I can haz general discussion? 2!!

jubella wrote: »

Seriously? Saying a girl shouldn't dress, act or speak in a way so as to tempt her boyfriend isn't offensive? What about saying that you won't be a credit to you parents if you give it up? What about saying a man is weak for having sex? What about saying ?you're no longer decent if you have sex

How is this not offensive to anyone who makes the choice to have sex before marriage?

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

1. I am apparently not responsible because I have had sex? That is insulting because I world like to think that my life choices add up to more than my sexual habits

2. My choices in clothes are the 'problem'. My boyfriend doesn't want to sleep with me because he'd like to, but because I'm leading him on with the clothes I wear. That's the same line that rapists have used.

3. I am a shame to my parents? Fcuk off. I'd like to think that I mean more to them than that.

I'm definitely insulted.

EDIT: I've just read the men's pamphlet. It refers to sex as fcuking payment. PAYMENT!

There are two very important things that need to be noted before I even start to discuss the inner details. Given that nearly everything starts with I or My it is clear that theses are things that are supposed to be read be someone who agrees with them to motivate themselves, similar to the commandments, they aren't saying if you do x you're a bad person. You apply each of these to yourself if you want to, none of them are comments on the general population, you can't really be offended by something that hasn't been applied to you. Each statement is clearly separate to the next, you can't just join them together to make it say what you want.

Saying how someone should dress, act and speak isn't offensive, it just defines a set of rules to live by, it doesn't make any comment on people who don't follow it.

Nowhere does it say "you won't be a credit to you parents if you give it up". What it says is "I wish always to be a credit to them". It doesn't mention any behaviour that would make you not a credit to them, hence not offensive.

Nowhere does it say "a man is weak for having sex" what is says is "Lack of self-control is a sign of weakness". I don't see any problem with that, whatever you want to take self-control to mean is up to you, if you want to apply it to sex that is a personal choice.

I can't see "you're no longer decent if you have sex" anywhere.

It doesn't say "I am apparently not responsible because I have had sex".

It doesn't say "My boyfriend doesn't want to sleep with me because he'd like to, but because I'm leading him on with the clothes I wear". It say "The way I dress, speak, act may be a temptation", completely different to how you have taken it. Can't see how that is offensive.

It doesn't say anyone is a shame to their parents. It says you should want to be a credit to them. It doesn't say what you have to take from that.

It doesn't refer to sex as a payment, it says "I shouldn't expect more as payment" it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume more means sex but even at that there is no problem with it, if we change it to 'I shouldn't expect sex as a payment' I think that is perfectly reasonable do you not? Do you think it is ok to expect sex from someone in return for taking them out?

"I'm definitely insulted", By what the handout said? or by what you claim it said in your post? Also insulted /= offended.

Talk about jumping to conclusions and seeing what you want to see. A lot of this is clearly naïve but I think claiming to be offended by it is OTT.

I'm not offended but I can see why people would be. I'm just more shocked people still (cough cough) swallow this rubbish. Half of them are probably fondling each other after mass.

Sex as payment ? Where do I sign up?

andrew369 wrote: »

Anyone else find it very creepy that these people are at a certain level of religious devotion which is pretty above average compared to most and they have nothing better to do than tell people what to do about sex? Can't think of anything maybe a little more worthwhile as "Christians" to talk about. I mean work at a mission outreach or a charity event or something that actually helps someone and is a good action, not try sell an outdated form of morality to students (students of all people, tis loltacular). If there is a god I strongly doubt he/she is particularly bothered about what people do in the bedroom compared to genuinely evil and horrific acts which happen around the world every day.

And the flyers are insulting in that they are a step away from saying if you have sex before marriage you are a sinful whore so cover up and don't think about sex. "Lust is a capital sin" I mean bloody that is basically thought crime. But then again from the few people I seen at the stall these are some of the same people who have their theology books on their lap in my philosophy lectures in case the lecturer gets too "liberal".

I've a good one on outdated views for you. A woman in my physics lecture last year was ranting about discrimination last year because the lecturer told her that the world is not 6,000 years old, she actually had an argument with the lecturer from near the back of a full iontas in the middle of the lecture, the really funny part is that the lecture was on earth science and how to tell how old the earth is. The lecturer proved and showed evidence as to how old the earth was and this woman still refused to believe it.

mickstupp wrote: »

I suppose if we're going to go by GarIT's brand new non-dictionary criteria that you're only allowed to be offended by something if it's aimed at you... well, I am both a member of one of the sexes (male) and have sex (though sadly not often). I was thus highly offended by the sexism in those pamphlets. I'm also a human being, last I checked, and I was offended at the clear lack of respect for what I believe to be the basic rights of human beings by attempting to shift responsibility for person A's actions away from A and onto person B, and then to potentially blame person B if anything should go wrong. I am also a person with particular moral standards, and as such I was offended by pamphlets that suggest that my moral standards are not up to scratch.

If other people are not offended by sexism, or don't understand being offended by sexism, and then refuse to engage with the arguments in those pamphlets other than on a hyper-literal and superficial level which neither acknowledges the obvious subtext nor actually helps their argument be remotely convincing, that's not something I can help them understand. Mind you, I'm assuming the subtext is obvious because it was obvious to me and it's obvious to everyone else bar you. This is not a case of jumping to conclusions. Those pamphlets make some very particular arguments, despite how shallowly you insist on reading them. Those arguments are offensive, clearly, to a number of people in this thread.

However, if we're all using the word 'offensive' incorrectly, you might want to consider letting the people who write dictionaries know this. If what we're experiencing currently is not to be called being offended, could you perhaps offer an alternative which adequately portrays our sense of anger, moral outrage, irritation, annoyance and, dare I say it, offense?

I have to get back to my essay. I'd rather pick through those pamphlets line by line and point out to you every single thing wrong with them... but I won't get marked for that.

I don't really want to get into this again, I think its clear nearly everyone disagrees with me. Just in reply to what you have said, it is obvious that the theme of those is sex and some things are implied but I think some people are taking more from it than what is there, they think the opposite of me. I just want to ask one question though. It is undisputable that these are three things 1. a set of morals/rules and 2. written from the readers perspective. 3. intended to be something that a Christian might say to themselves. So my question, is it wrong that people might have these morals and think like that, or is it just wrong that they have been written down? and why is it whichever one it is?

mickstupp wrote: »

I'm not sure what you're talking about. This is only just after late afternoon, more a prevening than an evening. Like a brunch but later. But with tea. Maybe we could call it a teavening.

@GarIT, my apologies for getting angry at you, it was a combination of those pamphlets making me angry and my essay being an essay, and I shouldn't take it out on others.

I think the evening debate was when I disagreed with a few people over when the evening is.

No bother, I do it all the time :P relax and go do your essay, come back for a debate later :P

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

It's wrong that they're trying to force them onto onto other people and insult those people in the process.

That's something for mass or Bible studies not the Arts Block

Were they forced on anyone though? I thought it was a kind of take it and read it if you want like most other leaflet things.

So you are saying that your problem is with them trying to spread what they think rather then with them thinking it?

As I said I don't like religion but IMO they have as much right to be there as say the pro choice stand from a few weeks ago.

It wasnt the pro life stuff that was the issue, it was the guilt tripping.

freedom of speech