# Michelle Mulherin the new Alice Glenn/Mary Whitehouse



## Bronte (27 Mar 2013)

Is Ms. Mulherin the new thought police of our times?  My mother, in her seventies rang me the other day about Joe Duffy.  She couldn't believe that there was a website promoting 3 somes to youngsters.  Later I listened to Joe and it was the funniest radio ever.  Now the exact opposite of what Ms. Mulherin wanted, which I presume is censorship, but that is not clear, and all youngsters are talking about is actual three somes.  

What is it exactly that Ms. Mulherin wants?


----------



## One (27 Mar 2013)

Bronte said:


> What is it exactly that Ms. Mulherin wants?


 
I think she was saying that in her opinion the website was giving tips on how to enjoy threesomes (which could have even been interpreted as borderline promotion of threesomes), and that there are many ways that State money could be better spent.

I think the amount of State money involved is 100,000K directly funding the website but >200,000K diectly and indirectly funding the website. She wants State money spent in other ways.


----------



## Bronte (27 Mar 2013)

But that website for young people is about much more than threesomes, it covers all aspects of sexuality.  Does she want the full website closed down or does she want it censored?


----------



## TarfHead (27 Mar 2013)

She's FG TD #4 in a 5 seat constituency. This Dáil is her one chance to make a name for herself. And she's doing just that ,


----------



## Betsy Og (27 Mar 2013)

I'm as liberal as the next man (& of course was sadly born a few decades too early by the sounds of things), but I think the website could have been smarter and concentrated its safe sex message on more 'standard fare', basically they allowed themselves to be a soft target.

On the whole safe sex/dont get pregnant issue, I dont know was mentioning threesomes absolutely necessary and I do think it might be tacit encouragement (though that's probably a contradiction in terms).


----------



## Bronte (27 Mar 2013)

So this TD is about publicity, is that correct and sex sells, so this is the second time she's made the headlines on that particular matter.


----------



## dereko1969 (27 Mar 2013)

If you were a journalist would the first person you contacted for a quote about sexuality not be the TD who stated that "fornication" is the number one cause of pregnancy - idiot TD makes idiotic quote?

The good work that website has done has now been undone by some twit of a journalist asking another twit of a TD about this. Teenagers are under enough pressure sexually speaking without the one calm, clear website offering them advice about their own lives in a non-judgemental form being pressurised into removing clear advice - it did point out that threesomes aren't all they're cracked up to be and aren't suitable for all people.


----------



## T McGibney (3 Apr 2013)

dereko1969 said:


> If you were a journalist would the first person you contacted for a quote about sexuality not be the TD who stated that "fornication" is the number one cause of pregnancy - idiot TD makes idiotic quote?



It certainly reads idiotic once you've misquoted her, but here's what she actually did say:



> fornication, I would say, is probably the single most likely cause of unwanted pregnancies in this country.



A statement of the bleeding obvious, if you ask me.


----------



## bullbars (3 Apr 2013)

T McGibney said:


> A statement of the bleeding obvious, if you ask me.



I do like the way she clarifies the statement with "I would say", it's as if we are all anxiously awaiting some break through in research to confirm the sex can result in pregnancy.


----------



## Purple (3 Apr 2013)

bullbars said:


> I do like the way she clarifies the statement with "I would say", it's as if we are all anxiously awaiting some break through in research to confirm the sex can result in pregnancy.



Fornication is, and I'm open to correction here, sex between two people who aren't married. I don't see her point.


----------



## Purple (3 Apr 2013)

Betsy Og said:


> I'm as liberal as the next man (& of course was sadly born a few decades too early by the sounds of things), but I think the website could have been smarter and concentrated its safe sex message on more 'standard fare', basically they allowed themselves to be a soft target.
> 
> On the whole safe sex/dont get pregnant issue, I dont know was mentioning threesomes absolutely necessary and I do think it might be tacit encouragement (though that's probably a contradiction in terms).



I agree with that.


----------



## Firefly (3 Apr 2013)

The government squanders vast amounts of money, at least in this case someone might enjoy some


----------



## dereko1969 (3 Apr 2013)

T McGibney said:


> It certainly reads idiotic once you've misquoted her, but here's what she actually did say:
> 
> 
> 
> A statement of the bleeding obvious, if you ask me.


 
Whilst I may have misquoted her, the thrust of what I stated is as idiotic as what she actually stated, which supports my original point that who else would a journalist go to - what would you expect from a pig, but a grunt - on a matter like this.


----------



## T McGibney (3 Apr 2013)

The bizarre thing is that people spent the 1970s laughing at Mary Whitehouse and admiring Jimmy Savile.

[broken link removed]


----------



## bullbars (4 Apr 2013)

Purple said:


> Fornication is, and I'm open to correction here, sex between two people who aren't married. I don't see her point.



Her point being that if we'd all have the decency to abstain from sex until we are married (happily or otherwise),society wouldn't be faced with unwanted  pregnancy/children. 
Broadly; if we'd all just do as the church says we'll be fine. Note do as they say not as they do.
How she gets voted in really baffles me.


----------



## Bronte (4 Apr 2013)

Personally I've always disliked Jimmy Savile. Just something about him. But I don't agree with the current witchhunt by the police in the UK to make up for their own incompetence in dealing with Savile and I'm not at all sure that all claims against Savile are genuine as it's very strange to me that one person could do so much harm and be able to cover his tracks so consistently. We had it in the RCC in Ireland but that was where the organisation was able to move people around and help with the cover ups. 

