I've talked about it before, but I *love* the Dutch model of sex education. The very short version - it invites kids from a very young age to understand the awesomeness that is the human body and sets high expectations for how to engage with others in community. Sex is treated with gravity, but also without shame, as an experience to be had together, between people who respect and care for each other.
I love your point, "In a world where you expect vulnerability to be treated as a target, it makes sense to begin by beating the bounds of basic respect." It highlights that something like the Dutch model for sex ed can't be just lifted up and plopped into a US school district. The Dutch model exists inside a whole ecosystem of community norms and expectations - the sex ed program is just an extension of a shared understanding of a good life and a good society.
This catch reminds me of Rebecca Shuman's 2018 review of 'Achtung Baby' a book on German parenting styles that I happened on this weekend. The article's subtitle: "This fun new book about how Germans raise their kids will break American parents’ hearts." I'm much more optimistic than Shuman; I think we can get to a place where vulnerability is respected, where we win big policy wins. But I'm also not blind to the fact it will take a *ton* of work, a complete upending of current norms, and a radical rethinking of how we relate to each other.
In our current state vulnerability isn't just a target, our very existence is predicated on being roundly exploited and dehumanized - our labor and health and attention is for someone else's profit, our built environments designed for independence, isolation and familial solitude.
When I visited Germany back in 1989, I was struck by the way adults related to kids, and in West Germany, how much kids seemed to have both freedom and safety.
I forgot I've seen a good model of sex ed... a homeschooling dad teaching his boys! The parts that I most heard about were the fact that when he started teaching one son about the biology sexuality, he made it part of a larger picture of hormonal changes. Which resulted in that son saying, "Wow. I was kind of freaked out by some of the teenage guys around here (RE their aggressiveness) and this explains a few things."
Secondly, there was also definitely a "connections-to-culture" part that included: "You know how Shakespeare contains jokes? There's a lot you weren't getting!" Which is one way of framing this new knowledge as a privilege. There was some becringed laughing, giggling, and snickering after that iirc, as there perhaps well should be.
Where have you seen a good model of sex education that goes beyond consent and negative duties?
I think the best sources come from our traditions--religious or otherwise--that lay a good foundation for sex education grounded in expressing the limitations of consent and negative duties.
Since I'm Anglican, I can think of a great sources, Jenifer Gamber, My Faith, My Life that makes reference to the purpose of sex, marriage, the Baptismal Covenent and Catechism.
What do you find most and least compelling about the “right to privacy” as a way of thinking about these questions?
The least compelling is the argument that consent obviates harmfulness. This troubling aspect of liberty and consent can entail us doing things that harm us and that we should be open to them, regardless.
The presumption is freedom against all restraints because these are private choices. But what happens when our perception of freedom buys into our worst instincts and damaging perspectives? When we consent to harmful things? When our quest for freedom means we act recklessly? The books you mention hint at that.
We open ourselves to manipulation if not abuse, when we seek freedom without questioning what that freedom means.
In an ideal world, we would recognize all of this and not presume oppressive paternalism is at play when we question the untrammelled right to privacy grounded in consent.
But I heard several years ago this is where many young women are, they want absolute freedom, because that is what matters of all, even if their freedom results in harm. So it's good that the books you mention question this perspective.
The most compelling part of a privacy argument is usually the level of state involvement in citizen's private lives that would be required to enforce a law. This argument is strongest for matters such as sodomy, contraception, and abortion. It's hard to imagine how the state could enforce such laws without truly unconscionable levels of surveillance on its citizens. With some of these issues, maybe you could come up with a workaround where providing the service is criminalized while utilizing it isn't, but this definitely doesn't work for questions of what kinds of sex you can have.
I don't really buy the privacy justification for questions of who should be allowed to marry. Secular marriage, with all its privileges, is something that is given to citizens by the state because it makes societies more stable and encourages them to flourish, and that might well mean that some potential marriages are excluded. I don't see how it flows from my freedom or privacy that my choice of partner must come with tax privileges.
Aren't secular marriages also a matter of justice? If the state gives some citizens secular marriage to the choice of their partners (unless they buy their partners or otherwise exploit them) -- then why should some citizens be denied marriage? It's important for parenting, inheritance, medical insurance, visiting a hospitalized partner or even receiving information on a partner's medical status. And more. As far as taxes go, usually there's a "marriage penalty," not a benefit.
Oh, I definitely agree that who can get married is often a matter of justice! What I'm not convinced by is the privacy justification. I'm not sure how privacy from state intrusion can be applied to whether you are allowed to participate in a state institution. It is the state's business to determine who is eligible to marry, and it's important that they choose justly. But I think it's fine that, for example, sibling marriages and polygamy are prohibited.
