Pure in heart abstinence only education

J C

AerynSun wrote: »

I disagree with your point of view. Perhaps we have very different understandings of 'promiscuity'? So let me ask you, for clarification: is your understanding that ANY sexual activity that takes place outside of a solemnised Catholic marriage between a man and a woman what you would call 'promiscuous'?

As a Saved Christian, I believe that we solemnise our marriages in church before God and man ... and no church institution has a monopoly on solemnising marriage.

... and to answer your substantive question on what I call 'promiscuity' I would define it as engaging in 'casual sex' with multiple partners outside any committed relationship.

AerynSun wrote: »

In my view, promiscuity is about indiscriminate, haphazard, casual and irregular sexual activity that takes place outside of a committed, loving relationship between two people who take it into their heads and hearts to honour and love each other and be exclusive in their relationship.

I couldn't have said it better myself. Fully agree with you.
Mind you, I don't condemn such people ... there goes any of us potentially ... but I'm concerned for their health and their welfare ... and their partners welfare.
I think they are also missing out on the great companionship (and even greater sex) that is to only be found within a comitted faithful loving relationship ... and this isn't a religious thing per se ... its a Human thing IMO.

AerynSun wrote: »

I do recognise that others would disagree with my view and say that my 'exclusive' requirement is unnecessary, and that people can love more than one person at a time and engage in sexual activity with more than one partner, as long as all of the partners involved agree to the arrangement, without any of them feeling that they are being promiscuous - and that's fine for other people, but I'm honestly too insecure to be that open and free with whoever I love: I want that person to be with me only. But that's my issue - and it doesn't have to dictate how other people live and love.

... even people who think they can cope with these situations often can't actually ... especially if they end up being the person 'left out' ... when the night is over!!!
We can have many friends ... but when it comes to sex, there is much more than friendship involved - and we all know this instinctively.

AerynSun

J C wrote: »

... scoffing at an idea, like Abstenence, without critically evaluating it's merits ... and the weakneses of its alternatives isn't something that I would expect from liberal Secularists ...

I don't know that I would call myself a liberal secularist as such, so maybe your point isn't for me - BUT: rejecting the idea of promoting abstinence as an ideal isn't the same thing as scoffing. I am very familiar with the abstinence model, and it does have some merits - but it also has significant flaws. As such, I couldn't in good conscience promote abstinence as the 'one true' ideal. I am also very aware of the arguments against the alternative models: condom use isn't always effective. So I wouldn't be going around proclaiming that all is sorted once you've got a johnny. The issues are far more complex than that.

For me, I can wholeheartedly embrace the idea of encouraging young people to think carefully about who they get their kit off with, not to be dropping trousers without having thought about the possible consequences, making informed and intentional choices. And if they ARE going to choose to get intimate with someone, I'd definitely encourage them to take every precaution they can - against unwanted pregnancy, STIs, broken hearts... . Nobody wants a young person to go through any unnecessary heart ache. But at the same time, I don't think it's a good thing to pressure young people into avoiding the possibility of any kind of sexual contact unless and until they are married in a church ceremony. Because for some of the young people I know, the church ceremony bit is never going to happen - and not because they don't want it for themselves, either. I couldn't countenance the thought of telling a young man that he should live a lonely, unattached life, and never feel the warmth or comfort of his boyfriend's embrace; or to tell a sensitive and kind young woman that the girl she loves isn't the man God wants her to marry.

J C

AerynSun wrote: »

And where do you find the published data of what the children themselves have said about their beliefs, or non-beliefs? Please do point me in the direction of unbiased evidence for that 90% statistic.

I was using the figures from the latest census. I full accept that they may not all practice their faith ... but when 'the chips were down' ... and the Census enumerator called, they self-professed themselves to be 90% Christian ... and that is such a high figure that arguing over a few percent one way or the other is academic, IMO.