In relation to the Spun Out website. I have a sibling who teaches sex education in schools and apparently Spun Out is one of the best websites around. Me too, I'm a bit shocked about threesomes but in the context of a wholesome no holds barred giving of facts and dangers in  teenagers lingo then it seems appropriate that all possible sexual liasons are discussed openly and honestly. 

In relation to those who would prefer that teenagers weren't given a HSE funded resource with Spunout, do we really want to go back to zero information. I don't recall the 60's or indeed later as an enlightening era, there was a deeply flawed black side to it. And it warped Irish attitudes to sex. Including myself, I cannot to this day discuss such thing with say my mother (a liberal). My foreign friends who also know other Irish think we are all weird on this area of our lives etc.


----------



## Bronte (4 Apr 2013)

Purple said:


> Fornication is, and I'm open to correction here, sex between two people who aren't married. I don't see her point.


 
Why do you have to be unmarried to call it fornication? I don't get this?

_________________________________

Ms. Mulherin is wrong that fornication is the main cause of pregnancy in that pregnancy could be prevented by teaching young people of both sexes respect for each other and use of contraception on all occasions and most importantly ease of access to contraception and knowledge. 

If you're going to do it, you gotta use it. 

It's sad that still some schools won't let kids have the knowlege. At least now some good has come of this and all of us parents and teenagers know of Spunout. 100K a year if it prevents hurt and pain and ignorance and pregnancy has surely got to be worth that.


----------



## Purple (4 Apr 2013)

Bronte said:


> Why do you have to be unmarried to call it fornication?  I don't get this?


That’s the definition of fornication, as far as I know.
Personally I think it's an absurd and outmoded phrase to use in this day and age.


----------



## T McGibney (4 Apr 2013)

Bronte said:


> the context of a wholesome no holds barred giving of facts and dangers in a teenagers lingo then it seems *appropriate* that* all possible sexual liasons* are discussed openly and honestly.





The mind boggles.


----------



## T McGibney (4 Apr 2013)

Bronte said:


> Ms. Mulherin is wrong that fornication is the main cause of pregnancy



To repeat my earlier point, she never said that.


----------



## T McGibney (4 Apr 2013)

Bronte said:


> 100K a year if it prevents hurt and pain and ignorance and pregnancy has surely got to be worth that.



Its a massive leap of faith to assume that information set out on a website will stamp out unwanted pregnancies and the other ill-effects of irresponsible sexual behaviour.  25-30 years ago, Hot Press covered all such topics  in great detail (and highlighted the scourge of child abuse when the mainstream media didn't want to know) but all their efforts didn't end unwanted pregnancies either.


----------



## Bronte (4 Apr 2013)

T McGibney said:


> The mind boggles.


 
I'm confused, you don't think that young people should be informed about any sex that is not vanilla sex?


----------



## Bronte (4 Apr 2013)

T McGibney said:


> Its a massive leap of faith to assume that information set out on a website will stamp out unwanted pregnancies and the other ill-effects of irresponsible sexual behaviour. 25-30 years ago, Hot Press covered all such topics in great detail (and highlighted the scourge of child abuse when the mainstream media didn't want to know) but all their efforts didn't end unwanted pregnancies either.


 

Well you know 25 years ago some of us were so ignorant we didn't know what Hot Press was, or we lived where we couldn't get it, or we couldn't afford it, or we didn't have any sex information whatsoever, or we were told Hot Press was evil, or we couldn't get contraception, or we could only get the pill if we were married, and then only if we had a cycle problem and if it were the right doctor etc. 

Even if you believe threesomes are wrong do you think that teenagers should not be told about them? Is it better for them to rely on teenage gossip and the likes of twitter and less salubrious websites?


----------



## Bronte (4 Apr 2013)

T McGibney said:


> To repeat my earlier point, she never said that.


 

So she never said 'fornication is the main cause of pregnancy' instead she said


“fornication, I would say, is probably the single most likely cause of unwanted pregnancies in this country”.

that's from the article you linked. What is your point? 

I hadn't read the article but my goodness who talks like that, it's an extremely strange way of expression.

And she mentions fornication as sin. Does she mean all sex that is not between married people or what? What is sinful about sex?


----------



## Bronte (4 Apr 2013)

Purple said:


> That’s the definition of fornication, as far as I know.
> Personally I think it's an absurd and outmoded phrase to use in this day and age.


 

You're right, it's not just sex, it's sex outside marriage, forgive my ignorance, they nuns didn't get that bit in me, about fornication, but actually I don't recall them ever mentioning any kind of sex whatsoever. My enlightenment continues. Thanks. 

I could really have done with the likes of spun out. Mr. Bronte's and my sex life could have been oh so much more exciting. It all passed us by. 

From wiki:

*Fornication* typically refers to consensual sexual intercourse between two people not married to each other.[1] For many people, the term carries a moral or religious association, but the significance of sexual acts to which the term is applied varies between religions, societies and cultures. The definition is often disputed. In modern usage, the term is often replaced with the more judgment-neutral terms premarital sex, sex before marriage, or extramarital sex.


----------



## T McGibney (4 Apr 2013)

Bronte said:


> I'm confused, you don't think that young people should be informed about any sex that is not vanilla sex?



