homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » How to solve the UK's teen pregnancy problem? (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: How to solve the UK's teen pregnancy problem?
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707

 - Posted      Profile for seekingsister   Email seekingsister   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
In the scheme of work which we followed (following the guidance that it had to be 'in a moral framework') 'waiting until you are married' was one of the topics discussed - I always remember it as being one of the hardest sections to teach because of the incredulity of the kids and the laughter it provoked.

It would make a lot more sense to talk about "waiting until you are in a committed, monogamous relationship."
that was also discussed
And the kids still laughed at that? Then that's fairly worrying.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Marriage is a long way off for teenagers. I'm at the age where all of my friends are getting married and I haven't been to a wedding where either spouse was younger than 27.

Then maybe that is something to worry about. As is the difficulty for most people of supporting a family on only one salary. As is the difficulty of being truly self-supporting before the age of 25. Our whole society is socio-economically geared towards an entirely unnatural delay of procreation till we are close to thirty years old. Many people really only get around to having a family even later, when in particular female fertility is beginning to decline and when, frankly, everybody is pretty "used up" by decades on the career treadmill.

Having a kid at around 16 years old probably never was a particularly bright idea economically - unless one had an older partner who was well established. Of course, that kind of set-up nowadays is frowned upon mightily, or is even considered outright criminal. But that one is supposed to wait another dozen years or so before possibly having kids is what makes "teenage pregnancy" such a big deal. It's a massive deviation from the norm, rather than a small one as it used to be. But this new norm, as much as we are used to it now, is really not in tune with the basic biology of human beings.

The standard answer given to this problem (more sex education, with the implicit or explicit goal of teaching how to have sex without having children) is fighting fire with fire. The reason our societies could move to this rather absurd scheme of kids being a luxury lifestyle choice of those nearing middle age is precisely the sexual revolution induced by artificial contraception (plus legal and "safe" abortion).

Teenage pregnancy as we now understand it - as a devastating disruption of normal socialisation - is basically a vestige of natural human behaviour. This "failure mode" occurs because we do not manage to socialise all the young sufficiently rapidly into our weird and unnatural conception of intimate relationships and procreation. Perhaps instead of worrying about intense teaching programmes that guarantee that every horny teenager knows how to realise their impulses without becoming a social basket case, we should think about changing our societies so that having one's children in the early to mid twenties becomes not only possible, but the social norm. What we have to do to make that happen will then almost certainly support those who are having them a few years early, and it will remove the social stigmata from them.

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
And the kids still laughed at that? Then that's fairly worrying.

Why? Fornication and cohabitation are social standards now. As is the serial monogamy of marriages as secular contracts that can be dissolved by either side basically whenever they want. As is a thoroughly sexualised cultural production. There is nothing in our cultures that would suggest that continence is anything but fun-killing stupidity based on the unfortunate remnants of old people's culture.

[ 02. April 2014, 08:50: Message edited by: IngoB ]

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331

 - Posted      Profile for Jane R   Email Jane R   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Makepiece:
quote:
Why? Because people are too selfish in our culture to spend quality time with their children and put their own ambitions in second place.
I hope you are not suggesting here that I am one of these people who is too selfish to 'put my own ambitions in second place' in order to spend quality time with my daughter.

If you are not suggesting locking her up then I apologise for the 'Victorian values' crack.

But what are modern parents supposed to do to ensure that their children don't end up becoming parents whilst still in school? On the one hand you have the advocates of outdoor play complaining that children don't get enough freedom nowadays and should be allowed to 'experience risks'. But as soon as you do allow them some freedom, another lot of people pipe up with complaints about what they do with it. Sometimes it's even the same people complaining; pensioners reminiscing about their own freedom to roam about climbing trees and splashing in streams are usually the first to complain about noisy ball games, groups of children hanging around in the street, etc.

And whatever you try to teach them about committed relationships, using reliable contraception etc. you're up against the combined might of Popular Culture (which sells the myth that romantic love, inevitably ending in sex, is the be-all and end-all of existence and the only kind of love worth having) and the porn industry (which peddles a glamourised version of sex where everyone has a perfect body and can go at it like rabbits for hours, without sweating, farting, or being distracted by thoughts of what's for dinner or what happened at work that day).

[ 02. April 2014, 09:32: Message edited by: Jane R ]

Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
In the scheme of work which we followed (following the guidance that it had to be 'in a moral framework') 'waiting until you are married' was one of the topics discussed - I always remember it as being one of the hardest sections to teach because of the incredulity of the kids and the laughter it provoked.

It would make a lot more sense to talk about "waiting until you are in a committed, monogamous relationship."
that was also discussed
And the kids still laughed at that? Then that's fairly worrying.
While I wouldn't laugh at it, there are lots of perfectly good and valid relationships not covered by those things, eg fully-consenting and committed polyamorous relationships. Monogamous does not equal better. I don't think sex outside of a committed monogamous relationship is wrong at all anyway, the issue is the safety of the relationship and having proper contraception/safer sex.

I'd far rather sex ed talk about consent, and how to have sexual fun without penetrative sex (which is a safer sex method as it usually avoids the exchange of bodily fluids) than talking about what relationships the school things people should have before having sex.

