you make of it. I would argue, given the experience of the ages, that moral order – and our obligatory acknowledgement of it, if not adherence to it – is all that gives humankind any hope of structure and peace. Once we’re agreed that there is some moral order, every else is just politics.
Leave a Comment