Your use of the term "all possible sexual liasons" is what puzzles me. I presume this doesn't include anything illegal or unethical, in which case your use of the word "all" is rather misleading? (and I'm picking my words carefully here).


----------



## T McGibney (4 Apr 2013)

Bronte said:


> So she never said fornication is the main cause of pregnancy instead she said
> 
> 
> “fornication, I would say, is probably the single most likely cause of unwanted pregnancies in this country”.
> ...



My point is that extramarital sexual relations is clearly the primary cause of unwanted pregnancies in this and every other country.  This isn't exactly a sensational claim.



Bronte said:


> I hadn't read the article but my goodness who talks like that, it's an extremely strange way of expression.
> 
> And she mentions fornication as sin. Does she mean all sex that is not  between married people or what?  What is sinful about sex?



You'll have to take those points up with Ms Mulherin. She is a solicitor by profession so perhaps this may influence her language and expression. That said its still rather peculiar, in a supposedly open, pluralist and modern country, to expect every statement by every public figure to conform so rigidly to a particular norm.


----------



## T McGibney (4 Apr 2013)

Bronte said:


> Well you know 25 years ago some of us were so ignorant we didn't know what Hot Press was, or we lived where we couldn't get it, or we couldn't afford it, or we didn't have any sex information whatsoever, or we were told Hot Press was evil, or we couldn't get contraception, or we could only get the pill if we were married, and then only if we had a cycle problem and if it were the right doctor etc.



Come on!! Every 1980s Irish teenager knew what Hot Press was. It was for sale in every village in the country. As were the Sunday World and the News of the World, with their sex "advice" and associated tittle tattle.


----------



## Bronte (4 Apr 2013)

T McGibney said:


> Come on!! Every 1980s Irish teenager knew what Hot Press was. It was for sale in every village in the country. As were the Sunday World and the News of the World, with their sex "advice" and associated tittle tattle.


 
Now you are kidding me.

Yes I know I actually got my hands on Hot Press a few times, but not everybody did, and I don't actually remember anything really exciting in it as far as I can recall, but for those other newspapers, they weren't in my house. Independant and Times only. I was an adult before I know about the redtops. And there used to be only RTE ONE you know. Which half the time seemed to start very late and finish early and had a lot of programes in Irish that we couldn't understand. I remember watching Feach etc. Not a clue but we thought TV was exciting. 

I think I got more information out of the likes of Cosmopolitan and I seem to recall some furore about ads for services in the UK, no idea what year though. And something about I think In Dublin and ads for prostitues or gays.

My point being that we had censorship when I was young, though I didn't realise it, and I didn't realise that I couldn't get information because I didn't know what information I needed or where to get it. And for my own kids and todays kids - well it shouldn't be the same for them.

I actually find this very difficult, my own sibling (the one in sex education, and younger than me) tells me that it's me that has to be open and honest with my kids or else I perpetuate the mess that was my own sexual upbringing, in the sense of education.  She has actually just sent me some suitable material for my kids. But because of my own repression I find it exceedingly difficult to talk to my kids. It might not appear that way from AAM and we can make jokes etc but it is really serious. Part of me growing up is writing about it sometimes here on AAM.


----------



## Bronte (4 Apr 2013)

T McGibney said:


> Your use of the term "all possible sexual liasons" is what puzzles me. I presume this doesn't include anything illegal or unethical, in which case your use of the word "all" is rather misleading? (and I'm picking my words carefully here).


 
Actually that's in interesting point, hadn't thought about it like that. 

Threesomes aren't illegal, (Mr. Bronte had to point out to me that the picture in the newpaper of the 6 feet signified 3 people in bed, coz I didn't notice. I'm slow on these things). 

Are threesomes unethical? Doesn't that depend on the ethics of the person concerned and is it any of my business, applying my ethics to other peoples sexual inclinations.

What is illegal in relation to sex (consensual), actually I don't know, the only thing I can think of is (someone else will have to say this before me) and I don't know any other. I doubt if the website mentions that.

Why are you picking your words carefully? Are you censoring yourself.

And just for the record, I think that threesomes can be hurtful for those involved, but as my experience is limited maybe I'm old hat. I do think though that teenagers are young and vulnerable and having a first relationship with someone, whether sexual or not is fraught with difficulty and they need to experience that first before experimenting any further with threesomes. But if they are going to be, by my standards, very adventerous, than a website giving them advice on the positives and negatives and emphasing the importance of condoms has to be a good thing.


----------



## Purple (4 Apr 2013)

Bronte said:


> And she mentions fornication as sin. Does she mean all sex that is not between married people or what?  What is sinful about sex?



If your a Catholic then fornication is a sin; if you’re in the club them them’s the rules.
Just because it seems absurd to most people under the age of 50 (and many over that age) doesn’t change the facts. Catholic teaching has stayed the same but society has changed and many people who profess to be Catholic are unwilling to live by the rules and morals of their Church. In this case the RC Church is correct and those members who disagree with it are incorrect.

Personally I left the club years ago. Mainly for quite basic reasons (a lack of belief in god) but I also had huge problems with their stance on homosexuality and sexuality in general.
That said Mrs Mulherin is 100% entitled to her views and to express those views. If you are a Catolic you must agree with her. If you don't then you're not a Catholic. The same goes for the other Christian Churches as well as Islam and Jewish teachings.


