Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Pure in heart abstinence only education

12467…10

Comments

  • #152
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    Do you know what is a hell of a lot less effective than contraception catallus [sic]? Abstinence only education, because those "educated" by this means are no less likely to have sex (and at the same age) but are far less likely to either use contraception when having sex, or know the consequences of having sex.
    Not true ... people who take Abstinence Pledges do delay sexual activity ... and when they do start to have sex they are more likely to do so to get pregnant because they are in mature stable safe relationships that don't require constant STD testing.

    Quote:-
    For example, a longitudinal examination of the virginity pledge movement showed that pledgers did delay initiation of sexual intercourse; however, they were less likely to use contraception when they initiated sexual activity and were less likely to seek STI screenings.24


    ... and Abstinence has been independently credited with accounting for 25% of the decline in teen pregnancies in America over the past 10 years ... and if Abstinence Pledges were more widespread (and the pseudo-liberals weren't so obsessed with using pills and condoms) ... and treating under-age children like sexually feral animals, that have to be chemically 'spayed' ... further progress would undoubtedly have been made in reducing the horriffic levels of STDs out there amongst our teenagers.

    Quote Wikipedia:-
    In 2010, the teenage birth rate in the United States reached a historic low: 34.3 births per 1,000 women aged 15–19.[16] More than three-quarters of these births are to adult women aged 18 or 19.[16] In 2005 in the U.S., the majority (57%) of teen pregnancies resulted in a live birth, 27% ended in an induced abortion, and 16% in a fetal loss. [17]

    The U.S. teen birth rate was 53 births per 1,000 women aged 15–19 in 2002,[5] the highest in the developed world.[8] If all pregnancies, including those that end in abortion or miscarriage, are taken into account, the total rate in 2000 was 75.4 pregnancies per 1,000 girls. Nevada and the District of Columbia have the highest teen pregnancy rates in the U.S., while North Dakota has the lowest.[18] Over 80% of teenage pregnancies in the U.S. are unintended;[19] approximately one third end in abortion, one third end in spontaneous miscarriage, and one third will continue their pregnancy and keep their baby.[20]

    However, the trend is decreasing: in 1990, the birth rate was 61.8, and the pregnancy rate 116.9 per thousand. This decline has manifested across all racial groups, although teenagers of African-American and Hispanic descent retain a higher rate, in comparison to that of European-Americans and Asian-Americans. The Guttmacher Institute attributed about 25% of the decline to abstinence and 75% to the effective use of contraceptives.[18]
    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    If you seriously want to see more teens having children, I hope you're willing to go out and adopt the children of parents unable to take care of them, because it is the likes of you and JC who are causing the problem, catallus [sic].
    I don't want any child becoming pregnant or getting an STD ... and the pseudo-liberal approach is resulting in both exploding teen pregnancies and STDs.
    ... and you guys have the audacity to blame the people who abstain from sex outside of a monogamous relationship (and encourage others to also do so) for causing the explosion in teen pregnancy and STDs!!!
    ... this has just about the same 'logic' as blaming the road safety authorities messages on safe behaviour on our roads for being the cause of road accidents!!!

    It is the 'pill in one hand and the condom in the other' mentality that is 'licencing' the current disasterous waves of promiscuity. Like I have said, contraception has a definite role to play within a mature monagamous relationship ... but it is distinctly inappropriate and downright dangerous as the sole means of changing the irresponsible sexual behaviour of a minority of teenagers many of whom are under-age!!

    Abstinence Pledges treat our children as thinking, morally-sensitive Human Beings, while the 'contracepting mentality' treats them as feral animals unable to control their lusts to the point of pressurising each other into unwise and illegal sex ... and therefore requiring chemical sterilisation backed up by condoms ... none of which are effective in preventing the transmission of several types of STD ... and both of which have failure rates that undoubtedly are making a significant contribution to the explosion in teen pregnancy and STDs.
    ... and do you know what? ... many of the children behave, just like their parents expect them to behave ... and how they are taught to behave in their respective school systems!!!


  • #153
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    J C wrote: »
    Abstinence Pledges treat our children as thinking, morally-sensitive Human Beings, while the contracepting mentality treats them as feral animals unable to control their lusts to the point of pressurising each other into unwise and illegal sex ... and therefore requiring chemical sterilisation backed up by condoms ... none of which are effective in preventing the transmission of several types of STD ... and both of which have failure rates that undoubtedly are making a significant contribution to the explosion in teen pregnancy and STDs.
    ... and do you know what? ... the children of both sets of parents behave, just like their parents expect them to behave ... and how they are taught to behave in their respective school systems!!!

    "chemical sterilisation"............?

    I've shown earlier that the Scandanavian approach works. Yet here you are trotting out this cack again, and trying to conflate abstinence pledges with abstinence only education at the same time.


