<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Morality in sex education</title>
	<atom:link href="http://karenrayne.com/2008/02/21/morality-in-sex-education/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://karenrayne.com/2008/02/21/morality-in-sex-education/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 11:33:39 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: c4bl3fl4m3</title>
		<link>http://karenrayne.com/2008/02/21/morality-in-sex-education/comment-page-1/#comment-2313</link>
		<dc:creator>c4bl3fl4m3</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Feb 2008 22:17:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://karenrayne.com/2008/02/21/morality-in-sex-education/#comment-2313</guid>
		<description>"She went on to list the four things that are needed in a relationship to know if it’s moral:

   1. time
   2. communication
   3. trust
   4. shared values"

Whereas I agree that those 4 things are all crucial to having a good relationship, I would have to highly disagree that a relationship without shared values is "immoral". You just don't share the same values. It's not right or wrong... it just is. Sometimes people have different values in life, and that's ok. Now, will this relationship last? Probably not. But immoral is placing a value judgment on something that just is.

Also, a relationship w/o time, well, it can be painful, it's highly annoying, but I don't know about immoral. Sometimes life just gets crazy and you just don't have enough time. ESPECIALLY if it's a relationship where you don't live near each other (even as much as half an hour to an hour away can put a big crimp in your relationship), and especially if it's a relationship where there's other things that come first before you (such as if you're a secondary in a poly relationship, and your partner has other priorities ahead of you, like their primary partner and/or work).

Other than that, I really, REALLY like the criteria. I also like how 2 is non-exploitative instead of "doesn't have the possibility to be exploited". I've been in relationships with older men, ones that they possibly could have exploited that. But they didn't. There was trust, honesty, and consent all around. I'm tired of the world portraying relationships where their could be someone getting exploited as relationships where you WILL get exploited.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;She went on to list the four things that are needed in a relationship to know if it’s moral:</p>
<p>   1. time<br />
   2. communication<br />
   3. trust<br />
   4. shared values&#8221;</p>
<p>Whereas I agree that those 4 things are all crucial to having a good relationship, I would have to highly disagree that a relationship without shared values is &#8220;immoral&#8221;. You just don&#8217;t share the same values. It&#8217;s not right or wrong&#8230; it just is. Sometimes people have different values in life, and that&#8217;s ok. Now, will this relationship last? Probably not. But immoral is placing a value judgment on something that just is.</p>
<p>Also, a relationship w/o time, well, it can be painful, it&#8217;s highly annoying, but I don&#8217;t know about immoral. Sometimes life just gets crazy and you just don&#8217;t have enough time. ESPECIALLY if it&#8217;s a relationship where you don&#8217;t live near each other (even as much as half an hour to an hour away can put a big crimp in your relationship), and especially if it&#8217;s a relationship where there&#8217;s other things that come first before you (such as if you&#8217;re a secondary in a poly relationship, and your partner has other priorities ahead of you, like their primary partner and/or work).</p>
<p>Other than that, I really, REALLY like the criteria. I also like how 2 is non-exploitative instead of &#8220;doesn&#8217;t have the possibility to be exploited&#8221;. I&#8217;ve been in relationships with older men, ones that they possibly could have exploited that. But they didn&#8217;t. There was trust, honesty, and consent all around. I&#8217;m tired of the world portraying relationships where their could be someone getting exploited as relationships where you WILL get exploited.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Barb</title>
		<link>http://karenrayne.com/2008/02/21/morality-in-sex-education/comment-page-1/#comment-2312</link>
		<dc:creator>Barb</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Feb 2008 13:38:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://karenrayne.com/2008/02/21/morality-in-sex-education/#comment-2312</guid>
		<description>Amen, as usual I agree.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Amen, as usual I agree.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mrs. Y</title>
		<link>http://karenrayne.com/2008/02/21/morality-in-sex-education/comment-page-1/#comment-2309</link>
		<dc:creator>Mrs. Y</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Feb 2008 16:23:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://karenrayne.com/2008/02/21/morality-in-sex-education/#comment-2309</guid>
		<description>Excellent!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Excellent!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