----------



## Bronte (4 Apr 2013)

Purple said:


> That said Mrs Mulherin is 100% entitled to her views and to express those views..


 
Fully agree with you. And by that measure she should call for the website to be banned outright and any other HSE sponsored sex education that includes any information on non marital sex, on condoms, on abortion, on divorce, on gay sex, should surely also be mentined by her. Why pick on threesomes. Why pick on Spun out.  If your message is the Roman Catholic Church message than she should be clear and consistant.  Otherwise to me she's being a hypocrite.  (is that a sin?)


----------



## T McGibney (4 Apr 2013)

Bronte said:


> Why are you picking your words carefully? Are you censoring yourself.



Of course I am censoring myself and picking my words carefully. After all, this is a public website, accessible to all. I'm not going to write anything here that will breach moderation guidelines or bring the site into disrepute.



Bronte said:


> What is illegal in relation to sex (consensual), actually I don't know,  the only thing I can think of is (someone else will have to say this  before me) and I don't know any other. I doubt if the website mentions  that.


Consensual sex between and involving minors is illegal. As are certain other practices.



Bronte said:


> I do  think though that teenagers are young and vulnerable and having a first  relationship with someone, whether sexual or not is fraught with  difficulty and they need to experience that first before experimenting  any further with threesomes.



But the original SpunOut "threesomes" article didn't acknowledge this. This is why they're in hot water now.


----------



## T McGibney (4 Apr 2013)

Bronte said:


> Fully agree with you. And by that measure she should call for the website to be banned outright and any other HSE sponsored sex education that includes any information on non marital sex, on condoms, on abortion, on divorce, on gay sex, should surely also be mentined by her. Why pick on threesomes. Why pick on Spun out.  If your message is the Roman Catholic Church message than she should be clear and consistant.  Otherwise to me she's being a hypocrite.  (is that a sin?)



She made her comments as a public representative, not as a representative of any Church.


----------



## T McGibney (4 Apr 2013)

Purple said:


> If you are a Catolic you must agree with her. If you don't then you're not a Catholic. The same goes for the other Christian Churches as well as Islam and Jewish teachings.



This is clearly untrue.


----------



## Purple (4 Apr 2013)

T McGibney said:


> This is clearly untrue.



Why?
The RC Church has specific teachings on sex and sexuality which are all well grounded in the New Testament.


----------



## T McGibney (4 Apr 2013)

Purple said:


> Why?
> The RC Church has specific teachings on sex and sexuality which are all well grounded in the New Testament.



But you can be a member of the RC Church and still disagree with some or perhaps even all of its teachings. The same goes for other prominent Churches. I haven't seen any of them excommunicate millions of their followers en masse in modern times even though there is widespread non-compliance with certain teachings. There are also regular and often contentious policy-based debates within specific Churches. I don't see mass excommunications or expulsions there either.


----------



## Latrade (4 Apr 2013)

I think under the strict definition of unwanted pregnancy and under the strict definition of fornication, then she is probably right. 

What we know from UK statistics is that of the abortions performed, 98% are under their C group (i.e. openly worded 'unwanted' with no specific medical grounds). Also under the fornication (outside of marriage) 91% of those having abortions are "un married".

So factually, she has a point I suppose.

Facts are great. 

Meaningful policy on how to tackle the issue aside from the failed "don't do it you filthy heathens" is a bit more difficult and involves a more mature approach to sex and sexuality than stigmatising and insisting nobody outside of "official" wedlock can have a fumble and a frolic.

Which people try to do, like the website mentioned. Not always successfully, but openly and maturely. Then they're shot down for promoting filthy disgusting behaviour, just for having an open conversation.

I'm not saying the website was perfect, but if we don't have those services, then there's only one possible solution: parents will have to stop expecting others and the state to raise and prepare their kids for society and sit down and raise decent, wise, honest, people themselves by talking to them.

And we know that's never going to happen.


----------



## Latrade (4 Apr 2013)

T McGibney said:


> But you can be a member of the RC Church and still disagree with some or perhaps even all of its teachings. The same goes for other prominent Churches. I haven't seen any of them excommunicate millions of their followers en masse in modern times even though there is widespread non-compliance with certain teachings. There are also regular and often contentious policy-based debates within specific Churches. I don't see mass excommunications or expulsions there either.


 
True. You just go to hell or purgatory instead.


----------



## Purple (4 Apr 2013)

T McGibney said:


> But you can be a member of the RC Church and still disagree with some or perhaps even all of its teachings. The same goes for other prominent Churches. I haven't seen any of them excommunicate millions of their followers en masse in modern times even though there is widespread non-compliance with certain teachings. There are also regular and often contentious policy-based debates within specific Churches. I don't see mass excommunications or expulsions there either.


 You can be a member of the RC Church but you are not a RC Christian. The two are not the same thing.


----------



## T McGibney (4 Apr 2013)

Purple said:


> You can be a member of the RC Church but you are not a RC Christian. The two are not the same thing.



Sorry, I don't have a clue what you mean.



Latrade said:


> True. You just go to hell or purgatory instead.



Ditto.


----------



## Bronte (4 Apr 2013)

Latrade said:


> a more mature approach to sex and sexuality than stigmatising and insisting nobody outside of "official" wedlock can have a fumble and a frolic.
> 
> Which people try to do, like the website mentioned. Not always successfully, but openly and maturely. Then they're shot down for promoting filthy disgusting behaviour, just for having an open conversation.
> 
> .