  • #154
    catallus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭catallus


    robindch wrote: »
    I'm not sure if you're aware of how polite debate works on the internet, or at least, how it works here in A+A.

    For the avoidance of doubt, if a poster makes some claim of fact, then he or she may be asked to justify the claim and that's what Nodin has done here. But instead of answering the question and justifying the claim in good faith, you've reacted aggressively and failed to justify anything. In the cases like this, where a poster who's made a claim has failed to justify it, and especially where continued requests to justify it are met with continued aggression and misdirection, people are free to conclude that the poster in fact can't justify it, and that the claim of fact therefore lapses.

    That's what's happened here. And while you're still free, of course, to justify your claim, at this point, it's looking unlikely that you will.Indeed, they are. You're not doing much for your credibility, or for the credibility of your point of view, by telling the forum that instead of answering a fair question, you're packing your bags and running away.

    I am only too aware of how "debate" pans out here; I justified myself more than once.
    Nodin wrote: »
    "chemical sterilisation"............?

    I've shown earlier that the Scandanavian approach works. Yet here you are trotting out this cack again, and trying to conflate abstinence pledges with abstinence only education at the same time.

    For who, Nodin? Doctors? Really, you need to take your head out of the sand and just face up to the fact that there are other legitimate ways of guiding people.


  • #155
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    catallus wrote: »
    I am only too aware of how "debate" pans out here; I justified myself more than once. .

    Much like the way you backed up your claim, it seems. In a way that's invisible to all but yourself.

    catallus wrote: »
    For who, Nodin? Doctors? Really, you need to take your head out of the sand and just face up to the fact that there are other legitimate ways of guiding people.

    I'm only aware of one that produces low teenage pregnancy rates and a healthy attitude to sex.


  • #156
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Nodin wrote: »
    I'm only aware of one that produces low teenage pregnancy rates and a healthy attitude to sex.
    What do you mean by a 'healthy attitude to sex' for an under-age child?


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    J C wrote: »
    What do you mean by a 'healthy attitude to sex' for an under-age child?


    ...the thing is, they don't stay children, but what is instilled in them at that age can be very formative.

    Don't try the old 'under age sex' lark, by the way. I'm not going to bite.

    Now- "chemical sterilisation"....what does this refer to, if you'd be as good....


  • #158
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    catallus wrote: »
    Brian, I'm trying to talk here in a serious manner. Seriously.

    Well then, instead of replying to me with two word dismissals engage in the topic. I made a statement of fact, that absitinence only "education" was more likely to cause unwanted pregnancies than the use of contraceptives, a well evidenced fact. If you had engaged in the debate you'd have known this, because you'd have read up on the evidence quite a few people posting in this thread have provided and realised that the position you held (i.e. that abstinence only was worth something as regards sexual education) was baseless, and actively harmful to the health of teens.

    Do you see why I get annoyed by the likes of you? You make baseless statements, dismiss the opposition without engagement, and then when you are called on it you go on a hissy fit, accusing your opponents of what you yourself are doing.

    The facts are laid out, the argument is clear. Either try to debate it properly or don't bother replying in this thread.


  • #159
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Nodin wrote: »
    ...the thing is, they don't stay children, but what is instilled in them at that age can be very formative.
    I agree that children don't stay children forever ... and safe (or indeed dangerous) habits can be formed and stay with them for life ... and that is another good reason for Abstinence Pledges ... and why they can have life-long benefits in terms of health and safety ... long after the Abstinence Pledge has served its purpose and they are happily married and raising their own family.
    Nodin wrote: »
    Don't try the old 'under age sex' lark, by the way. I'm not going to bite.
    We are largely talking about under-age children here ... when we are talking about Abstinence Pledges ... and tragically, these are also the most likely age group to be peer-pressured into inappropriate and unsafe sex - and all you guys seem to be offfering them is a packet of condoms and a prescription for the pill !!!
    ... and while they still are children, we should be instilling behaviours (and creating a peer environment) that will help to protect them from sexual predators of all ages, including predators within their own age group!!!
    Nodin wrote: »
    Now- "chemical sterilisation"....what does this refer to, if you'd be as good....
    It refers to either short-term or longer term chemically induced infertility ... which is distinctly inappropriate for under-age girls as it doesn't protect against STDs, can lead to fertility difficulties in later life, when they may want to have a baby ... and encourages peer-pressure to engage in illegal and seriously damaging sexual behaviour.


  • #160
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    You are so disingenuous it hurts sometimes.


  • #161
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    J C wrote: »
    I agree that (.........)and a prescription for the pill !!!
    .

    The title of the thread is "Pure in heart abstinence only education". If you want to start a thread about Pledges, feel free.
    J C wrote: »
    ... and while they still are children, we should be instilling behaviours (and creating a peer environment) that will help to protect them from sexual predators of all ages, including predators within their own age group!!!.

