“Ireland has a rape culture”

El_Duderino 09

Suttree wrote: »

You don't think violent and degrading pornography isn't becoming more common these days?

Richie Sadlier chats about this. He asks them to write the names of all the sex acts and positions they know about. He says it runs into up to 6 pages of terms. He makes an interesting point that parents or teachers aren’t telling. Children about taking a sh1t on your partner’s chest or bunching your partner in the back of the head. They’re learning about sex from porn and their peers. There’s absolutely no way you can trust they’re getting reliable information about sexual consent. They obviously need guidance from an adult trained to answer their questions.

I mentioned before about a man in his early 20s who I lived with. He believed it wasn’t possible to rape your girlfriend. He believed that being in a relationship meant consent didn’t come into it. Some people have incredible beliefs and we owe it to children to set them straight from an early age.

One eyed Jack

Lillyfae wrote: »

I don't see why my experiences would give any indication of how those people's parents taught them throughout their lives but hey ho.

It’s not unreasonable to assume that those people learned throughout their lives that what they did to you was wrong, but they chose to ignore what they had been taught because they’re the sort of person who puts themselves first and other people second. That’s an attitude problem, not a lack of education problem. That’s why I said I don’t see what difference consent classes would have made there, they’d still be just as likely to do to you what they did, because they felt they were entitled to do it to you, regardless of how you felt about it.

Lillyfae wrote: »

My point is more that parents are not an homogenous group who have the same beliefs and wishes and can ensure that all or most of their children have the same understanding as all of their peers. Like the vaccination argument, some people are just not up to making these sort of decisions for the rest of us.

I do get your point, but parents have a better understanding of their children and the values they want to impart to their children, than adults who have an agenda of their own for those children who are not their children. It’s exactly like the vaccines argument - the people who imagine themselves to be best qualified to impart their perspective on children, also wish they had the right to impose their will on parents who don’t share their views. That’s why the lobby groups behind the sex education bill are attempting to make their views mandatory education instead of allowing for parental consent. I’m quite relieved they’re not in a position to make these decisions for the rest of us.

Lillyfae

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s not unreasonable to assume that those people learned throughout their lives that what they did to you was wrong, but they chose to ignore what they had been taught because they’re the sort of person who puts themselves first and other people second. That’s an attitude problem, not a lack of education problem. That’s why I said I don’t see what difference consent classes would have made there, they’d still be just as likely to do to you what they did, because they felt they were entitled to do it to you, regardless of how you felt about it.

I think it's unreasonable to assume that. Their parents might have been appalled at their behaviour or given them a clap on the back. I have no clue

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I do get your point, but parents have a better understanding of their children and the values they want to impart to their children, than adults who have an agenda of their own for those children who are not their children. It’s exactly like the vaccines argument - the people who imagine themselves to be best qualified to impart their perspective on children, also wish they had the right to impose their will on parents who don’t share their views. That’s why the lobby groups behind the sex education bill are attempting to make their views mandatory education instead of allowing for parental consent. I’m quite relieved they’re not in a position to make these decisions for the rest of us.

I'm not sure where you're coming from here- i guess you're anti vax. I believe middle class parents who read something on the internet are not best qualified to determine that their unvaccinated child won't put my child in danger and thus vaccination should be mandatory, as should sex education. Their perspective doesn't come into it unless they have qualifications in immunology or something.

One eyed Jack

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Richie Sadlier chats about this. He asks them to write the names of all the sex acts and positions they know about. He says it runs into up to 6 pages of terms. He makes an interesting point that parents or teachers aren’t telling. Children about taking a sh1t on your partner’s chest or bunching your partner in the back of the head. They’re learning about sex from porn and their peers. There’s absolutely no way you can trust they’re getting reliable information about sexual consent. They obviously need guidance from an adult trained to answer their questions.

I have a question. Do you think it’s appropriate to take a dump on someone’s chest or punch them in the back of the head if they ask you to?

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I mentioned before about a man in his early 20s who I lived with. He believed it wasn’t possible to rape your girlfriend. He believed that being in a relationship meant consent didn’t come into it. Some people have incredible beliefs and we owe it to children to set them straight from an early age.

You met one idiot who sounds like he was winding you up, pretty much like the way it sounds like the children were winding up Richard Sadler by coming up with the most extreme acts they could think of... little fcukers :pac:

One eyed Jack

Lillyfae wrote: »

I think it's unreasonable to assume that. Their parents might have been appalled at their behaviour or given them a clap on the back. I have no clue

We’ll have to agree to disagree on that one Lilly as I don’t believe for a minute the people who behaved inappropriately towards you didn’t know what they were doing was wrong, and it’s reasonable IMO to assume that they knew what they were doing was wrong because they had learned at some point that it was wrong, but simply chose to ignore what they were taught.

