“Ireland has a rape culture”

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

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

I'm not question that, I questioning:

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.

Now again: speculative bull**** or does the report mention anything about feminist groups?

Veritas Libertas

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I'm not question that, I questioning:

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.

Now again: speculative bull**** or does the report mention anything about feminist groups?

That was my opinion. What's you opinion as to why he did that?

I'm more interested in the conclusion.. that there is no specific need for people to learn about consent in regards to sex education.

1800_Ladladlad

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 arranging 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?

Its posts and responses have a tendency to lack substance and do not have any educated or logical responses for the pathetic attempt at trolling. I admire you for bothering with it. But at least you got a response. I'm still waiting for it to back up their disgusting and ridiculous claims.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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

Sexual health is a "value"...?? Are you implying here that it's something that you can value being sexually UNhealthy?

And how are they supposed to "value" their health if they don't learn about it? Or do I have to back to the basics with you and define what I mean by "sxual health"?

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.

You advoted both ignorant children "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," and the State stepping in
"... but when they suggest a minimum standard of education" and " they’re meeting a minimum standard, the States work is done, so to speak."

Also this makes no sense.

If children want to learn about things against their parents will, then it is the responsibility of the parents in question.

god i hate that ive never found an ignore function on the mobile touch site- some of ye really do kill things with the multi quote longform posts

anyway, its obvious that the morals of the parents should have no bearing on the minimum standard of education a child receives in matters pertaining (as pointed out) to the social contract and as far as im interested anyone claiming otherwise is an idealogue.

"the way people treat each other in porn is inappropriate" is too broad a statement to be worth much and again it smacks of a shovel aimed at an entire head when what needed doing was a pimple popped.

if one legitimately had concerns about the way *some scenarios* in pornography were presented one would welcome, id have thought, an open discussion to a fairly detailed level (as detailed as it took to allay any concerns) on exactly the topics here.

as well to ban literature, song, movies etc where characters were treated in ways you objected to, except people are fúcking. thats the only difference and youd have to do some dancing to deny it in any way that convinced.

another poster (sorry, on phone) quoted me and said they thought id agree that we are talking about the actions of boys here. im afraid i dont agree with that, we're discussing how to educate all young people (all people really) in how it is acceptable to manage their own interactions in the sphere of intimacy with others. the consequences and responsibilities are different for a host of reasons but that does not make this a one-gender issue (id be surprised we got this far and people still thought that tbh).

Reviews and Books Galore

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

....

I'm shocked at the mention of misunderstanding and rape accusations.

Why don't we teach women not to falsely accuse men?

Justin Credible Darts

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

I'm shocked at the mention of misunderstanding and rape accusations.

Why don't we teach women not to falsely accuse men?

be careful, do not make claims we should teach women, you will be called sexist.
If some bitter twisted wench says its a rape culture then that is ok for them to not only run their mouth, but have the media actually promote such horsesh1t

One eyed Jack

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Sexual health is a "value"...?? Are you implying here that it's something that you can value being sexually UNhealthy?

And how are they supposed to "value" their health if they don't learn about it? Or do I have to back to the basics with you and define what I mean by "sxual health"?

PCB I’m genuinely having difficulty understanding what you’re trying to say here. I’m thinking it’s likely because we have very different approaches to relationships and sex education. They can value their health and increase the value of their health with education in regular exercise and healthy eating and so on. Encouraging healthy relationships with their families and friends also values which contribute to their overall health, well-being and welfare. Their sexual health is only again a small part of their overall health education, and I don’t know about you again, but from my perspective - forming healthy relationships are more important than a child concerning themselves with the A to Z of STI’s.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

You advoted both ignorant children "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," and the State stepping in
"... but when they suggest a minimum standard of education" and " they’re meeting a minimum standard, the States work is done, so to speak."

Sorry PCB, didn’t mean to cause confusion, I only meant to explain the situation as it is now. I didn’t advocate for ignorant children at all though, I acknowledge that the State recognises the family as the prinary and natural educators of children. The State isn’t generally interested in pursuing cases against parents who are deemed to be failing in respect of their children’s education. You’ll see the odd extreme example in the media, but that’s why they’re in the media - they are the extreme.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Also this makes no sense.

If children want to learn about things against their parents will, then it is the responsibility of the parents in question.

It’s the parents responsibility. What’s wrong with that?

