EXPLAINING THE POISON

Yes, Sam, I’m happy to explain why I asked the question I asked in the below post. It started about a week ago when my wife came home after a “mom’s night out” at my stepdaughter’s school. My wife started talking about how all the other moms were dealing with questions their kids (mostly first-graders) had about sex, and we both were a little taken aback at how casual sexual attitudes had become. I mean, I’m in my early thirties, so it’s not like I belong to a bygone era, but since when do first graders know bubkis about sex?

No, I am not naive–I am aware that sex play is a part of childhood for many kids. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that the parents of my stepdaughter’s classmates are roughly my age. We grew up in the “just say no” era when we were taught that smoking will kill you (faster than you would die otherwise, at least) and drugs were dangerous–so we all drank instead, and the truly rebellious engaged in unusual levels of sexual experimentation.

Within 7-8 years of our graduation, alcohol was a bit more under control and the presence of uniformed police in many schools put the kibosh on drugs–so the kids started having lots of sex, prompting the “virginity pledge” movement. Now sex is (slightly) more under control–but the kids are starting to get violent.

So it just seems to me like all we’ve done is trade one form of socially-inacceptable rebellion for another, and I started to think that maybe, back in the day, we’d have been better off if we would have just let kids smoke. Tobacco doesn’t affect your ability to drive, it doesn’t lower your inhibitions, yada yada yada. And I just wondered if I was way off base in my thinking, so I thought I’d pose the question.

Anyway, it was an interesting discussion. And I’m with Bryan : the way some of you qualified your sex advocacy, I feel like I should be able to suggest the use of a special non-addictive tobacco which could be delivered in a fashion that didn’t have any adverse health effects at all.