Lillyfae wrote: »

I'm not sure where you're coming from here- i guess you're anti vax. I believe middle class parents who read something on the internet are not best qualified to determine that their unvaccinated child won't put my child in danger and thus vaccination should be mandatory, as should sex education. Their perspective doesn't come into it unless they have qualifications in immunology or something.

Where I’m coming from is very simple - you want to remove parental consent in order to make learning about consent mandatory for their children. One of the problems with that idea, apart from the obvious contradiction, is that contrary to your beliefs, parents perspective does come into their children’s welfare, whether it be vaccination or sex education - both require parental consent.

You’re arguing that people shouldn’t have the choice to consent while arguing that most people don’t understand consent and aren’t qualified to teach their children about consent, so your solution is to remove the right to consent from their parents so you can force your will upon them.

What do you imagine children learn from that? It’s not unreasonable to assume they learn not to trust you.

Suttree

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You met one idiot who sounds like he was winding you up, pretty much like the way it sounds like the children were winding up Richard Sadler by coming up with the most extreme acts they could think of... little fcukers :pac:

The ability of some people on forums to understand the context of events they weren't present for better than those who were will never cease to amaze me.

"i think it's abundantly clear that parents are the best people to answer any questions their teenage kids might have around sex and consent" and "isnt it in the constitution" are two of the least convincing justifications i may ever have read on any topic, ever.

note im probably only popping in to say i probably disagree with *everyone* on the thread since i last posted and id like to frame that as being a ~good thing~ in this topic in particular.

the value in these discussions, and when they occur within the age group we're talking about in particular, is not that you convince or browbeat, it's that you firstly have to formulate and consider your thoughts on the various scenarios, and that you may find it within yourself to consider those of others

either side trying to "win" is an actively harmful agent imo.

Lillyfae

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You’re arguing that people shouldn’t have the choice to consent while arguing that most people don’t understand consent and aren’t qualified to teach their children about consent, so your solution is to remove the right to consent from their parents so you can force your will upon them.

What do you imagine children learn from that? It’s not unreasonable to assume they learn not to trust you.

Where did I say that people shouldn't have the choice to consent? What does that even mean??

Can you just slow down and read what I'm saying. I believe that all children need to be as much as possible as competent as their peers when it comes to consent. I said that not all parents (not people as you have embellished above) are qualified to impart the same level of competence to their children, nor would they be willing to- those who have extreme religious views, for one example.

Lillyfae

Deleted User wrote: »

note im probably only popping in to say i probably disagree with *everyone* on the thread since i last posted and id like to frame that as being a ~good thing~ in this topic in particular.

This is exactly what I'm saying. This discussion needs to be had so that it's out in the open, and that's what's really missing so far.

1800_Ladladlad

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

Women aren't as regulating of foreign men's behaviour. You know, a sleazy Spanish man hasn't seen the same way as a sleazy Irish man.

I think one of the largest evils of the world is that normal male behaviour is tied into rape.

In anglo saxon cultures (perhaps all catholic cultures) there does seem to be the notion that all men have the possibility to be rapists. So they should be blocked form porn, short dresses, or the new Joker film.

I think this does go without saying tbh.

I am still waiting for you to clarify the fisher price statements above.

One eyed Jack

Suttree wrote: »

The ability of some people on forums to understand the context of events they weren't present for better than those who were will never cease to amaze me.

It shouldn’t really amaze you. It’s something which juries which are made up of 12 ordinary members of the public, are expected to do all the time in cases where whether or not consent was present is contested.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Where I’m coming from is very simple - you want to remove parental consent in order to make learning about consent mandatory for their children. One of the problems with that idea, apart from the obvious contradiction, is that contrary to your beliefs, parents perspective does come into their children’s welfare, whether it be vaccination or sex education - both require parental consent.

But IS parental consent required?

I get the contradiction you're pointing out, but (genuinely open to correction on this) does the State not have a prescribed standard of education and syllabus for kids up to the end of secondary school?

Of course, parents are not required to send their kids to school, but they ARE required to provide for an education up to said set standards and make alternative arrangements (e.g. homeschooling) if they choose so. And if that includes sexual education, so be it.

In other words, parents can take their kids out of sex-ed classes, but they are still required to ensure an alternative form of said education to State standard, which may or may not include consent.

Suttree

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It shouldn’t really amaze you. It’s something which juries which are made up of 12 ordinary members of the public, are expected to do all the time in cases where whether or not consent was present is contested.

