“Ireland has a rape culture”

One eyed Jack

Suttree wrote: »

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.

Regardless of where I stand on the issues you mentioned above, your opinion that anyone who doesn’t share your views above shouldn’t have any say in the education of their own children is exactly why you should have no say in the education of their children.

I don’t see my views as any more fundamentalist than your own, the difference between us I suppose is that I don’t actually care what you decide your own children should be taught, that’s entirely your responsibility and your choice as a parent of your own children, a right I fully support.

Annurca Apples

Does Ireland have a murder culture? People casually say things like "I could murder a pint" which just shows how acceptable murder is.

Suttree

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Regardless of where I stand on the issues you mentioned above, your opinion that anyone who doesn’t share your views above shouldn’t have any say in the education of their own children is exactly why you should have no say in the education of their children.

I don’t see my views as any more fundamentalist than your own, the difference between us I suppose is that I don’t actually care what you decide your own children should be taught, that’s entirely your responsibility and your choice as a parent of your own children, a right I fully support.

To be frank, your view is invalid - you have a view of sex education that doesn't involve educating children (at an appropriate age) about sex.

Reviews and Books Galore

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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.

Hundreds of years ago, before the internet, I imagine they would be taking the mick also and mentioning other extreme acts. Probably learned from myths about ethnic groups or strange victorian erotica.



I can guarantee the second bold is word play and kind of proves why consent classes are dubious. I imagine it was more the guy saying he did not have to ask for consent as he and his girlfriend already have a trust relationship. Kind of like how a wife grabbing her husband's bottom is different than the same wife grabbing a strangers bottom.



I am sure there is muddying the waters where 'he thinks he can take his girlfriend without consent' but that's because people are phrasing consent in regards to the man as the aggressor and the woman just going along with it (:rolleyes:)


I'm just adding my two cents as I don't expect, or desire, you to reply as our argument styles aren't really meshing, but this is something to highlight about consent classes as there is a massive amount of wordplay involved.

Reviews and Books Galore

Deleted User wrote: »

"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.

You know, it is interesting. In regards to boys, and I think we can all agree this is about boy's actions, the parent puts the boys first, but society puts boys second.



And, on a related note, I wonder how consent classes will affect the legal process? If children are taught that a woman cannot consent if she has had a glass of wine, would teenagers then admit legally to rape when if fact it was entirely consensual?



Or perhaps any other silly whack a mole issue that comes up.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Suttree wrote: »

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.

Regardless of where I stand on the issues you mentioned above, your opinion that anyone who doesn’t share your views above shouldn’t have any say in the education of their own children is exactly why you should have no say in the education of their children.

I don’t see my views as any more fundamentalist than your own, the difference between us I suppose is that I don’t actually care what you decide your own children should be taught, that’s entirely your responsibility and your choice as a parent of your own children, a right I fully support.

This kind of renders any child-protection law inoperable, if the parents can simply override it.

Annurca Apples

I wouldn't be surprised if when people say they don't need consent in a relationship what they actually mean is they don't explicitly ask for permission.

The interviewers are then only too delighted to interpret it that the interviewee believes it's ok to rape in a relationship.

El_Duderino 09

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

Hundreds of years ago, before the internet, I imagine they would be taking the mick also and mentioning other extreme acts. Probably learned from myths about ethnic groups or strange victorian erotica.



I can guarantee the second bold is word play and kind of proves why consent classes are dubious. I imagine it was more the guy saying he did not have to ask for consent as he and his girlfriend already have a trust relationship. Kind of like how a wife grabbing her husband's bottom is different than the same wife grabbing a strangers bottom.



I am sure there is muddying the waters where 'he thinks he can take his girlfriend without consent' but that's because people are phrasing consent in regards to the man as the aggressor and the woman just going along with it (:rolleyes:)


I'm just adding my two cents as I don't expect, or desire, you to reply as our argument styles aren't really meshing, but this is something to highlight about consent classes as there is a massive amount of wordplay involved.

The children were answering the question they were asked. They were asked hit sex terms they knew of, they gave sex terms they knew of.

The guy was telling us he came in late from a night out. Climbed into bed to have sex with his Mrs and she wasn’t into it. He didn’t think consent came into it because he’s her girlfriend.

Even if he’s an idiot, he was a normal person with an idiotic belief. He’s a primary school teacher now as it happens. So not a complete idiot but he had at least one really wrong belief.

One eyed Jack

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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.