AerynSun wrote: »

How do you know whether I - or any of the other posters here - haven't 'taken on board' the fact that some young people are self-professed Christians? I do know a good number of young people, and I do listen to them when they speak. Still, I think your 90% is a little off the mark.

It may well be a little off the mark ... but even if it is only 80% ... the Atheist figure, by way of comparison, was about 0.1%.
This doesn't mean, of course that Christians shouldn't consider the Atheist point of view ... and respect them for it ... but the 'tail is wagging the dog' ...when Atheists on this thread demand that we hand over our children to be indoctrinated into their beliefs ... whilst showing open contempt for Christian beliefs simultaneously.

AerynSun wrote: »

Perhaps you'd like to invite those other theists and liberal agnostics to come in here and tell us themselves how appalled they are. I'm not sure how it is that you get to be their spokesperson? Your arguments would be so much more persuasive (for me, at least) if you stuck to making your own case, without trying to make your case sound like 100 people back your argument. If your point of view is valid, it's valid - even if there's only the 1 of you.

I agree ... and many times there is only one of me making an argument.
I'd also like to see more Theists coming onto the A & A and engaging with ye ... but I have to say that any theists who venture in here ... often get 'short shrift' and end up leaving rapidly ... with their tails between their legs.

Sometimes this is because they make some silly point that you guys easily demolish ... but other times they just get scoffed at and 'tarred with' some easy label of dismissal ... and they simply leave again ... without any 'meeting of minds'.

AerynSun wrote: »

The tone of these most recent posts makes me feel like 'I've been told', and that doesn't help me to stay open hearted and uncritical, able to hear and consider your point of view. I'd much prefer if our exchanges here made me feel like we were having an amiable one-on-one chat. As it stands, I'm not sure whether I'm Deep Blue or Gary Kasparov...

The same goes for me ... that is why I have said that we might learn more from each other if we could engage in respectful conversations ... rather than having somebody jump in with an accusation of me lying or being a 'moron' ... when neither is objectively the case.

The tide of public opinion seems to be flowing in a Secular direction ... but you guys need to be careful not to 'overplay your hands' ... and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory!!!

Gordon

catallus wrote: »

^^^^

Can I get one of those??? Please???

• 4,078 (5,250) words
• 137 (291) sentences
• 227 (311) full stops
• 5 (5) uses of bold
• 64 (87) words bolded
• 4 (4) uses of italics
• 2 (1) uses of underline
• 33 (12) semicolons ;
• 16 (8) uses of (brackets)

• 1 (0) x ????????
• 2 (0) x ??????
• 3 (0) x ????
• 5 (1) x ???
• 1 (0) x ??
• 44 (34) x ?

• 1 (0) x !!!!!!!!!!!!
• 1 (0) x !!!!!!!
• 1 (0) x !!!!!!
• 0 (1) x !!!!!
• 3 (1) x !!!!
• 2 (0) x !!!
• 0 (0) x !!
• 17 (29) x !

• 0 (1) x ...........
• 1 (0) x .......
• 1 (1) x ......
• 7 (1) x .....
• 2 (9) x ....
• 3 (6) x ...
• 0 (0) x ..

• 10 (5) x
• 1 (2) x
• 1 (5) x :P
• 0 (3) x :pac:
• 0 (1) x
• 0 (0) x
• 0 (0) x :eek:
• 0 (0) x
• 0 (1) x :cool:
• 0 (1) x :rolleyes:
• 0 (0) x
• 0 (0) x :mad:

• 3 (0) x Youtube
• 4 (3) x URLs
• 0 (2) x Spoilers

Your recent 100 posts


Your first 100 posts

AerynSun

Gordon wrote: »

catallus stuff

That is beautiful. Ah. Jeepers. Swear those word clouds make for some powerful advertising imagery: catallus' stock just shot up a few points here

catallus

Thnx Gordon, it is a bit of an eye-opener! Is it me or is my word-cloud not as interesting as JC's? Maybe I should start being more dramatic to spruce things up a bit. It looks a bit bland and the colour scheme is not me at all.