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707

 - Posted      Profile for seekingsister   Email seekingsister   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
While I wouldn't laugh at it, there are lots of perfectly good and valid relationships not covered by those things, eg fully-consenting and committed polyamorous relationships. Monogamous does not equal better. I don't think sex outside of a committed monogamous relationship is wrong at all anyway, the issue is the safety of the relationship and having proper contraception/safer sex.

What do you think is the most common type of polygamous relationship that a teenager where I live in London, would be familiar with?

I would strongly suspect it's not an "everyone is equal" polyamorous situation, but rather one much more restrictive and with religious and/or cultural overtones.

Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
While I wouldn't laugh at it, there are lots of perfectly good and valid relationships not covered by those things, eg fully-consenting and committed polyamorous relationships. Monogamous does not equal better. I don't think sex outside of a committed monogamous relationship is wrong at all anyway, the issue is the safety of the relationship and having proper contraception/safer sex.

What do you think is the most common type of polygamous relationship that a teenager where I live in London, would be familiar with?

I would strongly suspect it's not an "everyone is equal" polyamorous situation, but rather one much more restrictive and with religious and/or cultural overtones.

I'm not saying that teenagers would be necessarily familiar with equal and egalitarian polygamous relationships, I'm saying that they can be included in discussions about relationships. Teenagers might not be familiar with many types of relationships but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be discussed. My point was that monogamy is not the only way of having happy healthy relationships and that should be reflected in those discussions.

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707

 - Posted      Profile for seekingsister   Email seekingsister   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I'm not saying that teenagers would be necessarily familiar with equal and egalitarian polygamous relationships, I'm saying that they can be included in discussions about relationships. Teenagers might not be familiar with many types of relationships but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be discussed. My point was that monogamy is not the only way of having happy healthy relationships and that should be reflected in those discussions.

Sure, and then every boy in class will be approaching groups of girls to ask if they are interested in polyamory after a lesson like that.

Meanwhile fundamentalist parents will be thrilled to hear that their sons and daughters are being taught that poly relationships are A-OK.

Surely when it comes to young people sticking to the basics is the safest option? Let them learn about polyamory when they are adults. I think it takes an extremely mature person to handle such a relationship in any case.

Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I'm not saying that teenagers would be necessarily familiar with equal and egalitarian polygamous relationships, I'm saying that they can be included in discussions about relationships. Teenagers might not be familiar with many types of relationships but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be discussed. My point was that monogamy is not the only way of having happy healthy relationships and that should be reflected in those discussions.

Sure, and then every boy in class will be approaching groups of girls to ask if they are interested in polyamory after a lesson like that.

Meanwhile fundamentalist parents will be thrilled to hear that their sons and daughters are being taught that poly relationships are A-OK.

Surely when it comes to young people sticking to the basics is the safest option? Let them learn about polyamory when they are adults. I think it takes an extremely mature person to handle such a relationship in any case.

Why would it be just boys approaching girls? Polygamy takes many forms and includes same-gender relationships, it's not the same as polygyny (which is one husband with many wives) or polyandry (which is one wife with many husbands). Fundamentalist groups who believe in polygyny (since fundamentalists don't generally believe in the kind of egalitarian relationships I have been explicitly talking about) are a tiny minority in the UK so I don't know why you think this will particularly delight them - we don't have any kind of FLDS community here to my knowledge! In any case, I don't see why boys approaching girls about polygamy after the lesson is such an issue (and it surely happens with other subjects nobody is questioning too) - as long as the teacher emphasises that polygamy is something that all participants should freely enter and needs consent, it's not like the girls will be forced to agree! I'm sure most aspects of sex ed leads to some inappropriate comments, does that mean it should be banned altogether?

As for teaching the basics, I rather think that just teaching the mechanics is what has led to problems - teenagers are not aware of relationships, just penis in vagina sex = babies and nothing else. Furthermore, specific kinds of relationships (eg committed monogamous relationships) being promoted at the expense of others is not really teaching the basics either, is it? So why is one OK but not the other? Seems very hypocritical to me.

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
As for teaching the basics, I rather think that just teaching the mechanics is what has led to problems - teenagers are not aware of relationships, just penis in vagina sex = babies and nothing else. Furthermore, specific kinds of relationships (eg committed monogamous relationships) being promoted at the expense of others is not really teaching the basics either, is it? So why is one OK but not the other? Seems very hypocritical to me.

A couple of comments.

Firstly "penis in vagina sex = babies" is true, since babies don't tend to happen any other way outside of a lab. Since we're trying to solve the UK's teen pregnancy problem, the two ways of doing that are making the occasions that penises enter vaginas fewer, and that when/if they do, engineering it so that fewer babies result. If you're exclusively gay or lesbian, then you've got other things to worry about, but babies isn't one of them.

Secondly, while I appreciate what you experience is normal to you, you also have to appreciate that the vast majority of kids sitting in a classroom, whether straight, gay or bisexual, will most likely still be thinking of The One, in whichever form they come in. And that the (again, very large) majority of heterosexuals will be thinking about penis in vagina sex with The One.

