Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Pure in heart abstinence only education

Options
1…5681011…17

Comments

  • Options
    #212
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    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.


  • Options
    #213
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    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?


  • Options
    #214
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    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".


  • Options
    #215
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    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?


  • Options
    #216
    Sulla Felix
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,442 ✭✭✭Sulla Felix


    J C wrote: »
    ... like what?
    What's wrong with plain ol' rape?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #217
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    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.


  • Options
    #218
    AerynSun
    Registered Users Posts: 544 ✭✭✭AerynSun


    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.


  • Options
    #219
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    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


  • Options
    #220
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    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%?


  • Options
    #221
    coffee_cake
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,309 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    robindch wrote: »
    You sure you're using it on the right 1%?

    Probably accounts for his failure rate


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #222
    AerynSun
    Registered Users Posts: 544 ✭✭✭AerynSun


    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?


  • Options
    #223
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,849 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


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


  • Options
    #224
    Gordon
    Registered Users Posts: 35,524 ✭✭✭✭Gordon


    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?


  • Options
    #225
    AerynSun
    Registered Users Posts: 544 ✭✭✭AerynSun


    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...

    ;)


  • Options
    #226
    Gordon
    Registered Users Posts: 35,524 ✭✭✭✭Gordon


    Hehe, no, the other snip!


  • Options
    #227
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


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


  • Options
    #228
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    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.


  • Options
    #229
    AerynSun
    Registered Users Posts: 544 ✭✭✭AerynSun


    lazygal wrote: »
    That auld metric system is heathen talk.

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


  • Options
    #230
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    J C wrote: »
    It isn't an 'ideology' ...

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


  • Options
    #231
    Gordon
    Registered Users Posts: 35,524 ✭✭✭✭Gordon


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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #232
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    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.


  • Options
    #233
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    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.


  • Options
    #234
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    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


  • Options
    #235
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    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


  • Options
    #236
    Sierra 117
    Registered Users Posts: 629 ✭✭✭Sierra 117


    J C wrote: »
    That's what many say allright!!!:):D

    I'm sorry to hear that.


  • Options
    #237
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    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!!!;):)


  • Options
    #238
    Sierra 117
    Registered Users Posts: 629 ✭✭✭Sierra 117


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

    ;)


  • Options
    #239
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    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!!!:)


  • Options
    #240
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #241
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,720 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    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.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



Advertisement