Same way as anything else a child would want to do against their parents will - it’s the parents responsibility to prevent their child from doing so.

Reviews and Books Galore

[Deleted User] wrote: »

god i hate that ive never found an ignore function on the mobile touch site- some of ye really do kill things with the multi quote longform posts

anyway, its obvious that the morals of the parents should have no bearing on the minimum standard of education a child receives in matters pertaining (as pointed out) to the social contract and as far as im interested anyone claiming otherwise is an idealogue.

"the way people treat each other in porn is inappropriate" is too broad a statement to be worth much and again it smacks of a shovel aimed at an entire head when what needed doing was a pimple popped.

if one legitimately had concerns about the way *some scenarios* in pornography were presented one would welcome, id have thought, an open discussion to a fairly detailed level (as detailed as it took to allay any concerns) on exactly the topics here.

as well to ban literature, song, movies etc where characters were treated in ways you objected to, except people are fúcking. thats the only difference and youd have to do some dancing to deny it in any way that convinced.

another poster (sorry, on phone) quoted me and said they thought id agree that we are talking about the actions of boys here. im afraid i dont agree with that, we're discussing how to educate all young people (all people really) in how it is acceptable to manage their own interactions in the sphere of intimacy with others. the consequences and responsibilities are different for a host of reasons but that does not make this a one-gender issue (id be surprised we got this far and people still thought that tbh).

I dunno, I think this is based on fear of what men will do and fear of what will be done to women.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

anyway, its obvious that the morals of the parents should have no bearing on the minimum standard of education a child receives in matters pertaining (as pointed out) to the social contract and as far as im interested anyone claiming otherwise is an idealogue.

"the way people treat each other in porn is inappropriate" is too broad a statement to be worth much and again it smacks of a shovel aimed at an entire head when what needed doing was a pimple popped.

if one legitimately had concerns about the way *some scenarios* in pornography were presented one would welcome, id have thought, an open discussion to a fairly detailed level (as detailed as it took to allay any concerns) on exactly the topics here.

as well to ban literature, song, movies etc where characters were treated in ways you objected to, except people are fúcking. thats the only difference and youd have to do some dancing to deny it in any way that convinced.

Sorry snoops, that was me, I’ll try keep this one brief

It’s not at all obvious that the morals of the parents should have no bearing on the minimum standard of education a child receives in any respect. They’re the children’s parents! What part of that is difficult for people? An ideologue would be suggesting the parents should have no say in the education of their own children, which would be complete nonsense.

Yep, it is a broad statement that makes a very simple point - porn is basically a load of bollocks (literally even :pac:), and the way they treat each other in porn isn’t appropriate for children. You don’t have to go through a whole list of scenarios of “is this ok? Is that ok?”, etc, it’s just not appropriate at all for children and that’s why when children are asked stupid questions revolving around porn, they’ve probably spent the last 30 minutes looking up urban dictionary so they could write down all the terms they know and shock the shìte out of the teacher

Hey I’m not calling for a ban on anything btw, well able to take responsibility for my own child’s welfare and education in the same way as I’m assuming any other parents are capable of taking responsibility for their children’s welfare and education. I don’t tend to assume the worst of people so I would never suggest that how I choose to raise my child should be the default for everyone, any more than I’d allow anyone to force mandatory sex education on children without their parents consent, in the hope that those children will learn what those adults want them to learn.

Annurca Apples

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Sorry snoops, that was me, I’ll try keep this one brief

It’s not at all obvious that the morals of the parents should have no bearing on the minimum standard of education a child receives in any respect. They’re the children’s parents! What part of that is difficult for people? An ideologue would be suggesting the parents should have no say in the education of their own children, which would be complete nonsense.

Yep, it is a broad statement that makes a very simple point - porn is basically a load of bollocks (literally even :pac:), and the way they treat each other in porn isn’t appropriate for children. You don’t have to go through a whole list of scenarios of “is this ok? Is that ok?”, etc, it’s just not appropriate at all for children and that’s why when children are asked stupid questions revolving around porn, they’ve probably spent the last 30 minutes looking up urban dictionary so they could write down all the terms they know and shock the shìte out of the teacher

Hey I’m not calling for a ban on anything btw, well able to take responsibility for my own child’s welfare and education in the same way as I’m assuming any other parents are capable of taking responsibility for their children’s welfare and education. I don’t tend to assume the worst of people so I would never suggest that how I choose to raise my child should be the default for everyone, any more than I’d allow anyone to force mandatory sex education on children without their parents consent, in the hope that those children will learn what those adults want them to learn.