So it's not at all hypocritical to concentrate on the needs and expectations of almost everyone who is in the classroom.

[ 02. April 2014, 13:08: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331

 - Posted      Profile for Jane R   Email Jane R   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Makepiece:
quote:
If you have a good relationship with your daughter (like Mr Bennett and Elizabeth Bennett for example) then there would be no need to 'lock her up' as she would want to spend time with you voluntarily.
<tangent> BTW, did anyone else notice the irony of citing Mr Bennett as an example of model parenting? He certainly had a good relationship with Elizabeth, but not with his other four daughters or his wife; his strategy for dealing with them was to vanish into the library whenever they annoyed him, which left them vulnerable to the machinations of the likes of Wickham. I bet he wished he'd locked Lydia up instead of sending her off to Brighton; in fact he more or less said so, after the elopement.

And if he hadn't spent so much money on books and had exerted himself to rein in Mrs Bennett's extravagances, there might have been enough money put by to give his daughters bigger dowries and a wider choice of suitors. There are other forms of selfishness besides what you call 'ambition'.<\tangent>

Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
In the scheme of work which we followed (following the guidance that it had to be 'in a moral framework') 'waiting until you are married' was one of the topics discussed - I always remember it as being one of the hardest sections to teach because of the incredulity of the kids and the laughter it provoked.

It would make a lot more sense to talk about "waiting until you are in a committed, monogamous relationship."
that was also discussed
And the kids still laughed at that? Then that's fairly worrying.
no - only at the marriage wait.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican't   Email Anglican't   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I don't see why boys approaching girls about polygamy after the lesson is such an issue (and it surely happens with other subjects nobody is questioning too) - as long as the teacher emphasises that polygamy is something that all participants should freely enter and needs consent, it's not like the girls will be forced to agree! I'm sure most aspects of sex ed leads to some inappropriate comments, does that mean it should be banned altogether?

It's times like this when I start to wonder whether Nigel Farage has a point.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I'd far rather sex ed talk about consent, and how to have sexual fun without penetrative sex (which is a safer sex method as it usually avoids the exchange of bodily fluids) than talking about what relationships the school things people should have before having sex.

We spent a lot of time on consent and boundaries.

We also spent a lot of time on non-penetrative sex in the wake of the arrival of HIV - very important as far too many people think that non-penetrative sex is not sex at all.

As for what the school 'thinks' - it doesn't/shouldn't have a view beyond educating teenagers and being concerned for their wellbeing/safety.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331

 - Posted      Profile for Jane R   Email Jane R   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Anglican't:
quote:
It's times like this when I start to wonder whether Nigel Farage has a point.
[Confused] How would leaving the EU affect the teenage pregnancy rate?
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican't   Email Anglican't   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Anglican't:
quote:
It's times like this when I start to wonder whether Nigel Farage has a point.
[Confused] How would leaving the EU affect the teenage pregnancy rate?
Oh he and his ilk bang on about other stuff too.

[ 02. April 2014, 13:37: Message edited by: Anglican't ]

Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Anglican't:
quote:
It's times like this when I start to wonder whether Nigel Farage has a point.
[Confused] How would leaving the EU affect the teenage pregnancy rate?
Oh he and his ilk bang on about other stuff too.
You mean the furrins coming here and impregnating our virgin English daughters?

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707

 - Posted      Profile for seekingsister   Email seekingsister   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Polygamy takes many forms and includes same-gender relationships, it's not the same as polygyny (which is one husband with many wives) or polyandry (which is one wife with many husbands). Fundamentalist groups who believe in polygyny (since fundamentalists don't generally believe in the kind of egalitarian relationships I have been explicitly talking about) are a tiny minority in the UK so I don't know why you think this will particularly delight them - we don't have any kind of FLDS community here to my knowledge!

Is this a joke? You do know polygamy is an accepted practice in a large number of Asian and African cultures and is permitted in Islam, right? My family is from West Africa and I know people who are not only in polygamous marriages but also send their children to school in the UK.

In London it's not a minority of children who are exposed to these types of relationships. They don't need their school to do anything even vaguely affirming them. They can figure out their own kinks when they're adults, they don't need them as part of the curriculum.

Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Late marriage, often preceded by a series of short relationships, has been normal in much of Northern Europe since at least the late Middle Ages. And it was usual for both men and women to leave their parents homes well before marriage. And the first child was born within 9 months of the wedding in maybe a fifth of couples in early modern England - which, seeing as some people are careful and/or infertile would imply that the majority of couples at least sometimes had sex before marriage.

Our perceptions are biased by the upper-middle-class and aristocratic minority - who tended to marry younger and were more likely to have arranged marriages - and by the 19th century which had a more "traditional" morality than either the 18th or the 20th, and when the average age at first marriage went down.


As for discussing equitable polyamory in a school classroom, get real. Half the class will smirk, the other half complain to their parents. Polygamy can be and is discussed but mostly in a context of how bad arranged marriages and so on are.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I don't see why boys approaching girls about polygamy after the lesson is such an issue (and it surely happens with other subjects nobody is questioning too) - as long as the teacher emphasises that polygamy is something that all participants should freely enter and needs consent, it's not like the girls will be forced to agree! I'm sure most aspects of sex ed leads to some inappropriate comments, does that mean it should be banned altogether?

