Instilling Basic Character Traits Through Abstinence

Besides instilling the virtue of purity, there are other virtues which are worthy such as self-discipline, respecting others, care, and courage. Abstinence is a way to develop these virtues. Therefore, abstinence-education ought to be promoted so that people will have these basic character traits. This line of reasoning comes from developmental

psychologist Thomas Lickona.233 _{He argues that if teens become sexually active, they}

may begin to ignore other aspects of their lives. To clarify, he argues instead of devoting their time to sex, teens should make friends, join sports teams or service clubs, develop their hobbies and talents, and take civic responsibilities. If they ignore other aspects of their lives, they will stunt their personal development. In other words, they may miss out

232 _{See Terri D. Conley, Amy C. Moors, Jes L. Matsick, and Ali Ziegler. “Sexuality-Related Risks} are Judged more Harshly than Comparable Health Risks.” International Journal of Sexual Health 27, no. 4 (2015): 508-521.

233 _{Everything in this subsection is in Thomas Lickona. “Talk to Kids about Sex, Love, and} Character.” In Character Matters: How to Help Our Children Develop Good Judgment, Integrity, and

Other Essential Virtues, 83-108. New York, NY: Touchstone, 2004. (Accessed November 17, 2018.)

https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/marriage-and-family/sexuality/talk-to-kids-about-sex-love-and- character.html.

146

on experiences important for personal development which may cause them to never develop their potential. People’s individuality may be thwarted. Therefore, Lickona concludes, if teens become sexually active, they will stunt their personal growth. To prevent a stunt in their personal growth, teens need to remain abstinent: “[w]aiting until marriage to have sex is an excellent way to develop self-discipline, respect for others, caring, courage, and other important qualities of character.” Since PSE is the program that teaches to remain abstinent, PSE needs to be implemented to prevent a stunt in adolescents’ personal growth.

The quote given above is the striking feature of this argument. Not that there is anything wrong with remaining abstinent in itself, but it seems odd that abstinence itself develops any of those virtues. Indeed, it seems that one could be sexually active and have those virtues. Conversely, it also seems true that one could be abstinent and not have those virtues. Unfortunately, Lickona does not explain further what he means. To be generous, he could mean that being abstinent may help develop those character traits over time. But again, there is no necessary connection between remaining abstinent and

developing the virtues that Lickona describes. It seems that the moral harm, then, is the devaluing of marriage by allowing sex outside of marriage. But again, he needs to argue for this position.

Conclusion

I have looked at paternalism applied to sex education and found them wanting. Proponents of paternalism (the theory itself, not applied to sex education) justify intervention when:

147

1. the subject is prevented serious harm and

2. the subject is unaware of the relevant circumstances (because the subject lacks relevant information), OR

if the choices were not substantially voluntary (because the subject was coerced or heavily pressured, or because the decision-making skills were diminished). In all of these reasons, I have argued against paternalism when applied to sex education because the subject can—and needs—to be informed about sexuality and the decision- making skills need to be honed and crafted. The discourse surrounding PSE gives rise to unjustified reasons for instilling a stifling morality of shame and guilt into adolescents, which unjustly endorses heteronormativity, purity culture, and gender norms. Moreover, we need to have a transformation of our social perceptions to see young people as sexual agents and that their sexual activity is a normal part of growing up, which brings with it responsibilities to them and to others. An education must also be aware of this. Without it, young people cannot make an informed decision about sexual activities. In the next chapter, I will investigate another model—the liberal-consequentialist model—and argue that it has better features than the paternalistic model of sex education.

148

Chapter Three: The Liberal-Consequentialist Model

With the paternalistic sex education234 _{model rejected, I will now focus on models that}

are more centered on the individual. This chapter will focus on what I call the “liberal- consequentialist” model. As the name suggests, it is liberal (as opposed to paternalistic) in that the focus of the action is based on the agent’s choice rather than someone else making the choice for that agent. Moreover, liberality denotes the idea that the agent makes the choice because the choice reflects the agent’s desires, needs, and values. The model is also consequentialist in that actions are considered good if and only if there are overall good consequences from that action. Of course, we may need to further define “good” to see exactly what “good” consequences could come about. For our purposes, we can say “good” is characterized benefiting or promoting well-being, or at least does not lower well-being, for those who are affected from an action. Liberal-consequentialism does not necessarily equate utilitarianism, but is compatible with it.