 
Yes that puts it nicely.  The website is so that young people can have a mature approach and an open conversation about most sexual behaviour with information designed for them and speaking directly to them on matters that concern them and which some/many of us parents fail to/ are incapable of/unwilling to teach our own children.


----------



## Bronte (4 Apr 2013)

T McGibney said:


> Consensual sex between and involving minors is illegal. As are certain other practices.
> 
> 
> .


 
Sorry idiot here forgot about the minors being illegal bit.  That wasn't what I was referring to though.  Anyway in relation to minors, they do it too and they ergo thy need the information on spun out. 

And now I'm nearly hopelessly lost with Purple's catholicism bit on this.  

All very confusing, no wonder young people are messed up.


----------



## Latrade (4 Apr 2013)

T McGibney said:


> Ditto.


 
Me? Thanks, but I was referring to 'you' in the general third person (as your post was) rather than you personally. 

Besides, I hedged my bets and took up Judasim, no hell, have as much surf and turf, hog roast and using the computer on a Saturday as you want, max 12 months in Gehenna, then Heaven. It's like the express ticket at Disney Land.


----------



## Latrade (4 Apr 2013)

Bronte said:


> Yes that puts it nicely. The website is so that young people can have a mature approach and an open conversation about most sexual behaviour with information designed for them and speaking directly to them on matters that concern them and which some/many of us parents fail to/ are incapable of/unwilling to teach our own children.


 
Let's face it there is a logic to "abstain". No problems if you just didn't do it and kept the pants buttoned up. It's all about resisting temptation (except probably the best means of resisting, onanism a sin too...oh and filthy and shameful and disgusting, maybe even a mental illness for a while...quick fact, corn flakes were supposed to have been developed as cure for onanism).

But we've seen that doesn't work. Sure in the old days it did everything was better in the old days... Except it didn't work. But that last bit is irrelevant, after all we preferred state sanctioned slave labour and abuse in laundries for 'those people' than throw off the shackles of dogma and to shout of abstain. Or we forced them into marriage and preferred children grow up in a loveless and sometimes abusive relationship. 

It was all so much easier back then.


----------



## Purple (4 Apr 2013)

T McGibney said:


> Sorry, I don't have a clue what you mean.



Going to mass and saying you are a Christian is one thing. 
Believing in, understand, and living by the teachings of the Church is what makes you a Christian.


----------



## T McGibney (4 Apr 2013)

Latrade said:


> Me? Thanks, but I was referring to 'you' in the general third person (as your post was) rather than you personally.



Yes, I gathered that, but I didn't understand your point.


----------



## T McGibney (4 Apr 2013)

Bronte said:


> Yes that puts it nicely.  The website is so that young people can have a mature approach and an open conversation about most sexual behaviour with information designed for them and speaking directly to them on matters that concern them and which some/many of us parents fail to/ are incapable of/unwilling to teach our own children.



But there is nothing mature about a programme that reduces relationships education to the sort of 'spice up your love life' tips that the redtops use as spacefillers.


----------



## Ceist Beag (4 Apr 2013)

Purple said:


> Going to mass and saying you are a Christian is one thing.
> Believing in, understand, and living by the teachings of the Church is what makes you a Christian.



Purple I know you like to stir the pot when it comes to religious discussions but you're talking through your hat on this one. It's a bit rich a self proclaimed atheist telling others what the true definition of a Christian is. People can be Roman Catholics whilst at the same time not agreeing with all teachings of the Church. Disagreeing with certain teachings depending on your own opinion makes us human. You might like to believe that to be a Roman Catholic means you should believe all teachings unquestioningly but that just shows up your own views imho. I'm a Roman Catholic and I certainly don't agree with everything the Church stands for but I'm quite comfortable with that and you certainly don't hold the right to lecture me on my stance.


----------



## Latrade (4 Apr 2013)

T McGibney said:


> Yes, I gathered that, but I didn't understand your point.


 
My point was, and back to Purple's point, is that while you may not be excommunicated or ejected for not agreeing to or abiding by all the dictated beliefs of the RC faith, isn't the point that if you don't, unless the Pope/God offers a new clarification, you go to hell/purgatory for not following those points?

For example, if I were homosexual and engaged in a homosexual relationship, if I followed every other RC belief apart from that one, wouldn't I go to hell?

I don't want to speak for Purple, but my take on his point is that being RC specifically means belief in the RC faith and all its teachings and the interpretations of those teachings by the current Pope.

By opting out of some, for whatever reason, does that not mean you are saying the Pope/God is wrong on certain issues, ergo in the strictest sense, you can't fully describe yourself as RC?


----------



## dereko1969 (4 Apr 2013)

This is the original text in the original article. It does list the pro's and con's of threesomes, I personally don't think it's unwise or scandalous to do so. And by the way T McGibney it is not *reducing* relationships to this, this is only 1 article on the website which includes much more relevant and helpful material to teenagers.