It's times like this when I start to wonder whether Nigel Farage has a point.
Please explain? Lots of people are in happy, fully-consenting polygamous relationships and I fail to see what Nigel Farage has to do with that! [Confused]

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I'd far rather sex ed talk about consent, and how to have sexual fun without penetrative sex (which is a safer sex method as it usually avoids the exchange of bodily fluids) than talking about what relationships the school things people should have before having sex.

We spent a lot of time on consent and boundaries.

We also spent a lot of time on non-penetrative sex in the wake of the arrival of HIV - very important as far too many people think that non-penetrative sex is not sex at all.

As for what the school 'thinks' - it doesn't/shouldn't have a view beyond educating teenagers and being concerned for their wellbeing/safety.

Thank you for explaining - it does sound like good, balanced sex ed.

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Polygamy takes many forms and includes same-gender relationships, it's not the same as polygyny (which is one husband with many wives) or polyandry (which is one wife with many husbands). Fundamentalist groups who believe in polygyny (since fundamentalists don't generally believe in the kind of egalitarian relationships I have been explicitly talking about) are a tiny minority in the UK so I don't know why you think this will particularly delight them - we don't have any kind of FLDS community here to my knowledge!

Is this a joke? You do know polygamy is an accepted practice in a large number of Asian and African cultures and is permitted in Islam, right? My family is from West Africa and I know people who are not only in polygamous marriages but also send their children to school in the UK.

In London it's not a minority of children who are exposed to these types of relationships. They don't need their school to do anything even vaguely affirming them. They can figure out their own kinks when they're adults, they don't need them as part of the curriculum.

Polygamous marriages are not legal in the UK.

While I know that polygyny is legal in Islam, it's not practised by the majority of Muslims in Britain. I grew up in a city with a large Muslim population and my school was at least a third Muslim. Nobody's parents were involved in polygynous marriages.

Also, as I have repeatedly said, I am not talking about polygyny due to cultural or religious pressures (which does often negatively impact the women involved), but fully-consenting, happy polygamous relationships between partners of various genders. The two are worlds away from each other and I wish you'd read my posts properly and acknowledge that. Surely you must realise that a happy, consenting relationship between say, three women is quite different from a man forcing four women to be his wives?

I'm not even saying that polygamy should be promoted as such - just an acknowledgement that non-monogamous relationships exist and for some people they are happy and the best option for them. I don't see why ignoring that fact does anyone any good. It's not a 'kink', just a different type of relationship.

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Late marriage, often preceded by a series of short relationships, has been normal in much of Northern Europe since at least the late Middle Ages. And it was usual for both men and women to leave their parents homes well before marriage. And the first child was born within 9 months of the wedding in maybe a fifth of couples in early modern England - which, seeing as some people are careful and/or infertile would imply that the majority of couples at least sometimes had sex before marriage.

Our perceptions are biased by the upper-middle-class and aristocratic minority - who tended to marry younger and were more likely to have arranged marriages - and by the 19th century which had a more "traditional" morality than either the 18th or the 20th, and when the average age at first marriage went down.


As for discussing equitable polyamory in a school classroom, get real. Half the class will smirk, the other half complain to their parents. Polygamy can be and is discussed but mostly in a context of how bad arranged marriages and so on are.

Why are arranged marriages bad? Arranged marriages are not the same as forced marriages. They work out very well for many people, and those getting married get a say in who they marry - it's just having parental input. Just because marriage in different cultures looks different doesn't make it bad.

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican't   Email Anglican't   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Anglican't:
quote:
It's times like this when I start to wonder whether Nigel Farage has a point.
[Confused] How would leaving the EU affect the teenage pregnancy rate?
Oh he and his ilk bang on about other stuff too.
You mean the furrins coming here and impregnating our virgin English daughters?
Perhaps rather outside the scope of this discussion board, but I was thinking about the 'if we allow gay marriage I'll end up marrying my pet goat' / 'if Adam and Brian get married it won't be long till Christopher marries Deidre and Ethel at the same'-type stuff that was rolled out fairly recently.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707

 - Posted      Profile for seekingsister   Email seekingsister   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Polygamous marriages are not legal in the UK.

I'm curious as to why you think this stops them happening. If your local faith practitioner will bless you and your 3 wives, legal contracts don't normally come into it. This also makes it easier for teenagers to be roped into them.

Teenagers who are educated in Britain should be taught that monogamy with a trusted partner is the safest sexual relationship, because it is true. Legally, health-wise, mentally, emotionally.

As I've said, I know people in polygamous marriages, and the jealousies, infighting, and sadly neglect of children is appalling.

Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
hosting/

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Perhaps rather outside the scope of this discussion board, but I was thinking about the 'if we allow gay marriage I'll end up marrying my pet goat' / 'if Adam and Brian get married it won't be long till Christopher marries Deidre and Ethel at the same'-type stuff that was rolled out fairly recently.