Based off a post on a forum? Thankfully haven't been in a courtroom recently.

One eyed Jack

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

But IS parental consent required?

I get the contradiction you're pointing out, but (genuinely open to correction on this) does the State not have a prescribed standard of education and syllabus for kids up to the end of secondary school?

Of course, parents are not required to send their kids to school, but they ARE required to provide for an education up to said set standards and make alternative arrangements (e.g. homeschooling) if they choose so. And if that includes sexual education, so be it.

In other words, parents can take their kids out of sex-ed classes, but they are still required to ensure an alternative form of said education to State standard, which may or may not include consent.

Yes, parental consent has to be sought by the school to permit the child to participate in relationships and sex education classes. There isn’t a mandatory State standard for relationships and sex education which is why the Objective Sex Education Bill is being proposed as a way for it’s supporters to introduce mandatory sex education through the back door so to speak

Basically they want their ideas to be delivered in schools regardless of the characteristic spirit of the school and regardless of whether or not the parents consent to permit their children to be exposed to that form of education. It’s similar in the way the State recognises the rights of parents who do not consent to have their children participate in religious education.

One eyed Jack

Suttree wrote: »

Based off a post on a forum? Thankfully haven't been in a courtroom recently.

Ahh for goodness sake. I gave you a similar example of something which you claim amazes you, by way of making the point that it really isn’t amazing at all that people will interpret circumstances however they do even though they weren’t there at the time themselves.

Suttree

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Ahh for goodness sake. I gave you a similar example of something which you claim amazes you, by way of making the point that it really isn’t amazing at all that people will interpret circumstances however they do even though they weren’t there at the time themselves.

They're not similar at all, though - as presented by the other poster, nothing was a point of contention, he knew the lad in question, and Richie Sadlier was present with the school children - you neither know the other guy, or spoke to the group of children, but decided you had an informed opinion on it.

In a jury case relating to consent usually it's two parties who were present.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yes, parental consent has to be sought by the school to permit the child to participate in relationships and sex education classes.

Not my question - this is exactly the preset to my point.

There isn’t a mandatory State standard for relationships and sex education which is why the Objective Sex Education Bill is being proposed as a way for it’s supporters to introduce mandatory sex education through the back door so to speak

So the question this is: Should there be one?

Basically they want their ideas to be delivered in schools regardless of the characteristic spirit of the school and regardless of whether or not the parents consent to permit their children to be exposed to that form of education. It’s similar in the way the State recognises the rights of parents who do not consent to have their children participate in religious education.

Some things the State decides is essential to a child's education (e.g. maths, English) and some it does not (e.g. religion), I'm aware if this too.

Question is: does sex and relationship education fall into the essential category; and therefore require the parents to permit the school to do it, or do it themsleves? I'd argue yes.

Suttree

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Basically they want their ideas to be delivered in schools regardless of the characteristic spirit of the school...

This is an interesting one - why should the spirit of the school have a bearing?

My secondary school sex education consisted of our religion teacher telling us masturbation was wrong - is that a responsible approach in life in the spirit of the school? That's to say nothing of it being a hard sell on a class of teenage boys..

One eyed Jack

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Not my question - this is exactly the preset to my point.

So the question this is: Should there be one?

See point one above.

Just so I’m clear on what you’re asking-

Should there be a minimum standard mandatory relationships and sex education curriculum regardless of the characteristic spirit of the school delivered without the requirement to seek parental consent?

No. No there shouldn’t.

At the moment what happens in schools is that the Board of Management in consultation with the parents decide on how relationships and sex education is to be delivered in the school, and parents are able to opt out of permitting their children to participate in these classes.

I’m genuinely stumped as to the logic of arguing that teaching children about consent should be mandatory and their parents should have no choice in how their children are to be educated in relationships and sex education according to their values, which aren’t necessarily the values of what it’s supporters are calling an objective sex education. It’s clearly not objective.

El_Duderino 09

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I have a question. Do you think it’s appropriate to take a dump on someone’s chest or punch them in the back of the head if they ask you to?





You met one idiot who sounds like he was winding you up, pretty much like the way it sounds like the children were winding up Richard Sadler by coming up with the most extreme acts they could think of... little fcukers :pac:

Yes. If people want to take a sh1t on each other, they can do as they collectively please. It would take a bit of a consent discussion first. But if that’s what they like, appropriate doesn’t really enter into it.