From here

[broken link removed]

*Threesomes*
How to have a fun and safe experience.
*What is a threesome?*
A threesome involves getting sexually intimate with two people rather than just one person. Threesomes can involve any combination of guys and gals. They often consist of a couple experimenting with another person outside of their relationship. Threesomes can be really exciting and fun, but like all things in life, they have their downsides too.
_Also, remember that in the Republic of Ireland the legal age of consent is 17, and in Northern Ireland it is 16._
*Pros*

It’s fun! Threesomes are pretty exciting things. People usually really enjoy them.
It’s a sexual adventure. Threesomes are usually a once in a lifetime or an occasional experience.
It spices things up. Some couples say that even one threesome experience injects serious passion into their bedroom shenanigans.
*Cons*

The jealousy monster. You or your partner might feel jealous afterwards, no matter how much you tried to divide your time equally between the two people.
The insecurity. You or your partner may feel that the other person had a better body than you. You may worry that your partner fancies them more.
The relationship could break down. In the worst case scenario, you may not be able to move past jealousy. You may wonder why you even needed the threesome in the first place. You could ultimately end up breaking up.
*Top tips for keeping it safe and enjoyable*

Keep it safe. Yeah, yeah, you’ve heard it all before, but seriously keep yourself protected. Why should your fun be ruined by unwanted pregnancy or an STI? Do be aware that you’ll need to change condoms if you are switching partners during the threesome. Otherwise you could end up with some pretty nasty infections.
Only do it if you want to do it. Not ‘cause you want to keep your girl or guy happy or because other people say it would be great craic.
Think through the pros and cons. Definitely think through it all if you are the jealous type or if you have moral or religious issues with threesomes. You don’t want to end up regretting it!
Be clear about why you are doing this. Are you looking to have fun and a once in a lifetime experience? Are you looking to spice up your sex life? Or is this a last ditch attempt to keep your partner interested? Only you know the answers to these questions, but it’s best to be honest with yourself.
Establish sexual grounds rules i.e. maybe you can get it on with the guy or gal, but your partner can only watch or have sex with you. Or maybe it’s a free for all and there are no real rules. You and your partner should decide on all of this beforehand.
Respect your partner. If your partner tells you that they want things a certain way, don’t ignore it during the threesome. That’s pretty uncool and will likely affect your relationship too.
Many people like to set the scene with dim lighting etc. This is particularly important because there may be a bit of shyness at the start before you get down to it.
Give equal time to the other people in the threesome, don’t concentrate on one person while the other person is left there all alone.
Don’t just concentrate on yourself and your own pleasure. This is true in any sexual situation anyhow. Just because it’s a threesome doesn’t mean this rule will change.
Don’t pick anyone you have feelings for. If you’re in a relationship, but secretly have a thing for someone else, bringing them into a threesome could lead to serious hurt. It’s best to save threesomes for a bit of fun.
Pick a code word. Anything you like can work as a code word, but the code word is your way of saying that you want to stop the threesome and get out.
Reassure your partner afterwards. When the threesome is over, make sure you let your partner know that they are still top dog for you. They may be feeling a bit insecure, even if they are the one who suggested it in the first place.


----------



## Latrade (4 Apr 2013)

dereko1969 said:


> This is the original text in the original article. It does list the pro's and con's of threesomes, I personally don't think it's unwise or scandalous to do so. And by the way T McGibney it is not *reducing* relationships to this, this is only 1 article on the website which includes much more relevant and helpful material to teenagers.


 
To be honest, even though I take the first left at anything to do with sex, I can see how some people might have a problem with it. 

I'm not sure it's the greatest advice and I'd prefer the line about "not doing it if you don't want to" being far more prominent.

And it doesn't even begin to tell you about how to go about arranging one, a few phone numbers would be handy.


----------



## Ceist Beag (4 Apr 2013)

Latrade said:


> I don't want to speak for Purple, but my take on his point is that being RC specifically means belief in the RC faith and all its teachings and the interpretations of those teachings by the current Pope.
> 
> By opting out of some, for whatever reason, does that not mean you are saying the Pope/God is wrong on certain issues, ergo in the strictest sense, you can't fully describe yourself as RC?



That may be so Latrade but I don't think most people adopt such a strict interpretation of many of the teachings of the Church. Even the Church themselves change over time so that certain teachings are altered. The new Pope is a lot more liberal than previous Popes so I expect teachings may change further during his reign.


----------



## T McGibney (4 Apr 2013)

Latrade said:


> My point was, and back to Purple's point, is that while you may not be excommunicated or ejected for not agreeing to or abiding by all the dictated beliefs of the RC faith, isn't the point that if you don't, unless the Pope/God offers a new clarification, you go to hell/purgatory for not following those points?
> 
> For example, if I were homosexual and engaged in a homosexual relationship, if I followed every other RC belief apart from that one, wouldn't I go to hell?



Sorry, i think you must still be reading from the pre-Vatican II Catechism. In the past 30 years, the only churchman I have heard talk about hell has been Ian Paisley.



Latrade said:


> By opting out of some, for whatever reason, does that not mean you are  saying the Pope/God is wrong on certain issues, ergo in the strictest  sense, you can't fully describe yourself as RC?



No it doesn't.


----------



## Purple (4 Apr 2013)

Ceist Beag said:


> People can be Roman Catholics whilst at the same time not agreeing with all teachings of the Church.



Fair enough, but that's not what the Roman Catholic Church says.


----------



## Sunny (4 Apr 2013)

T McGibney said:


> Sorry, i think you must still be reading from the pre-Vatican II Catechism. In the past 30 years, the only churchman I have heard talk about hell has been Ian Paisley.
> .



The previous two popes both talked about hell albeit not in fire and brimstone speeches. Pope John Paul talked about hell as a state of being and Pope Benedict implied that hell was an actual place. 