Yes it is outside the scope of this discussion board. Everyone, please keep Dead Horse issues in Dead Horses, and Hellish posts in Hell.

/hosting

[ 02. April 2014, 14:27: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076

 - Posted      Profile for Gwai   Email Gwai   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think polyamorous relationships are rather a tangent (not saying this as a host at all or any kind of hint either!) because healthy polyamorous relationships simply aren't going to be a mainstream alternative most people want. I don't think they're more advanced than marriage, but I think it's like saying we have to teach complex nuclear physics every time we teach people basic physics about force and mass and accleration.

Practically, if we teach teens to make safe reasonable sexual decisions, and we empower them to learn how to decide for themselves in a safe way, then those who want to end up in polyamorous relationships will.

--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.


Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
barrea
Shipmate
# 3211

 - Posted      Profile for barrea     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Whatever is taught at school,Christian parents should let their children know that marriage is the only place for a sexual relationship, and that should be taught in our churches too.
If teachers taught that at school they would probable be removed or loose their jobs, pity, but that's how things are these days.
However Christians should not be afraid to say what the Bible teaches, and not go along with the world's standards.

--------------------
Therefore having been justified by faith,we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Romans 5:1

Posts: 1050 | From: england | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Why are arranged marriages bad? Arranged marriages are not the same as forced marriages. They work out very well for many people, and those getting married get a say in who they marry - it's just having parental input. Just because marriage in different cultures looks different doesn't make it bad.

All true, but in practice we don't make the distinction. And there is so much campaigning against forced marriage here that arranged marriage comes to look like the smoke that is never without the fire.

Also arranged marriages are so against our culture and traditions (except for royalty who are weird) that most Brits probably find them icky as such, even without a forced component.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
However Christians should not be afraid to say what the Bible teaches, and not go along with the world's standards.

Christians are free to uphold the Church's teaching within their own lives - it's not as if you, me, or anyone is being forced to have sex outside of marriage.

However, what about those who aren't Christians? They comprise the majority in most schools, and it'd be a dereliction of duty to leave children without knowledge about sex, sexual health, and contraception, and some basic insight into how relationships are supposed to work.

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Polygamous marriages are not legal in the UK.

I'm curious as to why you think this stops them happening. If your local faith practitioner will bless you and your 3 wives, legal contracts don't normally come into it. This also makes it easier for teenagers to be roped into them.

Teenagers who are educated in Britain should be taught that monogamy with a trusted partner is the safest sexual relationship, because it is true. Legally, health-wise, mentally, emotionally.

As I've said, I know people in polygamous marriages, and the jealousies, infighting, and sadly neglect of children is appalling.

But it's not objectively true. There is plenty of jealous, infighting and neglect of children in monogamous relationships. To be honest the safest solution would be to not have relationships at all....

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
Whatever is taught at school,Christian parents should let their children know that marriage is the only place for a sexual relationship, and that should be taught in our churches too.
If teachers taught that at school they would probable be removed or loose their jobs, pity, but that's how things are these days.
However Christians should not be afraid to say what the Bible teaches, and not go along with the world's standards.

I am a Christian. I do not believe that marriage is the only place for a sexual relationship. I wasn't aware that you were somehow able to speak for all of us.

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715

 - Posted      Profile for ExclamationMark   Email ExclamationMark   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But it's not objectively true. There is plenty of jealous, infighting and neglect of children in monogamous relationships.

2. To be honest the safest solution would be to not have relationships at all....

1. Yes it happens but at a lower rate of incidence than in polygamous or polyamorous set ups. Absolute numbers greater but much bigger sample size.

2. Then you're denying God's intentionality for humanity

[code]

[ 02. April 2014, 20:56: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But it's not objectively true. There is plenty of jealous, infighting and neglect of children in monogamous relationships.

2. To be honest the safest solution would be to not have relationships at all....

1. Yes it happens but at a lower rate of incidence than in polygamous or polyamorous set ups. Absolute numbers greater but much bigger sample size.

2. Then you're denying God's intentionality for humanity

Re point two, lots of people are called to celibacy. Was Jesus or St Paul denying God's intention for humanity?

[code]

[ 02. April 2014, 20:57: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715

 - Posted      Profile for ExclamationMark   Email ExclamationMark   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But it's not objectively true. There is plenty of jealous, infighting and neglect of children in monogamous relationships.

2. To be honest the safest solution would be to not have relationships at all....

1. Yes it happens but at a lower rate of incidence than in polygamous or polyamorous set ups. Absolute numbers greater but much bigger sample size.

2. Then you're denying God's intentionality for humanity

Re point two, lots of people are called to celibacy. Was Jesus or St Paul denying God's intention for humanity?
I appreciate that - they were called to that state. {There's a strong argument that Paul was actually a widower or someone whose wife had deserted him once he became a believer]. But to imply that it's the solution for everyone is wide of the mark. Even Paul (grudgingly) admits that.