Combining liberalism and consequentialism entails that the best society is where the people are educated to independently choose good actions which produce good

overall consequences for everyone affected from an action. Since these choices reflect the desires, needs, and values of people, the education does not intend to change the desires, needs, and values of people, but that their choices may need to be trained or focused so that the actions would produce the best overall consequences. They cannot just simply get the knowledge once they reach adulthood, nor should they wait until they are adults. For

234 _{Specifically, this was “thick” paternalism that I rejected, not “thin” paternalism. I went into} detail of these differences in Chapter 1, Section 1.

149

example, many times we learn as children that certain actions are wrong because it does not produce the best overall consequences for everyone involved.

In terms of sex education, the liberal-consequentialist model focuses on a comprehensive program where abstinence is a positive choice, but this model also

focuses on ways to prevent negative consequences when one engages in sexual activity as adolescents need to learn how to protect themselves from abuse, to have proper sexual relations, and to be sexually healthy including how to take preventative measures such as using birth control and avoiding risky behavior. Because the model is liberal, the shift is focused more on people’s choices—as opposed to an authoritative figure imposed choices—where one obtains information through all avenues, yet it is up to people to make their own choice based on personal preferences, stances towards pleasure and desires, readiness, engagement in the type of relationships one wants, and values. And yet, the choices should still produce overall good consequences for everyone involved.

Because of these liberal features, I will argue that the liberal-consequentialist model is a better model than the paternalistic model since the liberal-consequentialist model is more permissive than the paternalistic model. However, while the latter has a false understanding behind the purpose of sex education, the focus of the former is misguided. In section 1, I will begin with the foundation of liberal-consequentialism, which mainly comes from the work of John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty. Other philosophers could have been used, but I use Mill because I consider him a paradigmatic figure

representing liberal-consequentialism and he represents a classic representation of both liberalism and consequentialism. However, I do not fully embrace his philosophy in this chapter. I am using his ideas to show what various reasons there are to justify liberal-

150

consequentialism. In other words, section 1 is a foundational explanation of liberal- consequentialism using Mill, but liberal-consequentialism is not necessarily the Millean type. In section 2 I will apply liberal-consequentialism to sex education and the

justifications for this application from a liberal-consequentialist framework. I will also introduce various sex education curricula offered in the United States which take on a liberal-consequentialist model from states with the least negative consequences (e.g. unwanted pregnancies and STIs): New Hampshire, Vermont, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Maine, and Utah.235 _{They may have something in common to avoid negative}

consequences.

Considering the main debate is between PSE and liberal-consequentialist sex education (hereafter LCSE), the paternalist could offer some flaws to LCSE. In section 3, I will show how the liberal-consequentialist could respond to these counterclaims to strengthen LCSE and thereby dispel the potential clout of the paternalist. However, since LCSE does have many commonalities with PSE, which I will demonstrate in section 4, LCSE must also be abandoned because the latter follows the same rubric and pattern as the former such as ignoring internal aspects of people’s sexuality, and keeping the

heteronormative structures in place. Furthermore, I recommend abandoning LCSE due to additional assumptions and flaws within the model itself, which I will show in section 5. In the end, I argue in section 6 that although LCSE is better than PSE, neither model is appropriate for a holistic adolescent sex education program.

235 _{Kathryn Kost, Isaac Maddow-Zimet, and Alex Arpaia. “Pregnancies, Births and Abortions} Among Adolescents and Young Women in the United States, 2013: National and State Trends by Age, Race and Ethnicity.” Guttmacher Institute. September 07, 2017. (Accessed November 18, 2018.) https://www.guttmacher.org/report/us-adolescent-pregnancy-trends-2013.

151