Children are not the parents property to do with as they wish. The parents are the guardians and have a responsibility towards their children.

One eyed Jack

Annurca Apples wrote: »

Children are not the parents property to do with as they wish. The parents are the guardians and have a responsibility towards their children.

This old chestnut again :rolleyes:

So what if children aren’t their parents property? Parents still have more rights than people who aren’t the children’s parents by virtue of the relationship between them that is protected by numerous Constitutional and International human rights laws.

Is the whole “children aren’t their parents property” supposed to imply that strangers have the same rights in relation to children as their parents or something, or is it an attempt to undermine the concept of parental rights and their right to advocate on behalf of their children when it comes to issues where the parents consent is required?

If this so-called ‘objective sex education’ were actually any good, it’s supporters wouldn’t need to try and undermine parental consent to have it taught in schools, parents would actually want their children to participate in the classes. Isn’t that the whole point of consent in the first place? Acknowledging that parents are entitled to say ‘no’, should be the first lesson.

Annurca Apples

One eyed Jack wrote: »

This old chestnut again :rolleyes:

So what if children aren’t their parents property? Parents still have more rights than people who aren’t the children’s parents by virtue of the relationship between them that is protected by numerous Constitutional and International human rights laws.

Is the whole “children aren’t their parents property” supposed to imply that strangers have the same rights in relation to children as their parents or something, or is it an attempt to undermine the concept of parental rights and their right to advocate on behalf of their children when it comes to issues where the parents consent is required?

If this so-called ‘objective sex education’ were actually any good, it’s supporters wouldn’t need to try and undermine parental consent to have it taught in schools, parents would actually want their children to participate in the classes. Isn’t that the whole point of consent in the first place? Acknowledging that parents are entitled to say ‘no’, should be the first lesson.

It means parents can't and shouldn't do whatever they want with their children, children aren't the parents property. I don't think that's hard to understand.

When you treat children as property they tend to rebel destructively in their adolescence in defiance.

One eyed Jack

Annurca Apples wrote: »

It means parents can't and shouldn't do whatever they want with their children, children aren't the parents property. I don't think that's hard to understand.

When you treat children as property they tend to rebel destructively in their adolescence in defiance.

Well nobody has argued that parents should be able to do whatever they like with their own children. The only thing I have consistently pointed out is that in order for children to be taught what some people here want children to be taught about consent - their parents consent is required by law.

When you try to do an end-run around parents to attempt to weaponise their children against them, you should be able to understand why getting parental consent to do so would be “problematic”, parents tend to be very protective of their children.

kowloon

Annurca Apples wrote: »

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

Yes, but it lacks the production values of something like Schindler's Fist.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Sexual health is a "value"...?? Are you implying here that it's something that you can value being sexually UNhealthy?

And how are they supposed to "value" their health if they don't learn about it? Or do I have to back to the basics with you and define what I mean by "sxual health"?

PCB I’m genuinely having difficulty understanding what you’re trying to say here. I’m thinking it’s likely because we have very different approaches to relationships and sex education. They can value their health and increase the value of their health with education in regular exercise and healthy eating and so on. Encouraging healthy relationships with their families and friends also values which contribute to their overall health, well-being and welfare. Their sexual health is only again a small part of their overall health education, and I don’t know about you again, but from my perspective - forming healthy relationships are more important than a child concerning themselves with the A to Z of STI’s.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

You advoted both ignorant children "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," and the State stepping in
"... but when they suggest a minimum standard of education" and " they’re meeting a minimum standard, the States work is done, so to speak."

Sorry PCB, didn’t mean to cause confusion, I only meant to explain the situation as it is now. I didn’t advocate for ignorant children at all though, I acknowledge that the State recognises the family as the prinary and natural educators of children. The State isn’t generally interested in pursuing cases against parents who are deemed to be failing in respect of their children’s education. You’ll see the odd extreme example in the media, but that’s why they’re in the media - they are the extreme.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Also this makes no sense.

If children want to learn about things against their parents will, then it is the responsibility of the parents in question.

It’s the parents responsibility. What’s wrong with that?

Same way as anything else a child would want to do against their parents will - it’s the parents responsibility to prevent their child from doing so.

