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
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Indepent article: Virgin territory (Love & Sex)
Comments
-
-
-
How is it not your position if you say it is "certainly" a factor.I never said that that was my position
Again there is very little evidence of this. It seems to be more of a myth arising because we are exposed to a lot more sex and sexuality in modern media that we were.. It is 'certainly' a factor though.
It is a bit like people thinking there are a lot more gays around these days.
Me thinks I'm not surprisedHmmmm. Me thinks you aint got a clue.
Only if the unwise are doing the 'teaching'. I think that you and the fear pusher types are two sides of the same unwise coin.
Sex is a wonderful thing. In line with Gods standard, its fantastic. Encouraging self control 'does not' mean making it all dirty etc.
It does because what you call "encouraging self control" is actually telling teenagers and young adults that it is wrong to have sex outside of "Gods standards". This associates sex with sin and dirtiness (how often is "unclean" used in the Bible with relation to sex?), something to feel ashamed of doing.
Which is part of your religion and your right to do, but not everyone is going to agree with it and certainly not going to say that this is not harmful.0 -
-
-
I'm not even sure you know what my view is Jimi. They are going to have sex anyway so lets do nothing is certainly not it.
Sometimes I think you talk to yourself. I have never said that I thought that was your position.But anyway this discussion is going no where because you guys have (as always) the infallible word of God on your side. Hard to argue against that isn't it. :rolleyes:
Yet here you are again and again
0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
And don't forget Romeo and Juliet were 13.
And "the little mermaid" got married just after her 16th Birthday (Disney, corrupting our youth since 1923)
Interesting post though WN, I think as you said, the highlighting of the statisctically unlikely (e.g. someone getting struck by lightening) by the media changes peoples perceived probability of that event occurring.0 -
Well yes, which is why we don't simply tell people not to drive dangerously.We enact laws that specifically punish them for doing this and spend millions on ad campaigns attempting to highlight the dangers and potential consequences of driving dangerously.
And even after all that people still drive dangerously.
Since you persist in blatantly avoiding or deliberately misinterpreting the main thrust of the arguments of many posters here this is completely futile.
We also have laws against sex, age of consent etc,spend millions on education and advertising re contraception etc, yet teen sex and/or pregnancies etc happens regardless.
So if a parent tells their child, that perhaps abstaining from sex until marriage is as good a course as any to avoid the pitfalls / telling their child not to drink a drive that is ok in your book?If your goal is to discourage teenagers and young adults from having pre-martial sex what is the point of using tactics that do not achieve this goal?
If your goal is to ensure as much as possible that teenagers and young adults have safer sex when having pre-marital sex (or marital sex for that matter), what is the point of using tactics that do not achieve this goal?
That is not all sexual education should be about. It should also explore the mentaland emotional ramifications.Well the reason for that is that in some quarters it is questioned whether teachers should be telling teenagers and young adults what they should be doing at all, that their role is to simply educate and inform, not to instruct in behaviour.
Instruct in behaviour like applying contraception? On the one hand you say sex education should be on all aspects, but now it shouldn't? Abstinence is not just the teachers preference, or personal bias.Personally if I was teaching sex ed along with teaching the biology and the practical (in this day and age every single teenager, male and female, should know how to put a condom on properly, it is ridiculous that they don't) I would say to the class that awaking sexuality and emotions can be a confusing time for someone with a lot of impulses and desires emerging and that it is advisable for people to experience sex (from petting to intercourse) inside a relationship with someone you know well and who you care about and believe cares about you.
Agree. But would you not also say that they should not feel under pressure to rush into it, that wanting to wait a few years could be a good option, that people who do abstain are not circus freaks? Because that IS the general opinion of the majority of people.The point of this discussion is not to ridicule people waiting to have sex in marriage.
Actually that is the point of the majority of posters who don't agree with this. They have been referred to as brainwashed, unnatural etc etc, and on other threads people who don't agree with the sexual culture are labelled with being prudish, repressed homosexuals, past victims of sexual abuse, of being physically unable to perform, living in the past etc, even people with self confessed no religious affiliation whatsoever are accused of labouring under "catholic guilt" and sex is bad mentality.Respecting people's decisions and not ridiculing them is a different issue to saying that the decision is a good idea and should be applauded. I don't think waiting until marriage to have sex is a good idea, but they are perfectly entitled to choose to do this if they wish.
Fine. Important to remember thought that not everyone shares you understanding opinion, as described above.Young people getting younger and younger? I assume you mean the age they have sex is getting younger and younger.
You assume wrong. What I said was the sexualisation of people. Childhoods are getting shorter and shorter. You need only have a look at some of the clothing for preteens these days to see that.That is not actually true, the view seems to stem from the queer human phenomena that everyone seem to think everyone else is having more sex than them.
IIRC married couples who abstained before marriage have more frequent sexual relations and decribe them as being more satisfying. So tbh that is not an issue for Christians at all.0 -
Since you persist in blatantly avoiding or deliberately misinterpreting the main thrust of the arguments of many posters here this is completely futile.
You asked me a question Prinz and I answered it (a question I imagine you though would expose a flaw in my point).
How you get me misrepresenting you from that I've no idea.We also have laws against sex, age of consent etc,spend millions on education and advertising re contraception etc, yet teen sex and/or pregnancies etc happens regardless.