Hell is still part of catholic school teachings and to suggest you can be a Roman Catholic but not agree with their teachings is absurd. If you want to pick what rules to agree with according to your own moral compass while ignoring the ones you find offensive or ridiculous is as wrong as people who run to the church for the big party occasions but ignore it every Sunday.


----------



## Latrade (4 Apr 2013)

T McGibney said:


> Sorry, i think you must still be reading from the pre-Vatican II Catechism. In the past 30 years, the only churchman I have heard talk about hell has been Ian Paisley.
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.



Nope, you're right. I shouldn't have implied all the church's teachings, just those deemed dogma. I assume post Vatican ii still holds to dogma and heresy.

So if I don't believe in the resurrection of Christ, but everything else am I RC?

And as Sunny points out, hell is still around, John Paul II wrote a pretty large opinion on it.


----------



## Purple (4 Apr 2013)

The new guy is more interested in the poor and is closer, in my view, to a humble priest, but he's been very socially conservative in everything he's said so far in his career. I don't see him moving away from the Gospel on adultery and specifically the letters of St. Paul to the Romans on homosexual acts (rather than homosexuality in general).


----------



## michaelm (4 Apr 2013)

The Pope is a socially conservative catholic . . who'd have thunk it?  Catholics aren't clamouring for anything else, it seems that only atheists are . . what do they care?


----------



## Ceist Beag (4 Apr 2013)

Sunny said:


> to suggest you can be a Roman Catholic but not agree with their teachings is absurd.



Disagree completely Sunny. To suggest that 1.2 billion Roman Catholics worldwide agree with all of the teachings of the Church and not disagree on any of them, now that is absurd. 
Quite why non Catholics are so concerned with how Catholics are defined I don't get, as michaelm said, why do they care?


----------



## Sunny (4 Apr 2013)

Ceist Beag said:


> Disagree completely Sunny. To suggest that 1.2 billion Roman Catholics worldwide agree with all of the teachings of the Church and not disagree on any of them, now that is absurd.
> Quite why non Catholics are so concerned with how Catholics are defined I don't get, as michaelm said, why do they care?



So you are saying that you don't believe the Pope is infallible or open to error? That is the cornerstone of the Roman Catholic Church. You can't just ignore this and then declare yourself a practicing Roman Catholic. You are Christian but you are not Catholic just because you agree with some of the churches teachings. I agree with some teachings from other religions but it doesn't make me part of that religion if I ignore the Central dogma of that faith.


----------



## Betsy Og (5 Apr 2013)

In religious terms its the ones with the zeal and the 'check you brain at the door' mentality that we need to be wary of - militant Islamists anyone??

As for RC, I'm 'culturally catholic', but I think it takes breathtaking arrogance to say RC has all the answers and must be followed and accepted without question - that's barmy.

Do you not think if God paid a visit that he wouldn't change even one aspect of RC teachings? The last direct despatch was over 2,000 years ago and, it seems, at lot got muddled in the meantime (e.g. Mary Magdelene's dramatic fall from grace).

When there's a day of reckoning it will be Christian Values (or the non-religious equivalents self-evident and recorded since the time of the ancient Greeks - truth, fairness, love, that type of thing) and not canon law that will be the yardstick against which we'll be measured.

And you dont wanna be that chaff then do ya?, y'know, that what's separated from the wheat....


----------



## Bronte (5 Apr 2013)

Latrade said:


> except probably the best means of resisting, onanism a sin too
> 
> quick fact, corn flakes were supposed to have been developed as cure for onanism).
> 
> .


 
I had an idea onanism was masterbation (cannot believe it, that's the first time I've every written that word) but I googled to dubble check yesterday. Initially I must have mistyped coz I got info about cults etc. And you're right on the money about Mr. Kellogg. Some people really have strange views.

You also mentioned abstension, and nothing wrong with that either, I presume that's on the Spun Out website too.  We'll all ideally prefer if our teenage kids waited until they were a bit older and in a mature relationship before having a two some never mind a threesome.


----------



## Firefly (5 Apr 2013)

Bronte said:


> You also mentioned abstension, and nothing wrong with that either



Yeah, I tried that once too but didn't enjoy it


----------



## Bronte (5 Apr 2013)

Firefly said:


> Yeah, I tried that once too but didn't enjoy it


 
Well how long did you try it.  Maybe you didn't try long enough.


----------



## Bronte (5 Apr 2013)

Ceist Beag said:


> It's a bit rich a self proclaimed atheist telling others what the true definition of a Christian is.


 
I don't know about that now, surely he's allowed give his own opinion on what the definition of a Christain is whether he one or isn't one?

One thing for sure from all you a la carte Catholics on this thread, seems to me it means anything goes. Great club that. Who wouldn't want to be a member of such an easy going religion.

Makes me wonder what does it actually mean to be a 'proper' member of that religion. Anyone care to enlighten me. Of course technically I'm a member too as I haven't been excommunicationed and my sins are many, including no doubt both cardinal and mortal sins (the best kind of sins those I think).


----------



## Betsy Og (5 Apr 2013)

Bronte - there will always be different levels of faith/belief/zeal among followers of all religions, why you think this is such a RC problem, or such an issue at all, is puzzling to me. Some believe harder, that's life, move on.


----------



## Bronte (5 Apr 2013)

T McGibney said:


> But the original SpunOut "threesomes" article didn't acknowledge this. This is why they're in hot water now.