AerynSun

catallus wrote: »

Is it me or is my word-cloud not as interesting as JC's?

Yours is well interesting: first string of words that jumped out at me was "believe sexual pub Ted, just want one thing!"

Gordon

catallus wrote: »

Thnx Gordon, it is a bit of an eye-opener! Is it me or is my word-cloud not as interesting as JC's? Maybe I should start being more dramatic to spruce things up a bit. It looks a bit bland and the colour scheme is not me at all.

I think it's nice, you seem to post about people, thinking, education, activity and use positive words. You can change the colour scheme yourself (ingrate!) by using the attachments and pasting them into wordle.net.

catallus

AerynSun wrote: »

Yours is well interesting: first string of words that jumped out at me was "believe sexual pub Ted, just want one thing!"

Well that actually sums me up perfectly!

I could mess around with that Wordle thing all day. I really think a more streamlined font and a blue and red colour scheme with a soupcon of yellow would suit me better, to give an idea of my true personality, (which is like Superman but smarter and sexier.) But thanks for trying

Zed Bank

They visited my school down here in waterford last year when I was in TY. The speakers where really down to earth, the fella was covered in tattoos and piercings and the women had absolutely no problem discussing the nitty gritty of sex, definitely not Jesus freaks and in no way over zealous. They really insisted on rejecting the more hardline religious dogma. It was more about the dangers of STIs and to use contraception. They openly admitted to having sex before marriage themselves and enthusiastically encouraged us to make the choice to stay chaste ourselves. Im not 100% certain, but I think (again not sure) they said they supported gay marriage, I switched off when they started discussing the religious aspect. Overall it was definitely worthwhile. And as an atheist I enjoyed it. It was a good laugh and I dont think they deserve the flak they are getting.

Brian Shanahan

J C wrote: »

Abstinence shouldn't be 'rubbished' which is how this tread started off.

Show me where I actually rubbished abstinence.

Oh, and it may suprise you to learn that I am quite abstinent in my sexual adventures. I only ever have sex (except for with Dame Palm and her 5 daughters) when I am in a committed long-term relationship (few and far that they are for me).

Just having the knowledge of human nature that I do (quite superficial actually, but knowledge of a teen's likelihood of being lead by their hormones doesn't need a profound knowledge), I know it is especially idiotic to leave sex education at the level of "don't do it". The fact of the matter is that sex education should be comprehensive, meaning teaching young people about contraception, sexuality, consent and all the other things neccessary for a proper appreciation of their sexual nature.

AerynSun

Zed Bank wrote: »

They visited my school down here in waterford last year when I was in TY.

It's so nice to hear that kind of feedback from someone who has first-hand experience of what Pure in Heart are out there doing. Fair play to them if they're brave enough to have real, honest chats with young people about sex, and also manage not to force an opinion while they're about it.

Thanks for sharing Zed Bank.

The Black Oil

My understanding is the the guidelines regarding external agencies visiting schools had been tightened, though this may only be in relation to mental health/student well-being.

I'd be curious to see an abstinence curriculum, preferably an Irish one, to see where its emphasis lies.

pablohoney87

Zed Bank wrote: »

They visited my school down here in waterford last year when I was in TY. The speakers where really down to earth, the fella was covered in tattoos and piercings and the women had absolutely no problem discussing the nitty gritty of sex, definitely not Jesus freaks and in no way over zealous. They really insisted on rejecting the more hardline religious dogma. It was more about the dangers of STIs and to use contraception. They openly admitted to having sex before marriage themselves and enthusiastically encouraged us to make the choice to stay chaste ourselves. Im not 100% certain, but I think (again not sure) they said they supported gay marriage, I switched off when they started discussing the religious aspect. Overall it was definitely worthwhile. And as an atheist I enjoyed it. It was a good laugh and I dont think they deserve the flak they are getting.

Hopefully that is the case. But they are really pushing the religious apsect on their page. They quoted JP2 "Only a chaste man and a chaste woman are capable of true love".
Nearly sh1t myself with pure rage

The Black Oil

Irish Times have a piece today on who is going into schools to talk about sex, and other issues.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/who-is-teaching-your-children-about-sex-1.1686402

lazygal

What is abstinence plus????

PopePalpatine

lazygal wrote: »

What is abstinence plus????

God turns a blind eye when you do anal.

oscarBravo

http://www.thejournal.ie/sex-education-sellotape-1310906-Feb2014/?utm_source=shortlink

Sarky

Oh, I remember a group doing that sellotape thing at my school. That'd be about 15 years ago so doubt it was Pure In Heart. Or at least Pure In Heart wasn't their name back then >_>

They finished off by attempting a ludicrously embarrassing montage of "cool" ways to turn down sex. I felt really sorry for them at the time. Mostly the Canadian guy who seemed completely oblivious to the fact that he was dressed like Garth Brooks on tour.

maguic24

Telling a teenager not to have sex is like telling a child they can't have sweets.

maguic24

Sarky wrote: »

Oh, I remember a group doing that sellotape thing at my school. That'd be about 15 years ago so doubt it was Pure In Heart. Or at least Pure In Heart wasn't their name back then >_>

They finished off by attempting a ludicrously embarrassing montage of "cool" ways to turn down sex. I felt really sorry for them at the time. Mostly the Canadian guy who seemed completely oblivious to the fact that he was dressed like Garth Brooks on tour.

We had the cellotape guys in too!!! I was in 2nd year at the time. Didn't really know what to make of it.

Peregrinus

lazygal wrote: »

What is abstinence plus????

"Promoting abstinence but also discussing contraception".

pablohoney87

maguic24 wrote: »

We had the cellotape guys in too!!! I was in 2nd year at the time. Didn't really know what to make of it.

Its a ridiculous analogy.

You could easily use similar demonstrations to say sex with different partners will make your penis bigger

pablohoney87

They are now resorting to the same tactics as Youth Defence and other organisations whose roots lie with the Religious right. Deleting any comments on facebook which are critical of them or bring forward debate to their promotion

PopePalpatine

I haven't actually heard much noise from Jugendschutz for the past few months. Perhaps Pure in Heart and Homophobegate is taking up their time?

maguic24

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I haven't actually heard much noise from Jugendschutz for the past few months. Perhaps Pure in Heart and Homophobegate is taking up their time?

Homophobegate, are you actually serious? There's an organisation called Homophobegate? :O I've heard it all now.

Nodin

oscarBravo wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/sex-education-sellotape-1310906-Feb2014/?utm_source=shortlink

Useless shower of tossers. No point in giving them credence by a long critique.

oceanclub

They appear to have now deleted their Facebook page and also turned off their web site. One wonders why if they stand behind everything they do.

P.

oceanclub

Zed Bank wrote: »

They visited my school down here in waterford last year when I was in TY. The speakers where really down to earth, the fella was covered in tattoos and piercings and the women had absolutely no problem discussing the nitty gritty of sex, definitely not Jesus freaks and in no way over zealous. They really insisted on rejecting the more hardline religious dogma. It was more about the dangers of STIs and to use contraception. They openly admitted to having sex before marriage themselves and enthusiastically encouraged us to make the choice to stay chaste ourselves. Im not 100% certain, but I think (again not sure) they said they supported gay marriage, I switched off when they started discussing the religious aspect. Overall it was definitely worthwhile. And as an atheist I enjoyed it. It was a good laugh and I dont think they deserve the flak they are getting.

Are you sure this is the same people? This contradicts both what the Iona Institute say about group - and they're in the same building - (http://www.ionainstitute.ie/index.php?id=3351) and also what friend says the group said to her child when asked about homosexuality.

P.

The Black Oil

I can't listen in work, but the Sean O' Rourke show will be covering the Pure folks after 10am this morning. RTE 1.