Presumably those who hold the implausibly mythic view of the state as necessarily working for the good of the people are also those who claim that in order to 'defend democracy' it is necessary to deny people voting access, civil rights, citizenship, or a platform to be heard. It all feels rather too close to political themes from the 1920s recurring in the 2020s...
The point about the 'state' being a word to describe a certain class of ambitious individual speaks to every aspect of cultural dispute is indeed easy to overlook. It's also fascinating how these people use jargon to give a patina of empirical and moral authority to their interference in the private sphere. Imagine if they had called their mission something like 'promoting sustained sexual enjoyment for everyone, without associated diseases'. It just wouldn't happen.
I essentially agree with the fundamentals of the argument. Indeed as a parent some of these are my own concerns. However, in thinking pragmatically, I see some challenges. I wonder what your thoughts are:
1 - We live in societies where there is an influx of migrants each with differing cultural norms. How do we as a society maintain a level of cultural grounding if some of these shared norms are not taught to those of other backgrounds? of course this does not require UN level involvement but state involvement.
2 - Similarly, as modern parents have become used to delegating - eg single parents - more to the state, and communities are becoming more transient and atomised, making it more difficult to learn through participation, we face the same issues ... if not state then who?
3 - Unfortunately it is not all rosy in some developing nations particularly for women. Knowing this, should we will leave those children to their fate?
I share your concerns - these are extremely difficult problems. To these can be added: CSE in schools may well be a path towards more accruately identifying, and then protecting, children who are being abused.
The point I want to bring across is that there are only ever trade-offs in human life. There are strong arguments in favour of CSE, but it comes with big drawbacks, one of which is the State's growing control over children, sexuality, and indeed the sexualisation of children. What is indefensible is that, while the only way to really reconcile such trade-offs is through the political process, CSE is being imposed outside of that process, and often entirely surreptitiously.
Presumably those who hold the implausibly mythic view of the state as necessarily working for the good of the people are also those who claim that in order to 'defend democracy' it is necessary to deny people voting access, civil rights, citizenship, or a platform to be heard. It all feels rather too close to political themes from the 1920s recurring in the 2020s...
The point about the 'state' being a word to describe a certain class of ambitious individual speaks to every aspect of cultural dispute is indeed easy to overlook. It's also fascinating how these people use jargon to give a patina of empirical and moral authority to their interference in the private sphere. Imagine if they had called their mission something like 'promoting sustained sexual enjoyment for everyone, without associated diseases'. It just wouldn't happen.
I essentially agree with the fundamentals of the argument. Indeed as a parent some of these are my own concerns. However, in thinking pragmatically, I see some challenges. I wonder what your thoughts are:
1 - We live in societies where there is an influx of migrants each with differing cultural norms. How do we as a society maintain a level of cultural grounding if some of these shared norms are not taught to those of other backgrounds? of course this does not require UN level involvement but state involvement.
2 - Similarly, as modern parents have become used to delegating - eg single parents - more to the state, and communities are becoming more transient and atomised, making it more difficult to learn through participation, we face the same issues ... if not state then who?
3 - Unfortunately it is not all rosy in some developing nations particularly for women. Knowing this, should we will leave those children to their fate?
I share your concerns - these are extremely difficult problems. To these can be added: CSE in schools may well be a path towards more accruately identifying, and then protecting, children who are being abused.
The point I want to bring across is that there are only ever trade-offs in human life. There are strong arguments in favour of CSE, but it comes with big drawbacks, one of which is the State's growing control over children, sexuality, and indeed the sexualisation of children. What is indefensible is that, while the only way to really reconcile such trade-offs is through the political process, CSE is being imposed outside of that process, and often entirely surreptitiously.