<p>Not saying I disagree but when exactly might this be?
[quote]
But I also strongly endorse waiting until you are in a position to handle any of the consequences of sexual activity - disease, pregnancy, plus all the emotional components.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
In my mind, this is the OPPOSITE of casual sex, and seems to be a sensible approach.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Handle any of the consequences?
I believe we all might still be waiting today. ;)</p>
<p>curmudgeon: LOL!</p>
<p>I know I was better equipped to handle pregnancy and parenting at 27 than I was at 18, having done both! Handling the consequences, IMO, also means being in a position to get birth control, buy condoms, talk frankly about sex with your partner, etc. I told her I think if you are embarrassed to procure condoms, you aren't ready to have sex. If you are afraid to ask your partner to wear a condom, you aren't ready to have sex. If your partner won't wear a condom, he's not ready to have sex, at least not with you!</p>
<p>Interesting that this discussion has gone on this long without anyone trying to define the terms "moral" and "immoral".</p>
<p>I'll throw out a couple of loose definitions and then make my point.</p>
<p>Moral - an act consciously taken with regards to a socially defined set of standards of behavior as defined by the community in which s/he participates.</p>
<p>Immoral - an act consciously taken that is meant to evade a set of standards of behavior in the community in which s/he participates.</p>
<p>Now another term...</p>
<p>Amoral - an act consciously taken without regards to any set of standards of behavior in the community which s/he participates. This generally means that the person does not accept the concept of any social control over his/her behavior.</p>
<p>I think the OP probably was most concerned about amoral behavior, as these participants in a society can have particularly devastating impacts upon those who don't recognize their amorality and follow their destructive behavior to their own detriment.</p>
<p>While most societies deem that sexual relations outside of a committed relationship are immoral, they accept that many moral people occasionally engage in immoral behavior (trying to skirt the rules), but eventually come back to the social norm as they experience the negative consequences of their behavior. As a society collectively learns the outcomes of a set of behaviors, the moral behavior norms adjust to the experiences of each generation in continuous time.</p>
<p>That being said, if OP wants daughter to go to a place with less movement in the social norm of behavior, she might want to consider a school with a lopsided male to female ratio (either direction works). When there is a shortage of partners, the consideration for potential partners feelings becomes a paramount thing, leading to more socially oriented behavior.</p>
<p>Of course, these schools are considered to have a poor social life as well.</p>
<p>Hopefully, I have generated thought and not division in this debate.</p>
<p>Goalie Dad - WOW! I must puzzle through your post, wow, again.</p>
<p>Goaliedad, your definition of morality does indeed seem to describe the OP's take on the subject. It is not, however, a generally accepted definition, as I'm sure you know if you've perused a few texts. Choosing to accept the crowd's definition of right and wrong is the easy way out.</p>
<p>Still, for our continued amusement, here's a definition from the Devil's Dictionary:</p>
<p>
[quote]
MORAL, adj. Conforming to a local and mutable standard of right.
Having the quality of general expediency.</p>
<pre><code> It is sayd there be a raunge of mountaynes in the Easte, on
</code></pre>
<p>one syde of the which certayn conducts are immorall, yet on the other
syde they are holden in good esteeme; wherebye the mountayneer is much
conveenyenced, for it is given to him to goe downe eyther way and act
as it shall suite his moode, withouten offence.
<em>Gooke's Meditations</em>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The Amish "cuddle"...whatever that means before marriage...and in many cultures what is good for the gander aint good for the goose</p>
<p>Kids are going to play, but they are also going to study, work hard, go to classes, do internships run clubs, do sports, and so much more</p>
<p>Initially some kids will just continue their tacky behavior they did in HS, and some "good" HS kids will finally be free to break out and may go overboard</p>
<p>For many, they settle down and get to work</p>
<p>Check out Pensacola Christian College- their "moral" codes- do you want that? where they can't even be on the same beach with "real" people or people of the opposite sex, even as 21 year olds</p>
<p>At some point you have to trust your child to do the right thing, or to pay the consequnces for not</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The Amish often do more than just "cuddle" before marriage. They have a unique practice that comes out of their fundamental anabaptist beliefs: When children reach the age of legal majority (16 or 18, I'm not sure which), they are relieved of all of the community's constraints. They are permitted to live any kind of life they want, which often includes quite a bit of sex, drugs, and rock-and-roll, as well as cars, cars, cars. Only when a young adult decides to accept baptism and to re-join the church is he or she expected to conform to the rules of Amish life again. Generally, that takes about a year for girls, 2-3 years for boys, although for some kids the separation is much longer, or permanent. It's an incredible demonstration of the strength of the Amish's faith, their trust in their children, and their lack of hypocrisy. Every single Amish adult has had the opportunity to live life in the fast lane, and many have taken it.</p></li>
<li><p>I'm confused about goliedad's suggestion that an imbalance between (straight) men and women at a school will lead to more considerate behavior, no matter which way the imbalance goes. I would think that if there was a shortage of (straight) men, the women would tend to be more "considerate" of the men's feelings and preferences, but I doubt that would produce the kind of social paradise we would all like to see.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>At least as a matter of folklore, I don't think the now-ancient custom of men roadtripping to women's colleges was based on the premise that, once there, the men would be paying more attention to their potential partners' feelings than they would back at their own school. Not that that didn't happen sometimes, but it was seen as the exception, not the rule.</p>