Right. But you’re missing the point. They weren’t taking the mick. They were asked for terms and sex acts and that’s what they gave. They know about these things and I’m willing to bet that no teacher or parent has told them about taking a sh1t on their partner’s chest. So they’re learning from porn and peers. So parents and teachers need to be able to have the same conversations and set them straight

I know you said you think they get accurate info from 13 year old lads chatting about what they know about sex. But I don’t agree that we should rely on that.

I think children learn loads from watching porn and from their peers. I don’t think that’s sufficient education nor do I think they’re likely to get accurate information from porn or their mates who are also children.

The bloke who thought it wasn’t possible to rape your girlfriend was a mate who I lived with for a few years. Not a bad guy in normal life but he had a seriously faulty belief.

But so what if he was an “idiot”. Do you think idiots aren’t common? Do you think they don’t have sex? Or are you dismissing idiots because the obvious solution to someone having a faulty belief, is to discuss it and straighten it out ( which is what happened in the end) the guy made a flippant remark about how it’s not possible to rape your girlfriend and we challenged him. He thought WE were joking so he asked his dad and his dad set him straight (educated him)

El_Duderino 09

Suttree wrote: »

This is an interesting one - why should the spirit of the school have a bearing?

My secondary school sex education consisted of our religion teacher telling us masturbation was wrong - is that a responsible approach in life in the spirit of the school? That's to say nothing of it being a hard sell on a class of teenage boys..

But surely they taught manners, right? Why would you need sex education if you knew about manners?

One eyed Jack

Suttree wrote: »

This is an interesting one - why should the spirit of the school have a bearing?

My secondary school sex education consisted of our religion teacher telling us masturbation was wrong - is that a responsible approach in life in the spirit of the school? That's to say nothing of it being a hard sell on a class of teenage boys..

I would say it’s consistent with Catholic religious education anyway, so in that sense yes it’s a responsible approach to relationships and sex education from a Catholic perspective.

I don’t think it’s actually that hard to sell to teenage boys these days who would be familiar with the “nofap movement” which is an online community of what appears to be grown men espousing the virtues of abstaining from masturbation - a whole host of mental and physical health benefits apparently :rolleyes:

One eyed Jack

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yes. If people want to take a sh1t on each other, they can fo as they collective please. It would take a bit of a consent discussion first. But if that’s what they like, appropriate doesn’t really enter into it.

Right. But you’re missing the point. They weren’t taking the mick. They were asked for terms and sex acts and that’s what they gave. They know about these things and I’m willing to bet that no teacher or parent has told them about taking a sh1t on their partner’s chest. So they’re learning from porn and peers. So parents and teachers need to be able to have the same conversations and set them straight
Mi know you said you think they get accurate info from 13 year old lads chatting about what they know about sex. But I don’t agree that we should rely on that.

I think children learn loads from watching porn and from their peers. I don’t think that’s sufficient education nor do I think they’re likely to get accurate information from porn or their mates who are also children.

To be fair El_D, if you were their teacher, it’s not unreasonable to assume that if you were asked was it appropriate for them to take a dump on their partners chest, you don’t appear to see how appropriate or not might enter into the discussion because the person themselves wants someone to take a dump on their chest.

I wouldn’t encourage any children to think that sort of behaviour is appropriate or that’s an acceptable way to treat anyone, regardless of whether they want to be treated that way themselves.

Suttree

One eyed Jack wrote: »

To be fair El_D, if you were their teacher, it’s not unreasonable to assume that if you were asked was it appropriate for them to take a dump on their partners chest, you don’t appear to see how appropriate or not might enter into the discussion because the person themselves wants someone to take a dump on their chest.

I wouldn’t encourage any children to think that sort of behaviour is appropriate or that’s an acceptable way to treat anyone, regardless of whether they want to be treated that way themselves.

F****** hell.

El_Duderino 09

One eyed Jack wrote: »

To be fair El_D, if you were their teacher, it’s not unreasonable to assume that if you were asked was it appropriate for them to take a dump on their partners chest, you don’t appear to see how appropriate or not might enter into the discussion because the person themselves wants someone to take a dump on their chest.

I wouldn’t encourage any children to think that sort of behaviour is appropriate or that’s an acceptable way to treat anyone, regardless of whether they want to be treated that way themselves.

Hold on if people want to take a dump on each other, they are free to do so. If children are learning about it, parents/teachers need to be able to talk about it to guide them. Otherwise you’re leaving aspects if sex education exclusively to porn and peers. What a terrible idea.

I wouldn’t open the sex education discussion with dumping on each other. But if children have questions, you have to be prepared to answer them. Referring them to pornhub for education is an abdication of duty.