[code]

[ 02. April 2014, 20:57: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm putting this bluntly, but accurately. I'm also putting aside any obligation to go through the motions of pretending to be understanding towards those whose views on this are different from either mine or those of most other people. The only polyamorous relationships English schoolchildren are likely to encounter or to be at risk of being inveigled into, are driven by exploitative slags of both sexes.

As has already been said on this thread, if a desire not to upset anybody means that sort of sexual experience has to be treated as the equal of faithful monogamous relationships, then it will be no wonder that parents will insist on withdrawing their children from sex education classes.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But it's not objectively true. There is plenty of jealous, infighting and neglect of children in monogamous relationships.

2. To be honest the safest solution would be to not have relationships at all....

1. Yes it happens but at a lower rate of incidence than in polygamous or polyamorous set ups. Absolute numbers greater but much bigger sample size.

2. Then you're denying God's intentionality for humanity

Re point two, lots of people are called to celibacy. Was Jesus or St Paul denying God's intention for humanity?
I appreciate that - they were called to that state. {There's a strong argument that Paul was actually a widower or someone whose wife had deserted him once he became a believer]. But to imply that it's the solution for everyone is wide of the mark. Even Paul (grudgingly) admits that.
Sorry, I wasn't actually being serious with that comment! Sorry for any confusion.

[code]

[ 02. April 2014, 20:56: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I'm putting this bluntly, but accurately. I'm also putting aside any obligation to go through the motions of pretending to be understanding towards those whose views on this are different from either mine or those of most other people. The only polyamorous relationships English schoolchildren are likely to encounter or to be at risk of being inveigled into, are driven by exploitative slags of both sexes.

As has already been said on this thread, if a desire not to upset anybody means that sort of sexual experience has to be treated as the equal of faithful monogamous relationships, then it will be no wonder that parents will insist on withdrawing their children from sex education classes.

It's not about not upsetting anybody - simply an acknowledgement that happy polygamous relationships exist. I fail to see why that's unreasonable - though I have no interest in them myself, some people do have loving and exploitation-free polygamous relationships, including people in the UK. There are also plenty of monogamous relationships that are exploitative and harmful.

I really didn't mean to suggest that equal time should be given to polygamy, by the way - just an acknowledgement that monogamy is not for everyone. But there are things that need covering more consistently before that can even be brought up, like consent, how to spot abuse in relationships etc.

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Makepiece
Shipmate
# 10454

 - Posted      Profile for Makepiece   Email Makepiece   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Makepiece:
quote:
Why? Because people are too selfish in our culture to spend quality time with their children and put their own ambitions in second place.
I hope you are not suggesting here that I am one of these people who is too selfish to 'put my own ambitions in second place' in order to spend quality time with my daughter.

If you are not suggesting locking her up then I apologise for the 'Victorian values' crack.

But what are modern parents supposed to do to ensure that their children don't end up becoming parents whilst still in school? On the one hand you have the advocates of outdoor play complaining that children don't get enough freedom nowadays and should be allowed to 'experience risks'. But as soon as you do allow them some freedom, another lot of people pipe up with complaints about what they do with it. Sometimes it's even the same people complaining; pensioners reminiscing about their own freedom to roam about climbing trees and splashing in streams are usually the first to complain about noisy ball games, groups of children hanging around in the street, etc.

And whatever you try to teach them about committed relationships, using reliable contraception etc. you're up against the combined might of Popular Culture (which sells the myth that romantic love, inevitably ending in sex, is the be-all and end-all of existence and the only kind of love worth having) and the porn industry (which peddles a glamourised version of sex where everyone has a perfect body and can go at it like rabbits for hours, without sweating, farting, or being distracted by thoughts of what's for dinner or what happened at work that day).

No worries, I'm not suggesting that you are selfish as I don't know you, I was simply trying to make the point that just as people were materialistic in the Victorian age people are still materialistic now and that its intimate relationships that suffer.

In my view there are two things that parents can do to protect their children from the risk of premature pregnancy. The first is to spend quality time with them as I suggest in the OP. If children feel secure and intimate in their relationships with their parents they will not feel the need so much to gain attention from the opposite sex. The difficulty is that secure attachment needs to develop from a very young age. Many parents feel like their children are 'ok' in day care but my concern is that a lack of intimacy with parents at the pre-school age leads to an inappropriate desire for intimacy and an ambivalence towards commitment during adolescence. If a parent is constantly available during the pre school years does this not teach children something about commitment?

The second thing I believe that parents can do is to teach children character. History is littered with examples of people who overcame immense pressure. They need to learn to be like Martin Luther King, Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, Emily Pankhurst, etc. Of course, imho, the historical personality who withstood social pressure to the greatest extent was the Prince of Peace, who will dry every tear from our eyes.

--------------------
Don't ask for whom the bell tolls...

Posts: 938 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Makepiece
Shipmate
# 10454

 - Posted      Profile for Makepiece   Email Makepiece   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Makepiece:
quote:
If you have a good relationship with your daughter (like Mr Bennett and Elizabeth Bennett for example) then there would be no need to 'lock her up' as she would want to spend time with you voluntarily.
<tangent> BTW, did anyone else notice the irony of citing Mr Bennett as an example of model parenting? He certainly had a good relationship with Elizabeth, but not with his other four daughters or his wife; his strategy for dealing with them was to vanish into the library whenever they annoyed him, which left them vulnerable to the machinations of the likes of Wickham. I bet he wished he'd locked Lydia up instead of sending her off to Brighton; in fact he more or less said so, after the elopement.