    Do please explain.
    J C wrote: »
    It refers to either short-term or longer term chemically induced infertility ...
    .

    The pill. The pill is not "chemical sterilisation" and to present it in such terms is ignorant scaremongering at its worst. Totally in keeping with your general tone, however.


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    kylith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    J C wrote: »
    It refers to either short-term or longer term chemically induced infertility ... which is distinctly inappropriate for under-age girls as it doesn't protect against STDs, can lead to fertility difficulties in later life, when they may want to have a baby ... and it encourages peer-pressure to engage in illegal and seriously damaging sexual behaviour.

    No, it doesn't. Chemical castration refers to administering medication to remove sexual desire, or to render one incapable of sexual intercourse.


  • #163
    swampgas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,579 ✭✭✭swampgas


    What's disingenuous about the "abstinence" proponents is that they hide their religious motivations. They pretend that they are advocating abstinence for health reasons, this is not their primary reason for doing so.

    For many religious (esp. Christian) people, sex is a moral issue. Unmarried people having sex is wrong. Contraception may be wrong. However, lurking in the background is abortion. A contraceptive failure may well lead to an abortion, which is (to many Christians) the ultimate evil.

    Abstinence is the only solution that satisfies their moral agenda.

    However rather than come straight out and say "don't have sex, because my religion says so", they hide behind health issues instead.


  • #164
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Nodin wrote: »
    The title of the thread is "Pure in heart abstinence only education". If you want to start a thread about Pledges, feel free.
    Abstinence Pledges are the Born Again Christian equivalent of the Roman Catholic 'Pure in Heart' programme. Christians may differ on some of the details, but they support the general principles behind both programmes. The benefits of both types of programme can therefore be profitably discussed on this thread ... unless you guys are sectarian as well as Atheists.
    Nodin wrote: »
    Do please explain.
    Sexual predators are to be found in all age groups after puberty ... and under-age children are most likely nowadays to be a victim of a sexual predator within their own age group.
    Nodin wrote: »
    The pill. The pill is not "chemical sterilisation" and to present it in such terms is ignorant scaremongering at its worst. Totally in keeping with your general tone, however.
    The pill and implants provide temporary chemically-induced sterility. This is a fact.
    Low-dose pills operate on the very edge of sterility ... and forgetting to take just one pill at the wrong time of the month or even an upset stomach can restore fertility ... with an unwanted pregnancy, very often the result!!!

    You may be confusing chemical sterilisation with chemical castration which, as Kylith has helpfully pointed out, is the administeration of medication to remove sexual desire, or to render one incapable of sexual intercourse.


  • #165
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    J C wrote: »
    Abstinence Pledges are the Born Again Christian equivalent of the Roman Catholic 'Pure in Heart' programme. Christians may differ on some of the details, but they support the general principles behind both programmes. The benefits of both types of programme can therefore be profitably discussed on this thread ... unless you guys are sectarian as well as Atheists..

    It has nothing to do with sex education.
    J C wrote: »
    Sexual predators are to be found in all age groups after puberty ... and under-age children are most likely nowadays to be a victim of a sexual predator within their own age group...

    A 15 year old wanting sex with a 15 year old is not a sexual predator.

    J C wrote: »
    The pill and implants provide temporary chemically-induced sterility. This is a fact.
    Low-dose pills operate on the very edge of sterility ... and forgetting to take just one pill at the wrong time of the month or even an upset stomach can restore fertility ... with an unwanted pregnancy, very often the result!!!

    You may be confusing chemical sterilisation with chemical castration which, as Kylith has helpfully pointed out, is the administeration of medication to remove sexual desire, or to render one incapable of sexual intercourse.


    I'm not confusing anything. I'm saying that your characterisation of the pill is ignorant hysterical scaremongering nonsense and yet another example of why anyone who shares your mentality should have no input into any sex education policy.


  • #166
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sarky wrote: »
    You are so disingenuous it hurts sometimes.
    The real disingenuity is to supposedly try to reduce under-age sex by providing the means, the opportunity and the encouragement along with the highest possible peer group pressure to engage in under-age sex ... to our teenagers!!!

    ... and then claiming that anybody, who points out the inherent flaws in such an a approach, is causing the teen pregnancy and STD explosion.:eek:


  • #167
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    J C wrote: »
    The real disingenuity is to supposedly try to reduce under-age sex by providing the means, the opportunity and the encouragement along with the highest possible peer group pressure to engage in under-age sex ... to our teenagers!!!

    ... and then claiming that anybody, who points out the inherent flaws in such an a approach, is causing the teen pregnancy and STD explosion.:eek:

    It's been shown that explicit sex education works. Your notion doesn't. It's really that simple.


  • #168
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    swampgas wrote: »
    What's disingenuous about the "abstinence" proponents is that they hide their religious motivations. They pretend that they are advocating abstinence for health reasons, this is not their primary reason for doing so.

    For many religious (esp. Christian) people, sex is a moral issue. Unmarried people having sex is wrong. Contraception may be wrong. However, lurking in the background is abortion. A contraceptive failure may well lead to an abortion, which is (to many Christians) the ultimate evil.

    Abstinence is the only solution that satisfies their moral agenda.

    However rather than come straight out and say "don't have sex, because my religion says so", they hide behind health issues instead.
    The immoral agenda of the 'pseudo-liberal' is certainly a factor in their so-called 'sexual health' programmes which are overtly designed to facilitate promiscuity.
    Because they see no issue with living sexually-immoral lives themselves, they see no problem with everybody else behaving promiscuously ... apparently, including under-age children who should not be engaging in sex, in the first place!!

    Abstinence has both health and moral benefits ... and these benefits are significant for all under-age children, irrespective of whether monogamy is practiced by their parents or not.


  • #169
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Nodin wrote: »
    It's been shown that explicit sex education works. Your notion doesn't. It's really that simple.
    It all depends on what you mean by 'explicit' and 'works'.
    If by 'works' you mean 100,000 UK teen pregnancies per year and one in five of them with Chlamydia, then I wouldn't like to know what you would define as 'failure'!!

    If by 'explicit' you mean providing comprehensive sex information, including the serious disadvantages of each method of contraception, as well as any benefits ... and the moral, psycho-sexual and serious health downsides of promiscuity, then I'm all for it.
    If it is just a 'how to do it - and don't get caught' type of amoral sex promotion programme, then it will certainly do more harm than good in reducing harmful sexual practices amongst our teenagers.


  • #170
    swampgas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,579 ✭✭✭swampgas


    J C wrote: »
    The immoral agenda of the 'pseudo-liberal' is certainly a factor in their so-called 'sexual health' programmes which are overtly designed to facilitate promiscuity.
    Because they see no issue with living sexually-immoral lives themselves, they see no problem with everybody else behaving promiscuously ... apparently, including under-age children who should not be engaging in sex, in the first place!!

    Abstinence has both health and moral benefits ... and these benefits are significant for all under-age children, irrespective of whether monogamy is practiced by their parents or not.

    The problem is that moralistic preachiness should not be mixed with sexual health education. If you want to tell kids and young adults that having sex is morally wrong do it from the pulpit, not in a health education program.

    Your use of the terms "sexually immoral" and "promiscuous" shows that you are viewing this in what many would consider to be an old-fashioned moral perspective. Young people today will make up their own minds about what is right and wrong, and they will have sex, whether you like it or not. You simply cannot expect to be able to force them to share your morals when it comes to sexual behaviour.

    We have an obligation to give young people the information they need to inform their decisions, without trying to force those decisions to conform to a specific religious moral viewpoint.


  • #171
    Sulla Felix
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,442 ✭✭✭Sulla Felix


    J C wrote: »
    If by 'works' you mean 100,000 UK teen pregnancies per year and one in five of them with Chlamydia, then I wouldn't like to know what you would define as 'failure'!!
    You know, you do have some valid points, but the obfuscation and contextomy you engage in does much to muddy them and alienate the other posters here.

    So, context for the figures:
    Teenage mothers, per capita, are at the lowest number in the UK since the 50s.

    I'd call that a success.


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    swampgas wrote: »
    The problem is that moralistic preachiness should not be mixed with sexual health education. If you want to tell kids and young adults that having sex is morally wrong do it from the pulpit, not in a health education program.
    Moral 'preachiness' works in reducing dangerous driving and tax evasion ... and it can equally reduce dangerous sexual behaviour amongst our teens as well !!!
    swampgas wrote: »
    Your use of the terms "sexually immoral" and "promiscuous" shows that you are viewing this in what many would consider to be an old-fashioned moral perspective. Young people today will make up their own minds about what is right and wrong, and they will have sex, whether you like it or not. You simply cannot expect to be able to force them to share your morals when it comes to sexual behaviour.
    I am not forcing them to do anything ... I am appealing to their logical minds and pointing out the (moral and health) downsides of dangerous sexual behaviour. They will have to live with the consequences of irresponsible driving and sexual behaviour ... why should they only be warned of the downsides of dangerous and morally iresponsible driving behaviour?
    swampgas wrote: »
    We have an obligation to give young people the information they need to inform their decisions, without trying to force those decisions to conform to a specific religious moral viewpoint.
    We must give them all of the information required to many fully informed decisions in relation to sex ... and that includes full disclosure of information on the downsides of dangerous sexual behaviour.


  • #173
    swampgas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,579 ✭✭✭swampgas


    J C wrote: »
    Moral 'preachiness' works in reducing dangerous driving and tax evasion ... and it can equally reduce dangerous sexual behaviour amongst our teens as well !!!
    In a sense this is partly true, however tax evasion and dangerous driving are considered as "bad things" by most people, regardless of religious persuasion. When it comes to sex, this is not the case.
    I am not forcing them to do anything ... I am appealing to their logical minds and pointing out the (moral and health) downsides of dangerous sexual behaviour. They will have to live with the consequences of irresponsible driving and sexual behaviour ... why should they only be warned of the downsides of dangerous and morally iresponsible driving behaviour?

    We must give them all of the information required to many fully informed decisions in relation to sex ... and that includes full disclosure of information on the downsides of dangerous sexual behaviour.

    I agree that the risks associated with sex should be explained, but with a view to young adults learning how to evaluate those risks, and how to minimise their exposure to them.

    I disagree with the use of exaggered and hyped descriptions of the risks as a sneaky way of scaring young people off having sex. For one thing, it's dishonest, and worse, by over-stressing the risks it can lead to a lack of trust by young people in the information being provided. Young people can smell a moralistic undertone a mile off, and that may lead them to discount genuine risks as "ah, they only say that so you'll be afraid to have sex".


  • #174
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    J C wrote: »
    It all depends on (...........)teenagers.

    We've been over this before

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88154856&postcount=73

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88154764&postcount=69


  • #175
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sulla Felix wrote: »
    You know, you do have some valid points, but the obfuscation and contextomy you engage in does much to muddy them and alienate the other posters here.

    So, context for the figures:
    Teenage mothers, per capita, are at the lowest number in the UK since the 50s.

    I'd call that a success.
    Under-age pregnacies and abortions are soaring ... I'd call that a very serious failure!!
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/4839713/Teenage-abortions-hit-record-as-under-16-pregnancy-rate-soars.html


  • #176
    swampgas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,579 ✭✭✭swampgas


    J C wrote: »
    Under-age pregnacies and abortions are soaring ... I'd call that a very serious failure!!
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/4839713/Teenage-abortions-hit-record-as-under-16-pregnancy-rate-soars.html

    From the article:
    The number of under 16s getting pregnant leapt by 6.4 per cent, the figures from the Office for National Statistics show.
    Meanwhile the overall rate for all girls under 18 rose for the first time since 2002.

    An increase of 6.4% isn't exactly "soaring", in my view anyway.

    Also note that there hasn't been an increase since 2002, which would suggest that for over ten years the approach taken has been effective.


  • #177
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    swampgas wrote: »
    In a sense this is partly true, however tax evasion and dangerous driving are considered as "bad things" by most people, regardless of religious persuasion. When it comes to sex, this is not the case.
    We are talking about under-age sex and promiscuous behaviour (and very often a combination of the two) ... so are you saying that Atheists are so immoral that they wish to promote and see nothing wrong with under-age sex and promiscuity?

    This is perhaps the 'kernal' of the issue ... you guys seem to believe that under-age and/or promiscuous sex is OK ... but Christians don't ... another good reason to retain Christian-run schools for our children ... and let you guys 'experiment' with your childrens futures, if that is what ye wish to do.
    swampgas wrote: »
    I agree that the risks associated with sex should be explained, but with a view to young adults learning how to evaluate those risks, and how to minimise their exposure to them.
    We can both agree on that.
    swampgas wrote: »
    I disagree with the use of exaggered and hyped descriptions of the risks as a sneaky way of scaring young people off having sex. For one thing, it's dishonest, and worse, by over-stressing the risks it can lead to a lack of trust by young people in the information being provided. Young people can smell a moralistic undertone a mile off, and that may lead them to discount genuine risks as "ah, they only say that so you'll be afraid to have sex".
    ... just like they show graphic images of the results of dangerous driving and moralise about the risks to other road users and yourself ... 'because they want you to be afraid of driving'!!!:eek:
    Come on guys, you can do better than this!!!


    Please give young people some credit ... they are morally responsible and intelligent people who should be provided with all of the information on sex ... and not just the information to 'sell' promiscuity and contraception as the supposed 'norm' for under-age children, who shouldn't be engaging in sex (promiscuous or otherwise) in the first place.


  • #178
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    J C wrote: »
    We are talking about under-age sex and promiscuous behaviour (and very often a combination of the two) ... so are you saying that Atheists are so immoral that they wish to promote and see nothing wrong with under-age sex and promiscuity?
    .........

    The old 'why do you want under age sex' line again? Dear o dear....


  • #179
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    swampgas wrote: »
    From the article:


    An increase of 6.4% isn't exactly "soaring", in my view anyway.

    Also note that there hasn't been an increase since 2002, which would suggest that for over ten years the approach taken has been effective.
    On the back of an already very high figure it certainly is going in the wrong direction ... despite more condoms and pills being made ever more freely available as the supposed only 'solution' !!

    ... and yet ye see no link!!!!

    There are none so blind as s/he who will not see!!!


  • #180
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Nodin wrote: »
    The old 'why do you want under age sex' line again? Dear o dear....
    So what exactly are your views on under-age sex and promiscuity ... if you wish to reduce/prevent it, how do you suggest that this be achieved?


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    Sulla Felix
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,442 ✭✭✭Sulla Felix


    J C wrote: »
    Under-age pregnacies and abortions are soaring ... I'd call that a very serious failure!!
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/4839713/Teenage-abortions-hit-record-as-under-16-pregnancy-rate-soars.html
    In areas where government policy isn't being fully or properly implemented. In every area in which it has been, numbers are falling. That's from your very own link.
    Again, your constant painting of this nuanced and subtle issue in only the starkest black and white does nothing for your cause.


  • #182
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    J C wrote: »
    So what exactly are your views on under-age sex and how to reduce/prevent it?

    The legal age for most of Europe is 15. Education would be the way forward there.


  • #183
    swampgas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,579 ✭✭✭swampgas


    J C wrote: »
    We are talking about under-age sex and promiscuous behaviour (and very often a combination of the two) ... so are you saying that Atheists are so immoral that they wish to promote and see nothing wrong with under-age sex and promiscuity?
    I'm saying that taking a religiously motivated moralistic approach can be prudish and puritanical, and untimately self-defeating. Sex in itself is a normal human activity, it is not inherently moral or immoral. I certainly don't think young people should rush into having sex, but I think encouraging them to take abstinence pledges is ridiculous.
    This is perhaps the 'kernel' of the issue ... you guys seem to believe that under-age and/or promiscuous sex is OK ... but Christians don't ... another good reason to retain Christian-run schools for our children ... and let you guys 'experiment' with your childrens futures, if that is what ye wish to do.

    This is a bit like saying that without Christian morals there are no morals at all. All parents want their children to grow up in a healthy way. Unfortunately Christian parents can get all hung up on sex simply being wrong, wrong wrong except within marriage, and this can affect their perspective. A non-religious parent may not be affected by the same puritanical values but will still be concerned for the well-being of their child.
    We can both agree on that.

    ... just like they only show graphic images of the results of dangerous driving ... 'because they want you to be afraid of driving'!!!:eek:
    Come on guys, you can do better than this!!!

    Except we don't discourage young people from driving, we encourage them to drive safely. The correct analogy with sex education would be to encourage young people to only have sex when they are truly ready for it, and then to have sex responsibly, rather than discourage them from any sex whatsoever.
    Please give young people some credit ... they are morally responsible and intelligent people who should be provided with all of the information on sex ... and not just the information to 'sell' promiscuity and contraception as the supposed 'norm' for under-age children, who shouldn't be engaging in sex (promiscuous or otherwise) in the first place.

    I don't see how providing information about contraception is selling promiscuity.

    The problem is that telling young people that "they shouldn't be having sex in the first place" doesn't stop them having it. And trying to push a religiously inspired moral message about sex is not going to stop them either.


  • #184
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Sulla Felix wrote: »
    In areas where government policy isn't being fully or properly implemented. In every area in which it has been, numbers are falling. That's from your very own link.
    Again, your constant painting of this nuanced and subtle issue in only the starkest black and white does nothing for your cause.

    Oh, is J C posting links that show the opposite of what he says they do again?

    I don't recall the bible mentioning anything about extenuating circumstances for bearing false witness. Maybe J C's bible is different from all the rest? Maybe a variation on the adultery-endorsing Wicked Bible?


  • #185
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    swampgas wrote: »
    The problem is that moralistic preachiness should not be mixed with sexual health education.

    The problem is such preachiness being associated with any sort of teaching. At the very best it is boring and the scholars don't make an effort to learn.


  • #186
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Nodin wrote: »
    The legal age for most of Europe is 15. Education would be the way forward there.
    Quote:-
    The age of consent is 13 in Spain. It's 14 in Bulgaria, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Liechtenstein, Montenegro, San Marino and Serbia. It's 15 in the Czech Republic, Denmark, the Faroe Islands, France, Greece, Iceland, Monaco, Poland, Romania, Slovenia and Sweden. It's 16 in Andorra, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Finland, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Moldova, the Netherlands, Norway, Russia, Switzerland, Ukraine and the UK. It's 17 in Ireland and 18 in Malta and Turkey.

    The age of consent varies considerably throughout Europe.

    Education is indeed the way forward ... but the 'education' needs to be much more than a pseudo liberal guide to 'doing it' with a packet of condoms and a prescription for the pill thrown in for good measure!!!


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    J C wrote: »


    Education is indeed the way forward ... but the 'education' needs to be much more than a pseudo liberal guide to 'doing it' with a packet of condoms and a prescription for the pill thrown in for good measure!!!


    There is rather more to it than that, so I presume you're just throwing that up to get the last word in.....


  • #188
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,510 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    J C wrote: »
    Quote:-
    The age of consent is 13 in Spain. It's 14 in Bulgaria, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Liechtenstein, Montenegro, San Marino and Serbia. It's 15 in the Czech Republic, Denmark, the Faroe Islands, France, Greece, Iceland, Monaco, Poland, Romania, Slovenia and Sweden. It's 16 in Andorra, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Finland, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Moldova, the Netherlands, Norway, Russia, Switzerland, Ukraine and the UK. It's 17 in Ireland and 18 in Malta and Turkey.

    The age of consent varies considerably throughout Europe.

    Education is indeed the way forward ... but the 'education' needs to be much more than a pseudo liberal guide to 'doing it' with a packet of condoms and a prescription for the pill thrown in for good measure!!!

    Yeah, indeed it does vary.

    It was 12 in Vatican City until summer of 2013, given Mary was likely 13 when she was married and fell pregnant I suppose this was fitting.


  • #189
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    swampgas wrote: »
    I'm saying that taking a religiously motivated moralistic approach can be prudish and puritanical, and untimately self-defeating. Sex in itself is a normal human activity, it is not inherently moral or immoral. I certainly don't think young people should rush into having sex, but I think encouraging them to take abstinence pledges is ridiculous.
    Just like driving, sex itself is neither moral or immoral ... but the behaviours assocated with sex and driving can indeed be moral and considerate of others ... or immoral and downright inconsiderate to the point of rape and manslaughter respectively.
    swampgas wrote: »
    This is a bit like saying that without Christian morals there are no morals at all. All parents want their children to grow up in a healthy way.
    I don't hold to the belief that sexual morality is exclusive to Christians ... but I keep having to review this belief when I come onto threads like this and very little or no sexual morailty is proffered by any of the posters ... indeed the reverse is true ... people proposing the benefits of leading sexually-moral lives are scoffed at and laughed at!!!
    swampgas wrote: »
    Unfortunately Christian parents can get all hung up on sex simply being wrong, wrong wrong except within marriage, and this can affect their perspective. A non-religious parent may not be affected by the same puritanical values but will still be concerned for the well-being of their child.
    The objectively correct and safe place to engage in sex is within in a committed, loving, adult, monagamous relationship.
    For Christians this means marriage before God ... and in so far as anybody strays from these principles, problems arise ... in terms of unwanted pregnancies, STDs, various forms of abuse and psychosexual issues.

    swampgas wrote: »
    Except we don't discourage young people from driving, we encourage them to drive safely.
    Only when they have reached the relevant age ... and even then they are closely monitored until they prove that they can drive safely. We don't allow, never mind encourage bus driving until 24 years old.

    ... and we actively discourage (to the point of criminalising) under-age driving ... and the current minimum age to legally ride a full powered motorcyle for the first time is 24 years old !!!
    ... and nobody is suggesting such a minimum age, when it comes to first time sex!!!:eek:
    swampgas wrote: »
    The correct analogy with sex education would be to encourage young people to only have sex when they are truly ready for it, and then to have sex responsibly, rather than discourage them from any sex whatsoever.
    Nobody is discouraging people from having sex ... it is a great gift and blessing from God for adult people in secure faithful relationships ... and a major disaster and curse when engaged in by under-aged children and promiscuously at any age.
    swampgas wrote: »
    I don't see how providing information about contraception is selling promiscuity.
    If contraception is being promoted as some kind of 'magic bullet' to under-age children and people behaving promiscuously, it can lead to a false sense of security from both an STD and pregnancy point of view.
    Providing condoms in a pub toilet is the equivalent of leaving the keys to a car pool there !!!
    Everyone can see how crazy such an encouragement to drive when drunk would be ... but apparently, people (many already carrying an STD) will perform much better at using condoms than driving cars while, legless drunk!!!
    ... even though the unwanted pregnancies and STD rates says otherwise!!

    swampgas wrote: »
    The problem is that telling young people that "they shouldn't be having sex in the first place" doesn't stop them having it. And trying to push a religiously inspired moral message about sex is not going to stop them either.
    We tell them they shouldn't drive below a certain age and only under strict supervison above it. We tell them that they must drive responsibly (and provide explicit and wide-ranging details of exactly what 'driving responsibly' means) ... and you are saying that none of this applies to sex ... because they are just going to 'do it anyway'.
    Why do you guys have such a 'counsel of despair' when it come to sex ... but are prepared to be both prescriptive and judgemental when it comes to driving ... when both driving and sex can have far-reaching and serious consequences for both the person themselves and other people affected by their behaviour???


  • #190
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    J C wrote: »

    The objectively correct and safe place to engage in sex is within in a committed, loving, adult, monagamous relationship.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vZKEyCfZe8


  • #191
    gaynorvader
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,630 ✭✭✭gaynorvader


    J C wrote: »
    {...}

    Only when they have reached the relevant age ... and even then they are closely monitored until they prove that they can drive safely. We don't allow, never mind encourage bus driving until 24 years old.

    ... and we actively discourage (to the point of criminalising) under-age driving ... and the current minimum age to legally ride a full powered motorcyle for the first time is 24 years old !!![/B]
    ... and nobody is suggesting such a minimum age, when it comes to first time sex!!!:eek:

    {...}

    Are you suggesting "sex tests" and "sex licences" here? I've lost your point somewhere.

    I really think age is a poor indicator of maturity and dislike the black and white distinctions, but can't think of a better way. Maybe a psychologist could.


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    pauldla
    Registered Users Posts: 2,247 ✭✭✭pauldla


    gaynorvader wrote: »
    Are you suggesting "sex tests" and "sex licences" here? I've lost your point somewhere.

    Oh the perils of being an unlicensed sexer. And who would want to be the examiner? :eek:

    And as for the orals...


  • #193
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    If this sex thing keeps up, the very future of humanity is at stake....


  • #194
    AerynSun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 544 ✭✭✭AerynSun


    Cabaal wrote: »
    It was 12 in Vatican City until summer of 2013, given Mary was likely 13 when she was married and fell pregnant I suppose this was fitting.

    Selective quoting now Cabaal :P
    It's deeply disingenuous of you to not mention the other bit of Vatican joy to help give a more balanced picture about that state's law: sex between people of the same sex has been legal in the city since 1889.

    See now, it's not all bad! :)


  • #195
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,510 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    AerynSun wrote: »
    Selective quoting now Cabaal :P
    It's deeply disingenuous of you to not mention the other bit of Vatican joy to help give a more balanced picture about that state's law: sex between people of the same sex has been legal in the city since 1889.

    So all in all it created an ideal situation from those in the Vatican,

    It was legal for them to have sex with boys/men and it was ok to have sex with boys as young as 12, win win for them I guess.


  • #196
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,510 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    gaynorvader wrote: »
    I really think age is a poor indicator of maturity

    Age is very much a poor indicator, I'd agree,

    Just because somebody is even 41 doesn't mean they should have sex http://www.examiner.com/article/uk-court-bans-man-from-having-sex-due-to-low-iq


  • #197
    AerynSun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 544 ✭✭✭AerynSun


    Cabaal wrote: »
    ...It was legal...

    Legal in the Vatican city state, but against Catholic Canon Law. Not everyone in the Vatican city state is a) male; b) a cleric; c) a vowed religious or obligated to live a celibate life; or d) even Catholic.


  • #198
    Gordon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,524 ✭✭✭✭Gordon


    J C, I am honestly zoning out of your replies now simply because of your use of bolding key words, multiple ellipses, shocked face icons and multiple exclamation marks. You don't need these hyperbolic punctuations to add to, or support your point, they should be able to stand on their own.

    Obviously this is your choice, but I find that when someone overuses punctuation like that, it's usually to stress a point that is not obvious to the reader, but instead is the key point the writer is trying to make. And if that's the case, then you're writing a whole load of fluff and padding around the central point that is bolded or punctuated, so your point is being lost. And if you're writing a whole load of fluff and padding, then why should I have to wade through all that when an overpunctuator can instead be succinct? Therefore, I naturally zone out due to eye tiredness, and maybe others do too, just a suggestion.

    Sorry for off topic.


  • #199
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,510 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    Gordon wrote: »
    J C, I am honestly zoning out of your replies now simply because of your use of bolding key words, multiple ellipses, shocked face icons and multiple exclamation marks. You don't need these hyperbolic punctuations to add to, or support your point, they should be able to stand on their own.

    Obviously this is your choice, but I find that when someone overuses punctuation like that, it's usually to stress a point that is not obvious to the reader, but instead is the key point the writer is trying to make. And if that's the case, then you're writing a whole load of fluff and padding around the central point that is bolded or punctuated, so your point is being lost. And if you're writing a whole load of fluff and padding, then why should I have to wade through all that when an overpunctuator can instead be succinct? Therefore, I naturally zone out due to eye tiredness, and maybe others do too, just a suggestion.

    Sorry for off topic.

    But!!! How can you not find this easy and interesting to read?!!!??!!!

    Bolding random words really gets across the message to people and makes your argument much stronger, its all good!

    :pac:


  • #200
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Cabaal wrote: »
    Age is very much a poor indicator, I'd agree,

    Just because somebody is even 41 doesn't mean they should have sex http://www.examiner.com/article/uk-court-bans-man-from-having-sex-due-to-low-iq

    Poor oul Alan.


  • #201
    gaynorvader
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,630 ✭✭✭gaynorvader


    Cabaal wrote: »
    But!!! How can you not find this easy and interesting to read?!!!??!!!

    Bolding random words really gets across the message to people and makes your argument much stronger, its all good!

    :pac:

    ...Mary had a little lamb called Jesus?


  • Advertisement
Advertisement