Yes, it does. That was my point.So if a parent tells their child, that perhaps abstaining from sex until marriage is as good a course as any to avoid the pitfalls / telling their child not to drink a drive that is ok in your book?
Not really, I don't think it is as good a course as any, and I also think it is ridiculously unrealistic advice to avoid the pitfalls of sex.That is not all sexual education should be about. It should also explore the mentaland emotional ramifications.
I agree, but how do you do that in a measured way? The kids in this article seem to have got it from some where that sex before marriage is pretty bad and leads to pretty bad things. They have obviously been told this. Given that lots of people lead perfectly fulfilled and happy lives and relationships having sex outside of marriage this is obviously presenting only one view of reality.
To fairly educate kids on the mental and emotional "ramifications" (even that word has negative meaning) of sex you would need to present an unbiased view of sex and sexuality and I think that would be rather difficult as most people have ideas and issues towards sex and correct sexual behaviour.
Again this is why often a person needs to figure out things themselves and form their own views on sex, rather than be taught it by someone else.
How to apply a condom is not instruction in behaviour, any more than telling me what the top speed of my car is instruction to drive fast.Instruct in behaviour like applying contraception?On the one hand you say sex education should be on all aspects, but now it shouldn't?
Instruction on why to be abstinent is a behavioural instruction. It is not piece of factual information, like If you pull the condom down it may break, to successfully use it let it roll down.
It is a behaviourally choice, the same as Don't use condoms, they ruin sex is a behaviourally choice.
That is the argument, that what the teacher things is irrelevant. The teacher informs the students decide.Abstinence is not just the teachers preference, or personal bias.
Again I do not agree entirely with this position, I do think there is a place for the teacher to discuss behaviour not simply information, but I do recognise the inherent difficult with that and understand why some would argue that the problems out weigh the good and it is better than the teacher simply inform.Agree. But would you not also say that they should not feel under pressure to rush into it, that wanting to wait a few years could be a good option, that people who do abstain are not circus freaks? Because that IS the general opinion of the majority of people.
It is some what difficult to speak for the general opinion of the majority of people but I will put forward my theory.
I do think that some people (possibly the majority based on statistics of how few stick with it to marriage) sign up to abstinence not out of a genuine spiritual desire to be religious or from a genuine consideration that sex will be better in a marriage, but out of a need to feel that they are regaining control over their anxiety over sex and attractiveness.
I think that this then is reflected in how society views people who choose this, to put it in layman terms the view that the only reason they are saying they don't want to have sex is because they can't get laid.
So basically I don't think most people believe it when someone says that they are serious about doing this, and their instinct is to question what is the real reason they are saying it.
That of course is not in anyway an excuse to laugh or ridicule people. My concern would be that in the rush to defend the right of these people to choose to do this it out being ridiculed (which they of course have) the issue of whether or not it is actually a good idea or not is side stepped.Actually that is the point of the majority of posters who don't agree with this. They have been referred to as brainwashed, unnatural etc etc
Well actually PDN used the term brainwashed when referring to "intense media brainwashing" and studiorat used it some what ironically in response to question where these kids are getting their information. That is the last we heard of the term.
Again I think there is a knee jerk reaction to rush to the defence of anyone declaring themselves abstinence under the assumption that they will be viewed a "circus freak", and this colours ones judgement of anyone not agreeing with their choice.
I certainly do not agree with your assessment of how the majority of posters here have referred to these kids and those who make similar choices. The main objections seem to be the preaching of abstinence rather than the people themselves choosing it.
But arguing about what everyone else thinks is some what pointless, I think far better to stick to us arguing about what we think
I've not seen these threads (who called who a "repressed homosexual") so without reading them I can't really comment., and on other threads people who don't agree with the sexual culture are labelled with being prudish, repressed homosexuals, past victims of sexual abuse, of being physically unable to perform, living in the past etc, even people with self confessed no religious affiliation whatsoever are accused of labouring under "catholic guilt" and sex is bad mentality.
If they did we would have no need for heaven, we would already be thereFine. Important to remember thought that not everyone shares you understanding opinion, as described above.
I figured sexualisation of people meant sex.You assume wrong. What I said was the sexualisation of people.
I've never bought into this idea that an 8 year old dressing up like Britney Spears is "sexuality her". She doesn't have a clue about sex, she is mimicking a teen idol. She has no awareness of the sexual message such an outfit would infer if she was 21 any more than an 8 year old in a bikini top on the beach with her parents is aware of the sexual message such an outfit would infer if she was a 21 year old.
Theses kids are simply playing dress up. It is our awareness of what these outfits mean in the context of some one like Spears wearing them that make us uncomfortable about a young person wearing them, but it would be inaccurate to assume because of that this transfers as awareness on the part of the child her/himself.
How are you measuring childhoods?Childhoods are getting shorter and shorter.
That is a bit of a silly statistic? More satisfying that what exactly?IIRC married couples who abstained before marriage have more frequent sexual relations and decribe them as being more satisfying.
Without seeing the statistics it is hard to know which types of questions were asked but I see two possibilities, either the people who abstained are comparing their sex to what they imagine pre-marital sex is like which is some what pointless, particularly if they have a negative view of pre-marital sex anyway.
Or the survey is comparing some kind of rating abstinent couples gave with non-abstinent couples (are you a) satisfied b) very satisfied c) very very satisfied etc) which again seems rather pointless since the only sex you have ever had you have nothing to compare how satisfied you are with.0
Advertisement