And if he hadn't spent so much money on books and had exerted himself to rein in Mrs Bennett's extravagances, there might have been enough money put by to give his daughters bigger dowries and a wider choice of suitors. There are other forms of selfishness besides what you call 'ambition'.<\tangent>

Thank you for noticing the irony. Its one of my favourite aspects of Jane Austen herself. Of course Mr Bennett was also pre-Victorian and so I at least did not fall into the trap of using a Victorian example. Sophia Western's relationship with Squire Western would have been an even worse example!

--------------------
Don't ask for whom the bell tolls...

Posts: 938 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
... - simply an acknowledgement that happy polygamous relationships exist. I fail to see why that's unreasonable - though I have no interest in them myself, some people do have loving and exploitation-free polygamous relationships, including people in the UK. ...

Do they? There are only two sorts of polygamous or polyandrous relationships of which I am aware.

1. Those found among some Moslems and other groups. These are what polygamy and polyandry normally mean. They not recognised in the UK. I'd imagine that most responsible teachers and LEAs would want to do nearly as much to discourage their pupils entering into them as they want to discourage FGM.

2. The sort that are what polyamory normally means and which I described earlier as "driven by exploitative slags of both sexes". I'm aware from posts in the past on the Ship that there are fringe minority groups that advocate that sort of thing. I can see that some people might like to imagine as a theoretical exercise that there could 'loving and exploitation-free polygamous relationships'. I am in my sixties. There has been nothing in my life experience that suggest to me that such relationships exist, are capable of existing or are in reality anything other than a delusion.

We warn young people of the dangers of smoking, ban them from drinking under age and exhort them to take exercise and eat healthy food. We discourage them from taking up crime. We don't say that this is discriminatory against or offensive to smokers, alcoholics, couch potatoes or criminals. Why therefore should anyone argue that it is unfair to the polyamorous to do anything other than teach children that polyamory is a thoroughly bad idea, and explain why in explicit terms?

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
... - simply an acknowledgement that happy polygamous relationships exist. I fail to see why that's unreasonable - though I have no interest in them myself, some people do have loving and exploitation-free polygamous relationships, including people in the UK. ...

Do they? There are only two sorts of polygamous or polyandrous relationships of which I am aware.

1. Those found among some Moslems and other groups. These are what polygamy and polyandry normally mean. They not recognised in the UK. I'd imagine that most responsible teachers and LEAs would want to do nearly as much to discourage their pupils entering into them as they want to discourage FGM.

2. The sort that are what polyamory normally means and which I described earlier as "driven by exploitative slags of both sexes". I'm aware from posts in the past on the Ship that there are fringe minority groups that advocate that sort of thing. I can see that some people might like to imagine as a theoretical exercise that there could 'loving and exploitation-free polygamous relationships'. I am in my sixties. There has been nothing in my life experience that suggest to me that such relationships exist, are capable of existing or are in reality anything other than a delusion.

We warn young people of the dangers of smoking, ban them from drinking under age and exhort them to take exercise and eat healthy food. We discourage them from taking up crime. We don't say that this is discriminatory against or offensive to smokers, alcoholics, couch potatoes or criminals. Why therefore should anyone argue that it is unfair to the polyamorous to do anything other than teach children that polyamory is a thoroughly bad idea, and explain why in explicit terms?

Firstly, you're confusing polygyny and polygamy. Polygyny is where one man has many wives, a la the FLDS or some Muslims. Polygyny and polyandry are tied to religious or cultural beliefs, polyamory or polygamy is usually not.

Secondly, though not having entered any kind of polygamous or polyamorous relationship myself, close friends of mine have, and the relationships have been entirely loving and exploitation-free and not connected to any kind of cult, and only ended due to the sad death of one of the partners. Just because you are in your sixties doesn't mean there are things you haven't experienced!

It is nonsensical to describe the sort of happy relationship that my friends enjoyed to smoking or under-age drinking. None of them were 'slags' (a very offensive term), just people who loved more than one person at once. It's very sad that a thing that brought the people involved such happiness is considered to be a bad idea by total strangers.

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454

 - Posted      Profile for Zacchaeus   Email Zacchaeus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
In the scheme of work which we followed (following the guidance that it had to be 'in a moral framework') 'waiting until you are married' was one of the topics discussed - I always remember it as being one of the hardest sections to teach because of the incredulity of the kids and the laughter it provoked.

It would make a lot more sense to talk about "waiting until you are in a committed, monogamous relationship."
that was also discussed
And the kids still laughed at that? Then that's fairly worrying.
WE are fighting modern culture where sex is expected.
One of my friend’s, when her son started showing interesting in girls, tried to have the, committed monogamous relationship talk with her son.
He just laughed at her and said ’oh mum it’s the 21st century of course we’re having sex’

Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009  |  IP: Logged
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881

 - Posted      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
... I am in my sixties. There has been nothing in my life experience that suggest to me that such relationships exist, are capable of existing or are in reality anything other than a delusion. ...