How about you be fair? I wouldn’t be happy to leave it there. You’re setting up hypothetical scenarios now because I didn’t answer your earlier barrage of questions. I only asked you one simple question, and you indicated that if both parties were ok with it, it’s their own business what they do.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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 are complete idiots in the world. I don’t know what you want me to address, that’s just a fact I think we can both agree on. I would also hope that we agree on the fact that being an idiot isn’t a criminal offence. I would also hope that we agree on the fact that even in spite of having all the information, some people behave like idiots regardless.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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.

Not just children, but adults too have a massive variety of beliefs, and of course it’s normal to teach children about things they don’t know.

I would add though that it’s not normal to attempt to teach a child anything which is inconsistent with their parents values, such as if a parents values consist of teaching basic manners and respect for themselves and other people, and another adult comes along and doesn’t think teaching children about appropriate and inappropriate standards of behaviour would be more relevant to a class of children. I wouldn’t encourage any child to think there’s anything appropriate about pornography and using that extreme as the basis for a discussion about relationships.

Honestly from my perspective, sex is only a very small part of relationships, and how to treat other people with respect is far more important values to instil in children.

Reviews and Books Galore

Annurca Apples wrote: »

I wouldn't be surprised if when people say they don't need consent in a relationship what they actually mean is they don't explicitly ask for permission.

The interviewers are then only too delighted to interpret it that the interviewee believes it's ok to rape in a relationship.

Yeah, a lot of rape statistics are based on truly absurd notions.



In regards to the whole drunk consent thing I can see three scenarious here.



1) She said no and he raped her.



2) He did not think he broke consent as she said no, he didn't pursue it and any touching was in the bounds of a relationship and not sexual assault.



3) She had sex with him even though she wasn't in the mood for some reason of her own choosing, and unless there was a physical threat of violence, then it couldn't really be breaking consent.

1800_Ladladlad

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

You know, it is interesting. In regards to boys, and I think we can all agree this is about boy's actions, the parent puts the boys first, but society puts boys second.

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 understand that you have proved yourself to be incapable of providing responses in the thread, to uneducated comments that you have made and failed to back up. I am still waiting for you to clarify the fisher price statements above. Something tells me that you know the points you made were nonsense. Hence the lack of response and why you have gone to ground on the matter. This seems to be a recurring theme with your other activity threads.

One eyed Jack

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

This kind of renders any child-protection law inoperable, if the parents can simply override it.

It really doesn’t PCB, because ultimately the State is the guardian of the common good, but that’s more to do with the protection of children than the education of children - the State has the authority to supplant the place of the parents and provide for the needs of the child if it is determined to be in the child’s best interests.

Trying to do an end run around children’s parents in order to impart values to their children those parents do not share, is never an idea I would support.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

This kind of renders any child-protection law inoperable, if the parents can simply override it.

It really doesn’t PCB, because ultimately the State is the guardian of the common good, but that’s more to do with the protection of children than the education of children - the State has the authority to supplant the place of the parents and provide for the needs of the child if it is determined to be in the child’s best interests.

Trying to do an end run around children’s parents in order to impart values to their children those parents do not share, is never an idea I would support.

We're not talking values. We're taking education. Clue is in the name: sexual education
Or - again - how else do you propose equipping children with said knowledge?

El_Duderino 09

One eyed Jack wrote: »

How about you be fair? I wouldn’t be happy to leave it there. You’re setting up hypothetical scenarios now because I didn’t answer your earlier barrage of questions. I only asked you one simple question, and you indicated that if both parties were ok with it, it’s their own business what they do.





There are complete idiots in the world. I don’t know what you want me to address, that’s just a fact I think we can both agree on. I would also hope that we agree on the fact that being an idiot isn’t a criminal offence. I would also hope that we agree on the fact that even in spite of having all the information, some people behave like idiots regardless.





Not just children, but adults too have a massive variety of beliefs, and of course it’s normal to teach children about things they don’t know.

I would add though that it’s not normal to attempt to teach a child anything which is inconsistent with their parents values, such as if a parents values consist of teaching basic manners and respect for themselves and other people, and another adult comes along and doesn’t think teaching children about appropriate and inappropriate standards of behaviour would be more relevant to a class of children. I wouldn’t encourage any child to think there’s anything appropriate about pornography and using that extreme as the basis for a discussion about relationships.

Honestly from my perspective, sex is only a very small part of relationships, and how to treat other people with respect is far more important values to instil in children.

I know you didn’t answer the questions. To answer them would demonstrate the value of discussion which you’re doing your best to minimise.