<p>Plus, I think it's not as simple as all that. I went to a college where men outnumbered women by about 3-2 at the time. Surplus women, however, knew where to find us. Our options were not limited to the women we shared co-ed bathrooms with, and many of the women at the college felt that they had to compete for men with outsiders who would "do anything". Standards of romantic behavior varied widely from person to person, group to group (and from freshman to senior year for the same person).</p>
<p>And, on top of all that, remember that we are talking about 18-21 year-old "men" and "women" here. My memory of that period of my life is that cads were plentiful, but deliberate cads rare. We made mistakes; we hurt people. People made mistakes and hurt us. "Immoral" and "amoral" imply deliberation and choice. Mostly, we were screwing up from inexperience (with a helping hand from diminished capacity). Mostly, over time we learned by trial-and-error how to be the kind of people we wanted to be.</p>
<p>JHS..post 87...that last paragraph, especially the last sentence, is a direct hit.</p>
<p>My only addition is that I think most of our basic ethics and morals are pretty well set by the time we are about 12. Just alot of constant tweaking after this.</p>
<p>Good discussion...</p>
<p>
[quote]
And, on top of all that, remember that we are talking about 18-21 year-old "men" and "women" here. My memory of that period of my life is that cads were plentiful, but deliberate cads rare. We made mistakes; we hurt people. People made mistakes and hurt us. "Immoral" and "amoral" imply deliberation and choice. Mostly, we were screwing up from inexperience (with a helping hand from diminished capacity). Mostly, over time we learned by trial-and-error how to be the kind of people we wanted to be.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think the best way to explain this is that in college (especially in the first couple of years) resident students are thrown into a "new" community where the norms of behavior are determined in a very short period of time (kinda like these bad reality TV shows where people removed from their native environment engage in risky behavior that they might not do at home). In the absence of fixed social norms, students seek out the closest and most common examples (a sort of herd mentality) amongst their targeted peer group. The "inexperience" of dealing with new choices without a perceived norm to adhere to would logically lead to trial-and-error learning (drinking and sex) and adjustment of the group norms that I mentioned in my earlier post. </p>
<p>Let me clarify things. Moral, Immoral, and Amoral behavior are not clearly defined things. There are shades of gray when there is ambiguity in definition of moral behavior or competing definitions of moral behavior, especially when groups of people with different values are thrown together such as at college.</p>
<p>Celloguy, I'm not making a moral relativism argument here (i.e. that the majority is always right in a society as it often is not over short periods of time - see Nazi Germany), but that over long periods of time most societies will come to generally the same sense of right and wrong in most behavior (committed adult sexual relationships, responsible family formation and upbringing, property rights, etc.) through experience. These are almost Darwinian in that history is full of examples of societies failing because a major social norm goes haywire.</p>
<p>Whether your moral beliefs are religious in origin or not, is not my concern in this discussion. I'm just trying to spell out a few facts of human nature on a big picture in an academic sense to explain the social behavior of a social animal (humans).</p>
<p>I do admire the Amish tradition for its ability to replicate itself over a long period without significant change. I think a lot of its success (in the Darwinian sense) is that it is a set of social norms that calls for separation from other groups (physical as well as spiritual) which removes much ambiguity from the community. This is very good for self-reinforcement of a set of values. I don't think many of us could change to that set of values (even though it has a great appeal strangely enough) living in a pluralistic (morally speaking) society with the ambiguity of competing systems of belief. We are weak creatures and want to take the easy way out when it seems acceptable (the ever present slippery slope towards immorality).</p>
<p>Still hoping I haven't offended, but stimulated thought.</p>
<p>Carry on!</p>
<p>JHS...that is qhy I put "cuddle" in quotes...it is a courtship that happens in the parents home, in the bed...some have premarital sex, some don't...so would some say the Amish are immoral</p>
<p>not for me to say</p>
<p>Oh yeah. And about that lopsided ratio of men to women thing...</p>
<p>The easy one to figure out is when men outnumber women, their boorish behavior is quickly turned off when they realize that women don't go for it when they have plenty of choices.</p>
<p>The more difficult one to see is when women greatly outnumber men, why then don't we see women competing by playing to men's primal instincts? Well, when a large percentage of women do not have partners and realize the odds of getting a "good" (not your typical cad) man are not good, they have plenty of company on those "quiet" Saturday nights. They have a large enough peer group that doesn't compete (because they don't even have a chance) which says, it is OK to be patient until the right guy comes along because all the other girls are. So their standards of behavior are influenced by their female peers who are not sleeping around.</p>
<p>When the male to female ratio is relatively even, there are plenty of partners for all, so the ones on the sidelines don't have much social support and are more inclined to find a way to "fit into" the pairing up game. Often that leads to a perceived need to have a partner to fit in. Lowering the bar as far as behavior is concerned is one method to get that partner, unfortunately. And lowering that bar starts that slippery slope towards doing things that they might not otherwise do just to "fit in". An increase in "slutty" behavior is likely a part of this.</p>
<p>My $.02 on the subject.</p>
<p>Wow! Lots of great discussion! Goaliedad, you have given us a lot to think about!! These kind of philosophical talks could go on indefinitely...</p>
<p>I guess the bottom line for parents is: have an close, mutually respectful relationship with your children while they are close by, communicate often about expectations, LISTEN to them (more than talk), and then let them spread their wings in the colleges of their choice and hope for the best!</p>