Oh, well, that settles it. I`m guessing you`ve never been to the Moon either, so obviously the Moon landings were fake.

--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"

Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Why therefore should anyone argue that it is unfair to the polyamorous to do anything other than teach children that polyamory is a thoroughly bad idea, and explain why in explicit terms?

Because it is fiction. Some types of polyamorous relationships can be bad, but not all. And it is not for everyone. But healthy, balanced relationships do exist.
Simply because you disagree or have no experience, does not make them wrong.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840

 - Posted      Profile for rolyn         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:

One of my friend’s, when her son started showing interesting in girls, tried to have the, committed monogamous relationship talk with her son.
He just laughed at her and said ’oh mum it’s the 21st century of course we’re having sex’

And that there is the absolute nub of it . The genie is out of the bottle and no amount of huffing and puffing by Christians ,or anyone else for that matter, is going to put it back.

So the answer to the question set in the OP has got to be contraception, easier access to abortion, and the removal of abortion's stigmatisation .

Much as many of us might wish a return of the Golden Age , which probably never existed anyway , it ain't never gonna happen IMO .

--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence

Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican't   Email Anglican't   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
And that there is the absolute nub of it . The genie is out of the bottle and no amount of huffing and puffing by Christians ,or anyone else for that matter, is going to put it back.

Do you think so? Presumably the Victorian period was more sexually conservative than, say, the Georgian period? Possibly so were the 1950s compared to the 1920s. I wonder whether it's always a one-way street?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
WE are fighting modern culture where sex is expected.
One of my friend’s, when her son started showing interesting in girls, tried to have the, committed monogamous relationship talk with her son.
He just laughed at her and said ’oh mum it’s the 21st century of course we’re having sex’

I don't know how old her son was at the time, but ISTM that she started that discussion far too late. Children are sexualised by pop music and their peers while in primary school, and when they hit secondary school they get their own TVs/PCs/mobile phones, and gain access to porn. If they don't have any of these gadgets, their friends will. Yet their parents are still hesitant about having serious and informed discussions with them at an early age.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
And that there is the absolute nub of it . The genie is out of the bottle and no amount of huffing and puffing by Christians ,or anyone else for that matter, is going to put it back.

Do you think so? Presumably the Victorian period was more sexually conservative than, say, the Georgian period? Possibly so were the 1950s compared to the 1920s. I wonder whether it's always a one-way street?
The Victorian period was not very sexually conservative at all! Sex was more hidden and middle-class, but technology meant that there was an explosion in the production of pornography.

The 20s was sexually liberated for some people in London, Berlin, Paris etc but that really didn't happen for people outside of big cities. By the 50s, however, WWII had happened and a smaller amount of sexual liberation was much more widespread throughout the country. Divorce was extremely common in the aftermath of WWII, for example (due to changing relationships because of conscription etc), and is what partly led to divorce reform in the 60s and 70s. Same-gender households (not necessarily romantic or sexual) were also much more accepted because of the amount of same-gender living that war brings about. It's not really accurate to say that the 20s were more sexually liberal than the 50s - it's not a linear thing.

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Oh, well, that settles it. I`m guessing you`ve never been to the Moon either, so obviously the Moon landings were fake.

Bad analogy. There is persuasive evidence that the moon landings were genuine. There is plenty of evidence that what is euphemistically called polyamory doesn't work and is a thoroughly bad thing. That also tallies with what I have seen. I have not seen anything that favours polyamory. Mere assertions by people that they would like it to work, know someone who has been in two short term relationships simultaneously, that it must work because it's unconventional and they favour anything that's unconventional or they would like to try it, do not suffice. The evidence against it has long ago convinced me that it is unlikely to work either ethically or practically.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405

 - Posted      Profile for Porridge   Email Porridge   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
To return to a point made by IngoB earlier, the "problem" of teenage pregnancy is one our culture has created. Biologically speaking, mid-to-late teens is an ideal time for the female human body to procreate. Procreation at this time only becomes a problem when:

Social norms delay the female's majority / maturity / self-sufficiency to a much later point in the female's life;

Social norms insist on children being raised in nuclear family units (many tribal societies do things otherwise);

Social norms make distinctions between "legitimate" and "illegitimate" children (much less true these days than formerly, but there's still societal & legal "hangover");

Social norms enforce status differences between males and females, in restricting females to certain kinds of paid work, restricting their hours and earning opportunities, and proviinge less pay while also expecting vast quantities of unpaid labor (again, far less true now than 50 years ago, but there's still societal & legal "hangover");

Social norms (almost) require disapproval of single teen mothers while winking aside the teen fellas who contribute to these procreations;

Social norms require that parents simultaneously be sole caretakers and sole financial supporters of children.

Put in place national subsidized child care, pay male and female workers the same (living-wage) pay for the same work, and quit pretending that child care only qualifies as paid "work" when done by an adult unrelated to the child by blood, and hey presto; most of the "problem" disappears.

--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!

Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools