Youth Defence in schools

fitz0

I came across this on Broadsheet this morning and find it worrying to say the least.



It's from the Junior Cert SPHE book. While I have a problem with the abstinence only sex education method and the insinuation that if you can't marry you shouldn't have sex, the LGBT community for example, it's a much more sinister part of this that I have trouble with.

The website linked to at the bottom of the page - yourontrack.org

For a start, it's grammatically incorrect. It's also a placeholder, so those confused kids will get no more on the no sex before marriage policy. But it's who the website is registered to that really annoys me.

A broadsheet commenter did some checking and posted this.

That domain “yourontrack.org” is registered to Una Nic Mhathuna from Youth Defence….

Registrant Email:unabrid@truthtv.org
Admin ID:6709152-SRSPLUS
Admin Name:Una Nic Mhathuna
Admin Organization:-
Admin Street1:
Admin Street2:
Admin Street3:
Admin City: Drumcondra
Admin State/Province:NONE
Admin Postal Code: Dublin 9
Admin Country:IE
Admin Phone:

The reg email unabrid@truthtv.org leads us to this site - http://www.prolifeinfo.ie/

The address 60a Capel St is home to both Coir and Youth Defence.

I really don't like the idea of these opinions being pushed on kids and that the Catholic right have so much input into the curriculum. I don't have access to the rest of the book, but if anyone does, can they let us know if there are balanced opinions in it? I'm doubtful though, as the book is written by Susan Scanlan, an active pro-life campaigner who has written for YD in the past.

EDIT: I removed the address before posting but I'm editing out the phone number. It's all freely available info but all the same, I don't like posting it.

Pushtrak

Atheist Ireland has posted a video with someone talking about Youth Defence. I haven't gotten around to watching it yet, but should be of interest to the topic. I noticed the description included a link to a counter youth defence page on facebook.

http://www.facebook.com/notalwaysabetteroption

MagicMarker

I couldn't think of anything more boring than sex with 1 person throughout one's whole life.

....sex is only truly wonderful when it is enjoyed within the context for which it is meant

I am willing to prove this wrong if anyone else is interested? Purely in the interests of science of course. :pac:

Delirium

Why is advertising allowed in a school book?

gbee

MagicMarker wrote: »

I couldn't think of anything more boring than sex with 1 person throughout one's whole life.

Married 32 years, so far, so good.

doctoremma

gbee wrote: »

Married 32 years, so far, so good.

How do you know?

gbee

doctoremma wrote: »

How do you know?

I know. No worries at ALL there.

robindch

fitz0 wrote: »

For a start, it's grammatically incorrect.

Reading this rubbish briefly:

YD wrote:

It doesn't say 'I am yours forever', but rather seeks self-gratification [...] sex is only truly wonderful when it is enjoyed in the context for which it is meant

So, self-gratification is bad, but you've to marry in order to make it as wonderful as possible, ie, to maximize one's self-gratification?(*)

I don't think they thought this one through completely.

(*) I'm ignoring the fact that sex "is meant" to ensure the propagation of the species, and not just be some vigorously enjoyable horizontal exercise several times a week.

Malari

Unbelievable. :rolleyes: The SPHE (had to look up what that was) website is incredibly vague about what the module should be about though, and pretty much seems to leave it up to the school board to decide.

I did think it was going to start on about something else with the "self-giving love" bit :pac:

Gbear

Pushtrak wrote: »

Atheist Ireland has posted a video with someone talking about Youth Defence. I haven't gotten around to watching it yet, but should be of interest to the topic. I noticed the description included a link to a counter youth defence page on facebook.

http://www.facebook.com/notalwaysabetteroption

That's brilliant.

It's always refreshing to be reminded that sane people aren't all keyboard warriors like myself.

magicbastarder

MagicMarker wrote: »

I couldn't think of anything more boring than sex with 1 person throughout one's whole life.

very tiring too.

SdoowSirhc

fitz0 wrote: »

It's from the Junior Cert SPHE book.

Lolololololololololol. I just did my Junior Cert this year and honestly nobody ever believes anything you are told in SPHE, sure it's not even an exam subject It's the same with Religious Education class. In our school it's not done as an exam subject so we get it once a week and I don't even think it has a set curriculum. For the last few weeks of the year the local priest started coming into the class and forcing old testament "do what God wants and he will love you" moral stories on us.

Edit: by force I mean painfully tell us them over a half hour :P

I've always found it strange that they think abstaining from sex, i.e. getting more and more frustrated and sex-obsessed, is the best way to form a relationship. Surely you'd be most eager to marry just to have sex then. You wouldn't exactly be thinking clearly...

fitz0

SdoowSirhc wrote: »

Lolololololololololol. I just did my Junior Cert this year and honestly nobody ever believes anything you are told in SPHE, sure it's not even an exam subject It's the same with Religious Education class. In our school it's not done as an exam subject so we get it once a week and I don't even think it has a set curriculum. For the last few weeks of the year the local priest started coming into the class and forcing old testament "do what God wants and he will love you" moral stories on us.

Edit: by force I mean painfully tell us them over a half hour :P

It's not so much that I'm worried kids will actually believe this stuff, I know most won't. The issue is that Youth Defence et al are having ANY kind of say in what kids are taught. They come into it with a clear agenda that they are promoting. They do not take into account any social studies that may say their approach doesn't work. They have a religiously motivated agenda to promote heterosexual marriage and an anti-choice message without showing the other side of the argument (Where there actually is an argument unlike the age of the earth non-debate.)

@koth The .org suffix is reserved for non-profits so afaik they don't count as advertisers.

Delirium

fitz0 wrote: »

@koth The .org suffix is reserved for non-profits so afaik they don't count as advertisers.

Understand that, but the point was how is anyone allowed to promote a website in the school book? Especially as it is a website devoid of content. I find it amazing that the Dept. of Education would allow that to happen. The site could put up content the government would not want to be associated with.

If the school book is going to do something like that, it should direct to something like education.ie/resources. That way the dept. of education can control the content the students are directed to as part of their curriculum.

christmas2012

I agree sex is powerful and shouldnt be misused,whats wrong with saying that?

Pushtrak

christmas2012 wrote: »

I agree sex is powerful and shouldnt be misused,whats wrong with saying that?

With great sex comes great moralizing.

AKA it isn't for anyone to say what is correct usage, or misusage. Well, for consenting adults, obviously.

MagicMarker

christmas2012 wrote: »

I agree sex is powerful and shouldnt be misused,whats wrong with saying that?

First you'd have to explain what you mean by this, because it makes no sense to me.

mikhail

MagicMarker wrote: »

First you'd have to explain what you mean by this, because it makes no sense to me.

Well, for instance, it's an innapropriate tool for opening tins of fruit, for example.

gawker

It's amazing how religious zealots always manage to creep their way into education. Does anyone know the title of this book? I don't think we ever had a book for SPHE in my school, just photocopies pages on various topics like not getting an STD and not taking drugs etc.

Awful grammar for the website!

magicbastarder

mikhail wrote: »

Well, for instance, it's an innapropriate tool for opening tins of fruit, for example.

i'm sure there's a show in thailand which would prove you wrong.

gawker

In this 2006 Youth Defence newsletter they mention how they are completing their On Track program " which will explain the benefits of abstinence to Irish school students". That's this book. A brief Google shows it is on the booklist for plenty of schools in the coming term.

Here's the book description:

"On Track Direction In Your Life. Designed for the Social, Personal and Health Education Curriculum for Irish post primary schools. It is primarily for you, your life and your goals. It will help you lear about yourself and guide you through your teenage years. It will help to keep you On Track."

No mention of the "ethos" it is focusing on.

oceanclub

Youth Defence advertising in our schoolbooks?? This is utterly outrageous. Ruairi Quinn once wondered was the Dept of Education run by Catholic secret societies. This kind of thing seems to confirm it.

http://www.paddydoyle.com/ruairi-quinns-speech-hes-now-minister-for-education/

P.

MetalDog

It's no surprise with this kind of sh1te, that their funding comes from the US. I already posted this image in the Funny Side of Religion, but I think it applies to Yoot Dafence:

wonderfulname

It's worth noting textbooks aren't the curriculum, they're written independently in line with it, of course a subject which is to cover sex will see a textbook written in line with catholic teachings in a predominantly catholic school system, and an individual can provide what external reference they wish in that case.

The question we should be asking is is it morally right to frame the curriculum so loosely as to pander to religious belief when doing so can have real consequences on youths.

Gbear

wonderfulname wrote: »

The question we should be asking is is it morally right to frame the curriculum so loosely as to pander to religious belief when doing so can have real consequences on youths.

Well given the kind of bollocks that system turns up, the answer is quite clearly a resounding "no".

fitz0

wonderfulname wrote: »

It's worth noting textbooks aren't the curriculum, they're written independently in line with it, of course a subject which is to cover sex will see a textbook written in line with catholic teachings in a predominantly catholic school system, and an individual can provide what external reference they wish in that case.

The question we should be asking is is it morally right to frame the curriculum so loosely as to pander to religious belief when doing so can have real consequences on youths.

Tightening the curriculum would mean much more clearly defined government policy in areas where the current administration, and I'd assume other parties, would rather not concretely define it. I would rather that any school receiving public funding be required to provide religiously neutral textbooks.

Gregor Samsa

fitz0 wrote: »

@koth The .org suffix is reserved for non-profits so afaik they don't count as advertisers.

Anyone with a credit card can buy a .org address. There's no qualifying criteria or checks at all. I own several myself. See where www.coke.org brings you.

fisgon

Am I the only one to find Youth Defence and Coir kind of fascinating in their utter horribleness?

They're like cartoon villains, insidious, secretive, sinister, willing to tell any lie or twist any fact for the purposes of their agenda, willing to hide their identity behind fake websites and to simply ignore facts and truth in favour of made up surveys. I sometimes wonder if they are for real, they are so out there and twisted, so deluded by their bizarre take on a bizarre ideology, so contemptuous of reality and reason and balance.

The thing is that they are a minority of a minority, speak for almost no-one and yet are obviously well funded. I'd be interested to see where their money is coming from. These ultra-religious groups always seem to find rich deluded benefactors somewhere.

Sarky

MagicMarker wrote: »

I am willing to prove this wrong if anyone else is interested? Purely in the interests of science of course. :pac:

Deal. I know this great little elevator where we can get some coffee first...

FouxDaFaFa

Even if the kids don't buy into this (I doubt they pay much attention), it's sad to think of all the wasted time BSing when they could be learning something useful. Also, it's pretty hilarious that a sex ed class is basically:
"don't have sex".

iguana

How screwed up. I think I'd lose the plot if I saw that in my kid's school books. But that's probably only because I misused my formidable sex powers when I was single and sustained brain damage.

qrrgprgua

MagicMarker wrote: »

I couldn't think of anything more boring than sex with 1 person throughout one's whole life.

I am willing to prove this wrong if anyone else is interested? Purely in the interests of science of course. :pac:

What is wrong with loving One person totally for your whole life? You don't seem to know or understand love.

MagicMarker

qrrgprgua wrote: »

What is wrong with loving One person totally for your whole life? You don't seem to know or understand love.

Sex ≠ love.

wonderfulname

MagicMarker wrote: »

Sex ≠ love.

sex + love = awesome

I'm assuming that's the bit you apparently don't get. If not, where did this turn into a conversation about love?

MagicMarker

wonderfulname wrote: »

sex + love = awesome

I'm assuming that's the bit you apparently don't get.

That's quite an assumption.

Sex doesn't need love to be awesome, if your experiences say otherwise, then I offer you my commiserations.

qrrgprgua

MagicMarker wrote: »

Sex ≠ love.

You can love a person without sex. But to have sex with a person you don't love is pointless. I see it with guys at work who cheat on their wives.. Its their business,, but its incredibly selfish.

Even from a non religious point of view there is a lot to be said for a person who is faithful to the person they love and loves that person totally all their live without cheating.

wonderfulname

MagicMarker wrote: »

wonderfulname wrote: »

sex + love = awesome

I'm assuming that's the bit you apparently don't get.

That's quite an assumption.

Sex doesn't need love to be awesome, if your experiences say otherwise, then I offer you my commiserations.

apparently don't get, as in their opinion not mine?

And where in my post did I say only sex with someone you love is awesome? I don't need to be told otherwise, but I fail to see how shagging one person can get boring.

Read before you bite.

MagicMarker

qrrgprgua wrote: »

You can love a person without sex. But to have sex with a person you don't love is pointless. I see it with guys at work who cheat on their wives.. Its their business,, but its incredibly selfish.

Even from a non religious point of view there is a lot to be said for a person who is faithful to the person they love and loves that person totally all their live without cheating.

What has cheating got to do with this thread?

And to have sex with a person you don't love is by no means pointless.

Standman

Sex is what you want it to be. As long as it's consensual it's nobody elses damn business. I love the way people put forward their personal ideas about what sex should mean as if they apply to everyone else.

iguana

MagicMarker wrote: »

Sex ≠ love.

You might be coming from the opposite point of view but the way you are looking at it isn't much difference from the nonsense in that awful ad. While there is nothing wrong with enjoying casual sex and you can have some fantastic, fun and fulfilling experiences in sexual relationships, it's not for everyone. Some people prefer to only ever be with one partner and wait to have sex until they feel they are committed for life to have sex. While others would have been open to having several partners but their first partner turned out to be the person they wanted to spend their whole life with.

As long as everyone involved is happy with how things are, both are just as valid and fulfilling a lifestyle choice as serial monogamy, casual sex, open relationships etc. Yes by only being with one person you miss out on certain great experiences but equally, by having had other sex partners you can never truly know what it feels like to only ever be with one person, which many people do find extremely satisfying on many levels. It's just personal choice and circumstance.

qrrgprgua

MagicMarker wrote: »

What has cheating god to do with this thread?

And to have sex with a person you don't love is by no means pointless.

Test drive all you like... Its your life. I am sure after you have tried a few women you will find on the one you like.

Sarky

I love the passive aggressive way you condemn people for enjoying their lives in a manner different to yourself. It's all "Fair enough, we'll agree to disagree, but you're still wrong" stuff. Delicious.

MagicMarker

iguana wrote: »

You might be coming from the opposite point of view but the way you are looking at it isn't much difference from the nonsense in that awful ad. While there is nothing wrong with enjoying casual sex and you can have some fantastic, fun and fulfilling experiences in sexual relationships, it's not for everyone. Some people prefer to only ever be with one partner and wait to have sex until they feel they are committed for life to have sex. While others would have been open to having several partners but their first partner turned out to be the person they wanted to spend their whole life with.

As long as everyone involved is happy with how things are, both are just as valid and fulfilling a lifestyle choice as serial monogamy, casual sex, open relationships etc. Yes by only being with one person you miss out on certain great experiences but equally, by having had other sex partners you can never truly know what it feels like to only ever be with one person, which many people do find extremely satisfying on many levels. It's just personal choice and circumstance.

Firstly, why do you assume I'm talking about casual sex?

Secondly, have I written some proclamation about how everyone should have as many partners as possible or something? If so, can someone please point me to where I posted this as I truly don't remember writing it at all?

To my recollection, I haven't written anything that is at odds with what you have written here. So I take offence when what I have said here is compared to the shíte in the ad posted in the OP.

All I have said was sex does not equal love in response to qrrgprgua who questioned me about my personal opinion that I find the idea of sex with only 1 person in life to be boring.

wonderfulname

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Test drive all you like... Its your life. I am sure after you have tried a few women you will find on the one you like.

I can never get my head around the kind of mentality required to simultaniously look down on casual sex and refer to "test driving" women.

MagicMarker

wonderfulname wrote: »

apparently don't get, as in their opinion not mine?

And where in my post did I say only sex with someone you love is awesome? I don't need to be told otherwise, but I fail to see how shagging one person can get boring.

Read before you bite.

I apologise for biting.

mikhail

wonderfulname wrote: »

I can never get my head around the kind of mentality required to simultaniously look down on casual sex and refer to "test driving" women.

Fear and shame of your sexuality, and hostility towards women because they make you feel things you know to be shameful. You know, Christianity.

iguana

MagicMarker wrote: »

Firstly, why do you assume I'm talking about casual sex?

Secondly, have I written some proclamation about how everyone should have as many partners as possible or something? If so, can someone please point me to where I posted this as I truly don't remember writing it at all?

To my recollection, I haven't written anything that is at odds with what you have written here. So I take offence when what I have said here is compared to the shíte in the ad posted in the OP.

I was referring more to your first comment on the thread which could be seen as pretty insulting to someone who was committed to the only sexual partner they've ever had.

And I didn't assume you were talking about casual sex, I just said casual sex can be great, which it can. I listed a number of sexual lifestyles that involve having multiple partners over a lifetime. I had numerous sexual partners when I was single and I don't regret that. In fact I had some truly fantastic casual sex experiences (along with a few boring ones) but I don't think that having sex with just one partner is necessarily boring. Depending on the people involved I'm sure it can be fulfilling, satisfying and very wonderful on it's own level.

Tbh, I used to say the same things that you did in your first post but I've come to realise that actually that is just as bad as people who might look down on my lifestyle choices and sexual history. It's up to the individual. Just having one partner was not for me, but that doesn't mean that it's not for others and it doesn't make their lives boring.

Mark Hamill

qrrgprgua wrote: »

You can love a person without sex. But to have sex with a person you don't love is pointless. I see it with guys at work who cheat on their wives.. Its their business,, but its incredibly selfish.

You can love a food without eating it, but does that mean eating a food without loving it is meaningless? Guess there is no point in me eating vegetables I don't like then.

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Even from a non religious point of view there is a lot to be said for a person who is faithful to the person they love and loves that person totally all their live without cheating.

Its possible to have physically fulfilling but emotionally neutral sex without cheating.

Mark Hamill

iguana wrote: »

I was referring more to your first comment on the thread which could be seen as pretty insulting to someone who was committed to the only sexual partner they've ever had.

And I didn't assume you were talking about casual sex, I just said casual sex can be great, which it can. I listed a number of sexual lifestyles that involve having multiple partners over a lifetime. I had numerous sexual partners when I was single and I don't regret that. In fact I had some truly fantastic casual sex experiences (along with a few boring ones) but I don't think that having sex with just one partner is necessarily boring. Depending on the people involved I'm sure it can be fulfilling, satisfying and very wonderful on it's own level.

Why would someone who values the emotional aspects of sex as much as the physical be offended by MagicMarker's personal opinion on how boring sex with only one person would be to him. You have just responded with your own personal observation that sex with one partner is not necessarily boring, should MagicMarker get offended by that?

MagicMarker offered a personal opinion as personal opinion. The ad offered a personal opinion as objective fact. I don't see how they are at all alike.

iguana

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Why would someone who values the emotional aspects of sex as much as the physical be offended by MagicMarker's personal opinion on how boring sex with only one person would be to him.

Umm what?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You have just responded with your own personal observation that sex with one partner is not necessarily boring, should MagicMarker get offended by that?

Well those two opinions aren't even close to comparing like for like.
He offered a personal opinion that some people's lifestyles are boring, I said that whether they are boring or not depends on the person. MM's personal opinion is the same as people whose personal opinion is that those with several partners are 'test driving.' Ie, what's right for him is right and it ignores personal preference.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

MagicMarker offered a personal opinion as personal opinion. The ad offered a personal opinion as objective fact. I don't see how they are at all alike.

Fair enough, dressing it up as fact is certainly worse. And dressing it up as fact while aiming it at school children and publishing it in a school book is quite a lot worse. But the general sentiment of 'what's right for me is right for everyone' is the same regardless of what each side thinks is right.