Michelle Mulherin the new Alice Glenn/Mary Whitehouse

Bronte said:
100K a year if it prevents hurt and pain and ignorance and pregnancy has surely got to be worth that.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...


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?
 
T McGibney said:
To repeat my earlier point, she never said that.
Click to expand...


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?
 
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. :)
Click to expand...


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.
 
Bronte said:
I'm confused, you don't think that young people should be informed about any sex that is not vanilla sex?
Click to expand...

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).
 
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”.

that's from the article you linked. What is your point.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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).
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Purple said:
That said Mrs Mulherin is 100% entitled to her views and to express those views..
Click to expand...

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?)
 
Bronte said:
Why are you picking your words carefully? Are you censoring yourself.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

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

She made her comments as a public representative, not as a representative of any Church.
 
Purple said:
Why?
The RC Church has specific teachings on sex and sexuality which are all well grounded in the New Testament.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

True. You just go to hell or purgatory instead.
 
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.
Click to expand...
You can be a member of the RC Church but you are not a RC Christian. The two are not the same thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top