Suttree

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I would say it’s consistent with Catholic religious education anyway, so in that sense yes it’s a responsible approach to relationships and sex education from a Catholic perspective.

I don’t think it’s actually that hard to sell to teenage boys these days who would be familiar with the “nofap movement” which is an online community of what appears to be grown men espousing the virtues of abstaining from masturbation - a whole host of mental and physical health benefits apparently :rolleyes:

If you think a responsible approach to sex education makes no mention of contraception, sexually transmitted infections, consent, chances of pregnancy, etc. you're engaged in this discussion from a fundamentalist point of view and should have no say whatsoever in the sexual education of any person, be they your own children or any other.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Just so I’m clear on what you’re asking-

Should there be a minimum standard mandatory relationships and sex education curriculum regardless of the characteristic spirit of the school delivered without the requirement to seek parental consent?

No. No there shouldn’t.

At the moment what happens in schools is that the Board of Management in consultation with the parents decide on how relationships and sex education is to be delivered in the school, and parents are able to opt out of permitting their children to participate in these classes.

Disgree with you here - I'd argue that learning about sexual health and communication is essential, especially in this age. The alternative is to open the door to teenage pregnancies, increased level of STDs in young adults, hate and ignorance towards homosexual groups and more misunderstandings leading to rape accusations and cases.

Unless you're advocating some other way of imparting said knowledge (and, if so, what?)

I’m genuinely stumped as to the logic of arguing that teaching children about consent should be mandatory and their parents should have no choice in how their children are to be educated in relationships and sex education according to their values, which aren’t necessarily the values of what it’s supporters are calling an objective sex education. It’s clearly not objective.

Welcome to the Social Contract.

One eyed Jack

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Hold on if people want to take a dump on each other, they are free to do so. If children are learning about it, parents/teachers need to be able to talk about it to guide them. Otherwise you’re leaving aspects if sex education exclusively to porn and peers. What a terrible idea.

I wouldn’t open the sex education discussion with dumping on each other. But if children have questions, you have to be prepared to answer them. Referring them to pornhub for education is an abdication of duty.

I asked you a simple question, as simple as I could make it because I didn’t want you thinking it was any trick question or anything. I asked you did you think it was appropriate for someone to take a dump on someone’s chest if that person wants them to. You answered that appropriate didn’t come into it and further clarified above that if people want to take a dump on each other they are free to do so.

It wasn’t a trick question and that’s why I’m offering my opinion that I don’t think it’s at all appropriate, whether a person consents to it or not. I know you wouldn’t open the discussion like that, but that’s where basic manners is more important than teaching children it’s ok to **** on people if they want you to. Basic manners determines what is and isn’t appropriate behaviour and attitudes, rather than suggesting any attitude or behaviour is acceptable as long as consent is present.

If a child were to ask me if it’s appropriate to take a dump on someone if they ask you to, I’d simply tell them no, that’s not fcuking normal, sort themselves out. If they’re watching porn, they’re old enough to be told to cup the fcuk on.

El_Duderino 09

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I asked you a simple question, as simple as I could make it because I didn’t want you thinking it was any trick question or anything. I asked you did you think it was appropriate for someone to take a dump on someone’s chest if that person wants them to. You answered that appropriate didn’t come into it and further clarified above that if people want to take a dump on each other they are free to do so.

It wasn’t a trick question and that’s why I’m offering my opinion that I don’t think it’s at all appropriate, whether a person consents to it or not. I know you wouldn’t open the discussion like that, but that’s where basic manners is more important than teaching children it’s ok to **** on people if they want you to. Basic manners determines what is and isn’t appropriate behaviour and attitudes, rather than suggesting any attitude or behaviour is acceptable as long as consent is present.

If a child were to ask me if it’s appropriate to take a dump on someone if they ask you to, I’d simply tell them no, that’s not fcuking normal, sort themselves out. If they’re watching porn, they’re old enough to be told to cup the fcuk on.

The last paragraph is literally what I’m talking about. Children asking questions and parents or teachers answering them.

If the lads behind the bike shed said dumping on each other is normal, then you’d be happy to leave it there. As you said earlier, their peers are the best people to learn from.

Be fair, your opinion is all over the shop. And you haven’t addressed the issue of there being complete idiots in the world (people without basic manners, as you might say). People who don’t have all the information because the info they get from their peers is faulty.

There’s a case in uk court today reported in the guardian where an autistic man doesn’t think have capacity to understand the concept of consent - not everyone knows all the things you know. Children have a massive variety of beliefs. It’s normal to teach children the things they don’t know. You know that’s the truth, everyone knows that’s the truth of it.