Bring an idiot is not a crime. Not even attempting to give people (everyone including idiots) the information they need is a really bad idea and an abdication of duty.

Whether or not you think porn is appropriate is completely beside the point. Children watch porn. It’s where they learn about sex right now. Dimply telling them porn is not appropriate, is a cop out. Children need and deserve guidance. They will learn from porn. Whether you (and we as a society) are prepared to also talk to them will determine whether they learn from porn alone or from porn and parents/teachers.

One eyed Jack

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

We're not talking values. We're taking education. Clue is in the name: sexual education
Or - again - how else do you propose equipping children with said knowledge?

By imparting values of respect and responsibility in children for themselves and for others. That constitutes education and knowledge. That gives them a basic understanding which they can easily relate to which is founded in treating themselves and other people with dignity and respect. The sexual part of that education as I said is only a small part of a child’s education.

Veritas Libertas

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

We're not talking values. We're taking education. Clue is in the name: sexual education
Or - again - how else do you propose equipping children with said knowledge?

Here's what the children have to say about it:

Generally, students said they were more likely to learn about the scientific facts (whether via Science or SPHE class) and they felt the most
critical aspect that was lacking in RSE was the emotional and relational aspect. They also spoke about the need to talk about values such as respect and rights and responsibilities and they spoke of the link between self-awareness, self-esteem, body image and positive mental health. Students recognised that these topics are intrinsically related to RSE, but seldom discussed.

Source

Relationships and Sexuality Education (RSE) is mandatory for both primary and post-primary student. CLASSES ON CONSENT are to be introduced in schools for the first time. ...

The Education Minister has ordered a full review of sex education in schools, with particular focus on certain areas, including consent and contraception.

Source

Why did the minister call for a full review into sex education with particular focus on consent?
Pressurized by feminist groups with no reason and no data.

This is what the report found.
It seems to allude to the fact that teaching about consent is more of a political talking point concerning some parents and many 'stake holders'.

One eyed Jack

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I know you didn’t answer the questions. To answer them would demonstrate the value of discussion which you’re doing your best to minimise.

Bring an idiot is not a crime. Not even attempting to give people (everyone including idiots) the information they need is a really bad idea and an abdication of duty.

Whether or not you think porn is appropriate is completely beside the point. Children watch porn. It’s where they learn about sex right now. Dimply telling them porn is not appropriate, is a cop out. Children need and deserve guidance. They will learn from porn. Whether you (and we as a society) are prepared to also talk to them will determine whether they learn from porn alone or from porn and parents/teachers.

It’s entirely the point if you’re telling me that children watch porn - it’s simply inappropriate for them to be watching porn. It’s not a cop-out, it’s making it clear to them that pornography is inappropriate behaviour and it’s no way to treat anyone. I think we’re agreed that children need guidance, they do of course, and they might learn from porn in the same way as they might learn from being aware that porn is inappropriate that what they’re viewing is an inappropriate way to treat people.

For what it’s worth btw I think any link between exposure to porn and trying to associate that with how people treat each other is tenuous at best. People who have never experienced 4K porn still treat people disrespectfully, because that’s just what some people are like, in spite of every attempt to educate them.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

One eyed Jack wrote: »

By imparting values of respect and responsibility in children for themselves and for others. That constitutes education and knowledge. That gives them a basic understanding which they can easily relate to which is founded in treating themselves and other people with dignity and respect. The sexual part of that education as I said is only a small part of a child’s education.

Totally agree with you on the last sentence, but again: you're not answering the question: the question was HOW, not WHAT.

And if the parents want no part in teaching or arranaging teaching for their children, then what? Ignorant teenagers or the State steps in? And what to do if the children want to learn about it against their parents wishes?

Reviews and Books Galore

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Totally agree with you on the last sentence, but again: you're not answering the question: the question was HOW, not WHAT.

And if the parents want no part in teaching or arranaging teaching for their children, then what? Ignorant teenagers or the State steps in? And what to do if the children want to learn about it against their parents wishes?

What do you imagine happening if the children are left ignorant?

El_Duderino 09

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s entirely the point if you’re telling me that children watch porn - it’s simply inappropriate for them to be watching porn. It’s not a cop-out, it’s making it clear to them that pornography is inappropriate behaviour and it’s no way to treat anyone. I think we’re agreed that children need guidance, they do of course, and they might learn from porn in the same way as they might learn from being aware that porn is inappropriate that what they’re viewing is an inappropriate way to treat people.