 
They mentioned the pros and cons, they explained what a threesome is and they emphasised condom use. They did this in a way that teenagers understand, which is not the same thing as an adults way of understanding something. The website doesn't talk down to them or lecture them or sound like a parent which would put them off. 

We as adults with our experiences (and no Bronte has not done a threesome - yet) know there is more to getting hurt etc but the website would be unable to convey that to people who have very few, relatively speaking, experiences be it personal or sexual so maybe the website doesn't need to go there.  If the speak in a bookish way, in a clinical way, in a lecturing tone then teenagers will not go to that website as a resource and they'll go elsewhere and end up in even bigger messes.  

What is the alternative to Spun Out basically.


----------



## Bronte (5 Apr 2013)

Betsy Og said:


> Bronte - there will always be different levels of faith/belief/zeal among followers of all religions, why you think this is such a RC problem, or such an issue at all, is puzzling to me. Some believe harder, that's life, move on.


 
I don't think it's just a RC problem. It applies to all religions. I just happen to be Irish ergo, in general, that's what I'd know must about (ie no choice but to know) and it's what most other Irish people can relate to. 

Personally I don't get people telling me they are Catholics but they use contraception (nobody has more than 2 or 3 kids any more and there's no way I'm believing that's down to the Church's method of contraception) they don't go to Church (Sunday attendance is mostly the elderly now) they do the big services (communion and confirmation - and some of the carry on there has to be seen to be believed), they want to get married in a Church even though they don't attend, (ever in some cases) they don't go to confession, they don't believe priests should be celibate, thousands have had abortions, most right thinking people think condoms are a good thing in say Africa (both to prevent Aids and as a contraception). And that's without all the belief stuff (transubstantiation and rising from the dead etc).....

I'd sincerly like to understand why people say they are Catholics when so many of them, those I know wouldn't go along with 90% of what I've just listed.

BTW I didn't bring religion into the discussion on threesomes. The athesist did. And I'm sure that no matter what I threw at him about his atheism he wouldn't mind a bit. Why do Catholics mind if we discuss them. It's kind of hard not to when one is Irish.

Why is it every discussion on sex leads to a discussion on Catholicism, I don't know, but it must be something to do with our upbringing.  Even John Waters is at it today, he's hankering for old Ireland, pre female emancipation (a dirty word to him it looks like) and linked that to the Spun Out teenage awareness website.   Bring back the 1960's anyone?


----------



## Betsy Og (5 Apr 2013)

Bronte said:


> Why do Catholics mind if we discuss them. It's kind of hard not to when one is Irish.


 
I suppose because it doesnt seem especially relevant to the topic (&ok you didnt introduce it), and that maybe its just being used to have another casual dig at the catholic church or its non-committal followers.

I've no great interest in how muslims observe their religion or how the Manchester muslims compare to the Birmingham muslims compare to the Islamabad muslims - that's their own business, I've no right to deconstruct their beliefs or speculate on how devout they are or whether they are all codding themselves etc etc etc

Yet its always a good time to lash the Irish catholics over their church in Rome, their Irish church adminstration, and the hopelessness of their ...errr.."faithful". Let people observe their religion in private, I'm not very religious but I know plenty who are and it's a tad annoying to feel the need to mount a defence on their behalf.


----------



## michaelm (5 Apr 2013)

Bronte said:


> Why do Catholics mind if we discuss them.


I suspect, for the most part, that they don't. They probably just find it incessant and wearisome.


----------



## Firefly (5 Apr 2013)

Bronte said:


> Makes me wonder what does it actually mean to be a 'proper' member of that religion. Anyone care to enlighten me.



Hi Bronte,

Coincidentally we were watching the West Wing episode that contained the following clip the other night:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=eD52OlkKfNs

Full link:

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=...U-_o1xDTlZFpP5LUxpl8zvQ&bvm=bv.44770516,d.ZG4

Firefly.


----------



## Purple (5 Apr 2013)

Bronte said:


> BTW I didn't bring religion into the discussion on threesomes. The athesist did.


Oh yes you did! 



Bronte said:


> And she mentions fornication as sin. Does she mean all sex that is not between married people or what? What is sinful about sex?



OK, maybe Ms. Mulherin did... or is she the athesist?


----------



## Purple (5 Apr 2013)

Firefly said:


> Hi Bronte,
> 
> Coincidentally we were watching the West Wing episode that contained the following clip the other night:
> 
> ...


Great link. It's amazing how much he New Testament is at odds with the Old Testament. I like most of the new one and almost none of the old one though the poetry of the psalms is beautiful


----------



## T McGibney (8 Apr 2013)

Bronte said:


> One thing for sure from all you a la carte Catholics on this thread, seems to me it means anything goes. Great club that. Who wouldn't want to be a member of such an easy going religion.
> 
> Makes me wonder what does it actually mean to be a 'proper' member of that religion. Anyone care to enlighten me. Of course technically I'm a member too as I haven't been excommunicationed and my sins are many, including no doubt both cardinal and mortal sins (the best kind of sins those I think).



I'm actually quite staggered by these comments. Please tell me they were made in jest.


----------



## The_Banker (9 Apr 2013)

T McGibney said:


> I'm actually quite staggered by these comments. Please tell me they were made in jest.


 

Im sure I have committed a few mortal, cardinal and venal in my day.


----------

