Pure in heart abstinence only education

Obliq · 30-12-2013 7:46pm

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.

Does it strike anyone else as particularly unsurprising that Ireland, Malta (the only other place in Europe where Catholicism has such a hold over the country that they don't have access to abortion services either - "The Constitution of Malta establishes Catholicism as the state religion" - Wiki) and Turkey (who interestingly, in practice has a more lenient and permissive system than we do) are the top 3 countries with the highest age of consent :

"The age of consent in Turkey is 18. According to article 104, if the child is 15, 16 or 17 and the age gap is less than 5 years, the acts may be prosecuted only upon a complaint."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Asia#Turkey

....compared to us:

"Relevant offences under the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006 are Defilement of a child aged under 17 years and Defilement of a child aged under 15 years.[28] Sentences are longer for the latter offence, for repeat offences and where the offender is an authority-figure such as a close relative or teacher."

and

"Offenders are placed on the sex offenders register unless less than 24 months older than the victim."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe#Ireland

Delirium · 30-12-2013 7:59pm

Is the term "abstinence only education" not an oxymoron? It doesn't prepare young people for any sexual relationship beyond "don't do it." Anyone whose total education is formed by an abstinence only type course is woefully under-prepared for all the physical and mental aspects of a sexual relationship.

freyners · 30-12-2013 8:52pm

koth wrote: »

Is the term "abstinence only education" not an oxymoron? It doesn't prepare young people for any sexual relationship beyond "don't do it." Anyone whose total education is formed by an abstinence only type course is woefully under-prepared for all the physical and mental aspects of a sexual relationship.

When people get married, they magically know everything they need to know in order to make loads of babies engage in intercourse

or something like that

lazygal · 30-12-2013 8:57pm

I don't know how people go from abstinence to sex just because they're married. Plus how creepy to have everyone at the wedding know your first time will be that night. It makes marriage all about sex, which is so disturbing to me.

Nodin · 30-12-2013 9:15pm

lazygal wrote: »

I don't know how people go from abstinence to sex just because they're married. Plus how creepy to have everyone at the wedding know your first time will be that night. It makes marriage all about sex, which is so disturbing to me.

No pressure there at all....sure what could go wrong?

AerynSun · 30-12-2013 10:13pm

Obliq wrote: »

... Defilement of a child aged under 17 years and Defilement of a child aged under 15 years....

Ugh... so nice to see 'defilement' in there, adding to the stigma that attaches itself to victims of sex crimes. Somebody violates another person's body and personal space... and the law is implying that the violation has not only been a one-off traumatic incident but has permanently changed the 'pure' status of the victim? Way to go, Society: give the perpetrator ALL of the power and take away what's left of the victim's dignity while you're at it.

That word 'defilement' needs to go.

gaynorvader · 31-12-2013 3:55am

Obliq wrote: »

Does it strike anyone else as particularly unsurprising that Ireland, Malta (the only other place in Europe where Catholicism has such a hold over the country that they don't have access to abortion services either - "The Constitution of Malta establishes Catholicism as the state religion" - Wiki) and Turkey (who interestingly, in practice has a more lenient and permissive system than we do) are the top 3 countries with the highest age of consent :

"The age of consent in Turkey is 18. According to article 104, if the child is 15, 16 or 17 and the age gap is less than 5 years, the acts may be prosecuted only upon a complaint."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Asia#Turkey

....compared to us:

"Relevant offences under the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006 are Defilement of a child aged under 17 years and Defilement of a child aged under 15 years.[28] Sentences are longer for the latter offence, for repeat offences and where the offender is an authority-figure such as a close relative or teacher."

and

"Offenders are placed on the sex offenders register unless less than 24 months older than the victim."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe#Ireland

To be fair, Spain kinda bucks that trend a bit.

Obliq · 31-12-2013 1:06pm

AerynSun wrote: »

Ugh... so nice to see 'defilement' in there, adding to the stigma that attaches itself to victims of sex crimes. Somebody violates another person's body and personal space... and the law is implying that the violation has not only been a one-off traumatic incident but has permanently changed the 'pure' status of the victim? Way to go, Society: give the perpetrator ALL of the power and take away what's left of the victim's dignity while you're at it.

That word 'defilement' needs to go.

Very good point. That word turns my stomach.

J C · 31-12-2013 8:34pm

Obliq wrote: »

Very good point. That word turns my stomach.

... the words 'rape' and 'sex abuse' also nauseate me ... but they should remain as criminal offences prescisely because they are outrageous and revolting acts of violence ... just like 'defilement' of a child by a pervert should remain an offense ... even if it is nauseating for the public ... this is nothing compared with the damage and trauma that it can cause to a child!!!

Nodin · 31-12-2013 8:41pm

J C wrote: »

... the words 'rape' and 'sex abuse' also nauseate me ... but they should remain as criminal offences prescisely because they are outrageous and revolting acts of violence ... just like 'defilement' of a child by a pervert should remain an offense ... even if it is nauseating for the public ... this is nothing compared with the damage and trauma that it can cause to a child!!!

Are you arguing for the sake of it now? Nobody suggested the decriminalising any acts, merely a change of wording.

J C · 31-12-2013 9:10pm

Nodin wrote: »

No pressure there at all....sure what could go wrong?

... a lot less than could go wrong with somebody you have never met before ... and probably never will meet again ... who is suffering from multiple STDs and legless drunk.

J C · 31-12-2013 9:12pm

Nodin wrote: »

Are you arguing for the sake of it now? Nobody suggested the decriminalising any acts, merely a change of wording.

Changing it to what?

Nodin · 31-12-2013 9:37pm

J C wrote: »

... a lot less than could go wrong with somebody you have never met before ... and probably never will meet again ... who is suffering from multiple STDs and legless drunk.

Yep, those are healthy notions to give out allright. Fear mongering cack, grounded in some Cro-Magnon view of human sexuality.

J C wrote: »

...
Changing it to what? .

Something other than "defilement".

J C · 31-12-2013 10:43pm

Nodin wrote: »

Yep, those are healthy notions to give out allright. Fear mongering cack, grounded in some Cro-Magnon view of human sexuality.

I was merely illustrating the opposite scenario to the 'fear mongering' about getting married and having sex, that yourself and lazygal had engaged in!!!;)
... when, in fact, blissful, amazing sex is normally be the case, on your wedding night!!!

Nodin wrote: »

Something other than "defilement".

... like what?

Sulla Felix · 31-12-2013 11:02pm

J C wrote: »

... like what?

What's wrong with plain ol' rape?

Nodin · 31-12-2013 11:37pm

J C wrote: »

I was merely illustrating the opposite .......

No you weren't, and no amount of inserted smiley faces will change that. You've no argument, you've been discredited, your ideology has nothing to offer.

AerynSun · 01-01-2014 12:45am

J C wrote: »

... the words 'rape' and 'sex abuse' also nauseate me ... but they should remain as criminal offences prescisely because they are ... acts of violence ... just like 'defilement' of a child by a pervert should remain an offense ... even if it is nauseating for the public ... this is nothing compared with the damage and trauma that it can cause to a child!!!

I'm not suggesting for 10 seconds that the act be decriminalised. I am saying that it is not helpful to use emotive words in the law that contribute unnecesarily negative connotations to an already horrible situation. Rape is wrong, completely unacceptable. But to say that someone has been 'defiled' by the rape builds in a whole other level of victimisation that doesn't need to be there. Yes, the victim has been traumatised and needs to be supported in making a recovery and regaining their sense of self and their power (because rape is about power, it's not about sex!)... but they have NOT in any way been made 'unclean' by the act. That is a Dark Ages mindset that contributes to the stigma that causes many victims of sex crimes to keep silent instead of speaking out and getting justice.

Using that terminology does more harm to the victim than it helps, IMO.

Appropriate terms would be 'sexual assault' or 'rape', as the case may be.

J C · 01-01-2014 11:35am

Nodin wrote: »

No you weren't, and no amount of inserted smiley faces will change that. You've no argument, you've been discredited, your ideology has nothing to offer.

It isn't an 'ideology' ... and engaging in monogamy has a lot of benefits ranging from truly intimate and great sex ... to not catching something that you can't get rid of!!!!

Equally, not being peer-pressured into unwise and unsafe sex is surely something that the 'pseudo-liberal' should be able to agree with me on ... but apparently that is as far as it goes ... as they then turn around and increase the peer-pressure by saying that sex is 'safe' once you use a condom ... thereby ascribing (undeserved) miraculous powers to a small piece of micro-thin latex ... that can break, come off, and only covers less than 1% of the body surface.
Its typical use failure rate is 15-18% (as measured by the number of unintended pregnancies) ... which is somewhere up near the coitus interruptus failure rate ... and this is somehow regarded as 'safe sex'???:eek:
http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/unintendedpregnancy/contraception.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_birth_control_methods

robindch · 01-01-2014 12:26pm

J C wrote: »

[...] a condom [...] covers less than 1% of the body surface [...] failure rate is 15-18%

You sure you're using it on the right 1%?

01-01-2014 12:28pm

robindch wrote: »

You sure you're using it on the right 1%?

Probably accounts for his failure rate

AerynSun · 01-01-2014 12:47pm

J C wrote: »

... a small piece of micro-thin latex ... that can break, come off, and only covers less than 1% of the body surface.

Less than 1% of the body surface? Are you sure that number's not deflated, it seems a bit small?

Where did you get that figure? I'm Googling "penis to body size ratio" and I'm not finding what I'm looking for?

PopePalpatine · 01-01-2014 12:59pm

I guess we can add "ejaculation" to the very long "List of things J C doesn't understand".

Gordon · 01-01-2014 1:47pm

Hmm.. well I cut the top off a condom and split it down the middle and it measures 12cm x 18cm (I don't buy those small ones, they are a friend's...) so that makes 216 cm2. According to wikipedia the average human body is 1.9 m2 surface area. So if you were to snip the difference and make a man 2 m2 body area and 200 cm2 penis area, that's 1% isn't it?

AerynSun · 01-01-2014 2:10pm

Gordon wrote: »

Hmm.. well I cut the top off a condom and split it down the middle and it measures 12cm x 18cm (I don't buy those small ones, they are a friend's...) so that makes 216 cm2. According to wikipedia the average human body is 1.9 m2 surface area. So if you were to snip the difference and make a man 2 m2 body area and 200 cm2 penis area, that's 1% isn't it?

Did the difference get snipped in a religious ceremony? Because I would have to object to that...

Gordon · 01-01-2014 3:12pm

Hehe, no, the other snip!

Corkfeen · 01-01-2014 3:31pm

Gordon Gordon's friend is going to accidentally use the sliced and diced condoms and going to make the sequel to Knocked Up.

lazygal · 01-01-2014 3:43pm

Gordon wrote: »

Hmm.. well I cut the top off a condom and split it down the middle and it measures 12cm x 18cm (I don't buy those small ones, they are a friend's...) so that makes 216 cm2. According to wikipedia the average human body is 1.9 m2 surface area. So if you were to snip the difference and make a man 2 m2 body area and 200 cm2 penis area, that's 1% isn't it?

That auld metric system is heathen talk.

AerynSun · 01-01-2014 3:50pm

lazygal wrote: »

That auld metric system is heathen talk.

Then we're in the right place, this is Heathen Central Atheism & Agnosticism, after all

Nodin · 01-01-2014 3:58pm

J C wrote: »

It isn't an 'ideology' ...

Yes, it poxy well is. You're spouting anti-condom crap straight from the manual, ffs.

Gordon · 01-01-2014 3:59pm

Corkfeen wrote: »

Gordon Gordon's friend is going to accidentally use the sliced and diced condoms and going to make the sequel to Knocked Up.

It's OK, I sewed it back together and popped it back in the wrapper, it'll be fine.

Sarky · 01-01-2014 5:05pm

So in addition to being utterly clueless and incorrect on matters of sex education (and all the rest), J C also has a small penis.

2014 is off to a good start. Now if David Quinn comes out of the closet, it'll be the best year ever.

Brian Shanahan · 01-01-2014 7:29pm

J C wrote: »

that can break, come off, and only covers less than 1% of the body surface.
Its typical use failure rate is 15-18%

Pro-tip: A condom doesn't go on your arm JC, it goes on your dangly bit (if you're a fella). They only stick it on people's arms* in sex ed to show the proper technique of unrolling one.

* or alternatively bananas. Isn't it great that god designed a fruit to a shape exactly like a penis. Surely that shows he is in favour of contraception.

J C · 01-01-2014 8:32pm

robindch wrote: »

You sure you're using it on the right 1%?

I'm using the CDC's figures and Wikipedia for condom failure rates ... the wiki figure for condoms is 15% ... which is in the same 'ballpark' (no pun intended) as Coitus inerruptus at 18%.
... please see my links below ... and in my original post
http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/unintendedpregnancy/contraception.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_birth_control_methods

J C · 01-01-2014 8:46pm

Gordon wrote: »

Hmm.. well I cut the top off a condom and split it down the middle and it measures 12cm x 18cm (I don't buy those small ones, they are a friend's...) so that makes 216 cm2. According to wikipedia the average human body is 1.9 m2 surface area. So if you were to snip the difference and make a man 2 m2 body area and 200 cm2 penis area, that's 1% isn't it?

Yes it is Gordon ... the figure is about 1% allright. Any man who claims it is more ... is just compensating ... for something!!:eek:

AerynSun wrote:

Less than 1% of the body surface? Are you sure that number's not deflated, it seems a bit small?

1% is a bit small ... only with small men ... when you're 6' 4'' with a physique to match 1% is quite large actualy!!:)

AerynSun wrote:

Where did you get that figure? I'm Googling "penis to body size ratio" and I'm not finding what I'm looking for?

That's what many say allright!!!:):D

Sierra 117 · 01-01-2014 8:52pm

J C wrote: »

That's what many say allright!!!:):D

I'm sorry to hear that.

J C · 01-01-2014 8:54pm

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Pro-tip: A condom doesn't go on your arm JC, it goes on your dangly bit (if you're a fella). They only stick it on people's arms* in sex ed to show the proper technique of unrolling one.

The failure rate of 15-18% is based on using it where its supposed to be used !!!:D:eek:

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

* or alternatively bananas. Isn't it great that god designed a fruit to a shape exactly like a penis. Surely that shows he is in favour of contraception.

Saved Christians have never said that God isn't in favour of using condoms ... so you are right!!!

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
That's what many say allright!!!:):D

Sierra
I'm sorry to hear that.

My wife isn't one of the 'many' that I referred ... so your sorrow is mis-placed!!!;):)

Sierra 117 · 01-01-2014 9:28pm

It's great that you found a woman who doesn't care about size.

J C · 01-01-2014 9:44pm

Gordon wrote: »

It's OK, I sewed it back together and popped it back in the wrapper, it'll be fine.

... with a 15% failure rate ... chances are it won't make any difference!!!:eek:

... although I'd be inclined to bin it ... just to be slightly safer!!!:)

J C · 01-01-2014 9:46pm

Sierra 117 wrote: »

It's great that you found a woman who doesn't care about size.

She does ... that was one of the (many) reasons that she chose to marry me!!!:D

... and jealously will get you nowhere!!!:P

Delirium · 01-01-2014 9:50pm

J C wrote: »

... with a 15% failure rate ... chances are it won't make any difference!!!:eek:

... although I'd be inclined to bin it ... just to be slightly safer!!!:)

Only if you don't understand that there is an 85% success rate.

J C · 01-01-2014 9:51pm

Nodin wrote: »

Yes, it poxy well is.

Prophetic words indeed!!

Nodin wrote: »

You're spouting anti-condom crap straight from the manual, ffs.

Condoms are fine ... just don't rely on them to protect you if your partner sleeps around!!!

Delirium · 01-01-2014 9:54pm

J C wrote: »

Prophetic words indeed!!

Condoms are fine ... just don't rely on them to protect you if your partner sleeps around!!!

Not using condoms will offer zero protection compared to using a condom.

J C · 01-01-2014 9:55pm

koth wrote: »

Only if you don't understand that there is an 85% success rate.

... roughly the 'success rate' of 'russian roulette' !!!:eek:
FYI its 83%!!

J C · 01-01-2014 9:59pm

koth wrote: »

Not using condoms will offer zero protection compared to using a condom.

Quite true ... but the point is that you are still running serious risks ... even when using condoms, outside a monogamous relationship.
It could be classed as 'safer' ... but certainly not 'safe' sex ... its like using a pistol with a 10 chamber magazine to play 'russian roulette' ... instead of a 6 chamber pistol.

Pherekydes · 01-01-2014 9:59pm

J C wrote: »

She does ... that was one of the (many) reasons that she chose to marry me!!!:D

... and jealously will get you nowhere!!!:P

Haven't you bothered taking Gordon's post on board?

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.

Delirium · 01-01-2014 9:59pm

J C wrote: »

... roughly the 'success rate' of 'russian roulette' !!!:eek:
FYI its 83%!!

100-15 =85 last I checked. Regardless, 85% approx. means that the condom will have significant odds that it won't fail. The opposite to what you were incorrectly suggesting.

J C · 01-01-2014 10:02pm

Sarky wrote: »

So in addition to being utterly clueless and incorrect on matters of sex education (and all the rest), J C also has a small penis.

Do you always add two plus two ... and get six?:)

You must be confusing me with Gordon's 'small' friend !!!:)

Gordon wrote: »

Hmm.. well I cut the top off a condom and split it down the middle and it measures 12cm x 18cm (I don't buy those small ones, they are a friend's...)

J C · 01-01-2014 10:04pm

Pherekydes wrote: »

Haven't you bothered taking Gordon's post on board?

I have ... emphasis mine!!!

J C · 01-01-2014 10:07pm

koth wrote: »

100-15 =85 last I checked. Regardless, 85% approx. means that the condom will have significant odds that it won't fail. The opposite to what you were incorrectly suggesting.

... and the 5 out of 6 empty chambers in a 'russian roulette' pistol also gives you odds of survival of 83% ... but it's a dying game, that I certainly wouldn't play!!!

Delirium · 01-01-2014 10:08pm

J C wrote: »

Quite true ... but the point is that you are still running serious risks ... even when using condoms, outside a monogamous relationship.
It could be classed as 'safer' ... but certainly not 'safe' sex ... its like using a pistol with a 10 chamber magazine to play 'russian roulette' ... instead of a 6 chamber pistol.

All sex carries risk. Abstinence only nonsense does nothing to educate people about those risks. It's head in the sand silliness. Educating youths about safe sex and the use of contraceptives is the only way to go. Let them know about all the potential problems of sexual relationships and let them make informed decisions. The alternative is what you're suggesting, i.e. no sex until marriage and they'll magically figure it out on the honeymoon :rolleyes:

Pure in heart abstinence only education

Comments