Pure in heart abstinence only education

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.

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.

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?

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.

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!!!

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.....

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.

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???

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

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.

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...

Nodin

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

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!

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.

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

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.

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.

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:

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.

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?

Obliq

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.