Very simple: is sexual health (STDs , pregnancy and contraception) an optional value or essential education?

Two word answer please.

youknowitstrue

The mind of these progressives types must be a complete mess, they see problems everywhere, look at that TV show "The Handmaids Tale", they love it , i dare say they get off on the idea of being oppressed, it a pure fantasy and they love it, they secretly will it to happen, same with this "rape culture" it exists only in there warped minds as something they secretly wished existed.

One eyed Jack

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Very simple: is sexual health (STDs , pregnancy and contraception) an optional value or essential education?

Two word answer please.

Optional value

OMM 0000

youknowitstrue wrote: »

The mind of these progressives types must be a complete mess, they see problems everywhere, look at that TV show "The Handmaids Tale", they love it , i dare say they get off on the idea of being oppressed, it a pure fantasy and they love it, they secretly will it to happen, same with this "rape culture" it exists only in there warped minds as something they secretly wished existed.

I was talking to a female doctor at a dinner party recently and she used the Handmaid's Tale as an example of how women are unequal to men.

It is astounding how stupid some people are.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Optional value

And there we ultimately disagree. Witholding vital information on sexual health with regard to teenagers on the basis of it being a "value" is at best an advocation of ignorance and at worst child abuse.

And where there is abuse - mental and intellectual as much as any other form - then the State is totally justified in intervening.

Screw Attack

noel1980 wrote: »

"Consent classes should be given in primary schools, she believes."

I'm not belittling this woman's experience, but when she suggests **** like this, I tune out

Well, I don't know what Catholic s hithole school you went to, but she's not wrong. And yes, you are belittling this woman's experience.

OMM 0000

Screw Attack wrote: »

Well, I don't know what Catholic s hithole school you went to, but she's not wrong. And yes, you are belittling this woman's experience.

Do you agree anti gold digging classes should also be taught in school?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Do you agree anti gold digging classes should also be taught in school?

Elaborate, please?

OMM 0000

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Elaborate, please?

If we're going to pretend all men are potential rapists and we need to teach them how not to rape, then it's only fair we pretend all women are potential gold diggers and we teach them how not to gold dig.

The sexism from some of the women here is mind boggling.

El_Duderino 09

OMM 0000 wrote: »

If we're going to pretend all men are potential rapists and we need to teach them how not to rape, then it's only fair we pretend all women are potential gold diggers and we teach them how not to gold dig.

The sexism from some of the women here is mind boggling.

Does a consent discussion have to pretend all men are potential rapists? No discussion I would be in favour of would be like that.

OMM 0000

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Does a consent discussion have to pretend all men are potential rapists? No discussion I would be in favour of would be like that.

Everyone already knows what consent is.

The scenarios where consent is fuzzy is because someone is lying - either the "attacker" is pretending there was consent, or the "victim" is pretending there wasn't consent.

I could possibly accept consent being taught as part of a life skills course, but it would need to be gender neutral as this current trend of pretending men are toxic is incredibly damaging.

El_Duderino 09

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Everyone already knows what consent is.

The scenarios where consent is fuzzy is because someone is lying - either the "attacker" is pretending there was consent, or the "victim" is pretending there wasn't consent.

I could possibly accept consent being taught as part of a life skills course, but it would need to be gender neutral as this current trend of pretending men are toxic is incredibly damaging.

You're the one who keeps bringing up a negative slant on it. I font see any need for an anti men aspect.

If you think everyone already knows what Consent us, then you're just wrong on that point.

alastair

OMM 0000 wrote: »

I was talking to a female doctor at a dinner party recently and she used the Handmaid's Tale as an example of how women are unequal to men.

It is astounding how stupid some people are.

Female bodily autonomy is all of a year old here. Yes it is.

OMM 0000

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You're the one who keeps bringing up a negative slant on it. I font see any need for an anti men aspect.

If you think everyone already knows what Consent us, then you're just wrong on that point.

Consent classes are another way to say "Teach men not to rape" classes. We all know you know this.

Also, everyone knows what consent is. The people claiming they don't are lying, as they're using it as a technicality to get away with rape / blame someone for rape.

OMM 0000

alastair wrote: »

Female bodily autonomy is all of a year old here. Yes it is.

Handmade's Tale is fiction.

God almighty why do some people desperately want to be victims. It's like a disease.