For what it’s worth btw I think any link between exposure to porn and trying to associate that with how people treat each other is tenuous at best. People who have never experienced 4K porn still treat people disrespectfully, because that’s just what some people are like, in spite of every attempt to educate them.

I think old people telling children that porn is inappropriate and expecting them to disregard all they’ve seen and learned from watching porn, is about the most doomed to fail idea I’ve ever heard of.

The toothpastes is out of the tube and your solution is to tell the toothpaste it’s inappropriate to be out of the tube and walk away.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Here's what the children have to say about it:

Source

Relationships and Sexuality Education (RSE) is mandatory for both primary and post-primary student. CLASSES ON CONSENT are to be introduced in schools for the first time. ...

Source

In your quote from the teenagers themselves, it says: "They [the teenagers] also spoke about the need to talk about values such as respect and rights and responsibilities".

I'd argue "rights and responsibilities" is pretty much in the same ballpark as consent: the responsibility to ask and the right to say no. But it's also how to ask without pressurising and how to say no without felling pressurised.

Why did the minister call for a full review into sex education with particular focus on consent?
Pressurized by feminist groups with no reason and no data.

Speculative bull**** or verifyable fact?

This is what the report found.
It seems to allude to the fact that teaching about consent is more of a political talking point concerning some parents and many 'stake holders'.

It does? Where?

One eyed Jack

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Totally agree with you on the last sentence, but again: you're not answering the question: the question was HOW, not WHAT.

And if the parents want no part in teaching or arranaging teaching for their children, then what? Ignorant teenagers or the State steps in? And what to do if the children want to learn about it against their parents wishes?

I’ve explained already how - by their parents imparting their values in their children. I know you don’t consider that education but that’s exactly what it is. It’s just done in an informal manner as opposed to formal education in a school environment.

For the parents who want no part in it for their children, that is their right. The State isn’t in the habit of pursuing cases against the parents of ignorant teenagers, they really don’t have the resources, but when they suggest a minimum standard of education, that’s not actually defined anywhere, it’s more of a judgement call, so there are plenty of ignorant teenagers with a very basic education - they’re meeting a minimum standard, the States work is done, so to speak.

If children want to learn about things against their parents will, then it is the responsibility of the parents in question. I don’t think the State is too likely to be willing to interfere in those circumstances.

Quantum Erasure

One eyed Jack wrote: »

People who have never experienced 4K porn still treat people disrespectfully.

some of the 'worst' porn I have seen has been in 240p...

Veritas Libertas

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Speculative bull**** or verifyable fact?



It does? Where?

Read the summary report that I linked to. You'll find no mention of consent. They allude to topics that "Other stakeholders said" It is quite nuanced. I guess for fear of angering feminists/it becoming political.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’ve explained already how - by their parents imparting their values in their children. I know you don’t consider that education but that’s exactly what it is. It’s just done in an informal manner as opposed to formal education in a school environment.

No you haven't - you've just reproduced the same dodge by deliberately replacing the word "education" with the word "values".

For the parents who want no part in it for their children, that is their right. The State isn’t in the habit of pursuing cases against the parents of ignorant teenagers, they really don’t have the resources, but when they suggest a minimum standard of education, that’s not actually defined anywhere, it’s more of a judgement call, so there are plenty of ignorant teenagers with a very basic education - they’re meeting a minimum standard, the States work is done, so to speak.

So, ignorant children AND the State stepping in.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Read the summary report that I linked to. You'll find no mention of consent. They allude to topics that "Other stakeholders said" It is quite nuanced. I guess for fear of angering feminists/it becoming political.

I have read the report. I found no mention of the word "feminst".

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

What do you imagine happening if the children are left ignorant?

....

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

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.

Veritas Libertas

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I have read the report. I found no mention of the word "feminst".

And did you find consent in the summary report outlining their conclusions and their recommendations?

Annurca Apples

Amateur porn is a better tool for sex education than professional porn.

One eyed Jack

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

No you haven't - you've just reproduced the same dodge by deliberately replacing the word "education" with the word "values".

I view them as the same thing- instilling values in children is educating them.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

So, ignorant children AND the State stepping in.

Que?

What’s that comment actually in relation to? I’m guessing outcomes of some sort, and yes, there is no shortage of ignorant children just like there’s no shortage of educated children, and that’s why I said that in spite of their education, some adults are still disrespectful to other people. The State would only step in if the circumstances warranted it, which is decided on a case by case basis, of the cases that come to the attention of the State.