I've talked about it before, but I *love* the Dutch model of sex education. The very short version - it invites kids from a very young age to understand the awesomeness that is the human body and sets high expectations for how to engage with others in community. Sex is treated with gravity, but also without shame, as an experience to be had together, between people who respect and care for each other.
I love your point, "In a world where you expect vulnerability to be treated as a target, it makes sense to begin by beating the bounds of basic respect." It highlights that something like the Dutch model for sex ed can't be just lifted up and plopped into a US school district. The Dutch model exists inside a whole ecosystem of community norms and expectations - the sex ed program is just an extension of a shared understanding of a good life and a good society.
This catch reminds me of Rebecca Shuman's 2018 review of 'Achtung Baby' a book on German parenting styles that I happened on this weekend. The article's subtitle: "This fun new book about how Germans raise their kids will break American parents’ hearts." I'm much more optimistic than Shuman; I think we can get to a place where vulnerability is respected, where we win big policy wins. But I'm also not blind to the fact it will take a *ton* of work, a complete upending of current norms, and a radical rethinking of how we relate to each other.
In our current state vulnerability isn't just a target, our very existence is predicated on being roundly exploited and dehumanized - our labor and health and attention is for someone else's profit, our built environments designed for independence, isolation and familial solitude.
When I visited Germany back in 1989, I was struck by the way adults related to kids, and in West Germany, how much kids seemed to have both freedom and safety.
I forgot I've seen a good model of sex ed... a homeschooling dad teaching his boys! The parts that I most heard about were the fact that when he started teaching one son about the biology sexuality, he made it part of a larger picture of hormonal changes. Which resulted in that son saying, "Wow. I was kind of freaked out by some of the teenage guys around here (RE their aggressiveness) and this explains a few things."
Secondly, there was also definitely a "connections-to-culture" part that included: "You know how Shakespeare contains jokes? There's a lot you weren't getting!" Which is one way of framing this new knowledge as a privilege. There was some becringed laughing, giggling, and snickering after that iirc, as there perhaps well should be.
Where have you seen a good model of sex education that goes beyond consent and negative duties?
I think the best sources come from our traditions--religious or otherwise--that lay a good foundation for sex education grounded in expressing the limitations of consent and negative duties.
Since I'm Anglican, I can think of a great sources, Jenifer Gamber, My Faith, My Life that makes reference to the purpose of sex, marriage, the Baptismal Covenent and Catechism.
What do you find most and least compelling about the “right to privacy” as a way of thinking about these questions?
The least compelling is the argument that consent obviates harmfulness. This troubling aspect of liberty and consent can entail us doing things that harm us and that we should be open to them, regardless.
The presumption is freedom against all restraints because these are private choices. But what happens when our perception of freedom buys into our worst instincts and damaging perspectives? When we consent to harmful things? When our quest for freedom means we act recklessly? The books you mention hint at that.
We open ourselves to manipulation if not abuse, when we seek freedom without questioning what that freedom means.
In an ideal world, we would recognize all of this and not presume oppressive paternalism is at play when we question the untrammelled right to privacy grounded in consent.
But I heard several years ago this is where many young women are, they want absolute freedom, because that is what matters of all, even if their freedom results in harm. So it's good that the books you mention question this perspective.
The most compelling part of a privacy argument is usually the level of state involvement in citizen's private lives that would be required to enforce a law. This argument is strongest for matters such as sodomy, contraception, and abortion. It's hard to imagine how the state could enforce such laws without truly unconscionable levels of surveillance on its citizens. With some of these issues, maybe you could come up with a workaround where providing the service is criminalized while utilizing it isn't, but this definitely doesn't work for questions of what kinds of sex you can have.
I don't really buy the privacy justification for questions of who should be allowed to marry. Secular marriage, with all its privileges, is something that is given to citizens by the state because it makes societies more stable and encourages them to flourish, and that might well mean that some potential marriages are excluded. I don't see how it flows from my freedom or privacy that my choice of partner must come with tax privileges.
Aren't secular marriages also a matter of justice? If the state gives some citizens secular marriage to the choice of their partners (unless they buy their partners or otherwise exploit them) -- then why should some citizens be denied marriage? It's important for parenting, inheritance, medical insurance, visiting a hospitalized partner or even receiving information on a partner's medical status. And more. As far as taxes go, usually there's a "marriage penalty," not a benefit.
Oh, I definitely agree that who can get married is often a matter of justice! What I'm not convinced by is the privacy justification. I'm not sure how privacy from state intrusion can be applied to whether you are allowed to participate in a state institution. It is the state's business to determine who is eligible to marry, and it's important that they choose justly. But I think it's fine that, for example, sibling marriages and polygamy are prohibited.