Originally Posted by Munchkin03 (Post 2208667)

In most of the articles I've read about this, digital penetration is considered rape in Ohio.

Originally Posted by StealthMode (Post 2208657)

1. DBB are you seriously blaming abstinence-only sex ed for this? While I agree that sex ed should definitely include consent and open communication between partners/potential partners, I have a hard time believing the former is actually what you're implying because that's such a big jump. Please clarify.

Originally Posted by AOII Angel (Post 2208679)

As it should be. Placing a foreign object, should it be a penis, fingers or an inanimate object, in another person's vagina or anus without their consent is rape. Some jurisdictions may not be up to snuff on that, but the object inserted doesn't change the intrusion.

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby (Post 2208680)

And IMO, abstinence-only education DOES contribute to rape culture, because it teaches that "good women don't have sex" and so on. It's a very straight line from there to slut shaming, victim blaming, etc.

Originally Posted by StealthMode (Post 2208683)

This is where we disagree--I see this as a very slippery slope argument. It's opposite from what people who push abstinence-only programs tend to say but it's just as fallible (to me) as saying those who get proper sex ed would take it as a green light to sleep with everyone.

Originally Posted by AOII Angel (Post 2208679)

As it should be. Placing a foreign object, should it be a penis, fingers or an inanimate object, in another person's vagina or anus without their consent is rape. Some jurisdictions may not be up to snuff on that, but the object inserted doesn't change the intrusion. You might say "you can't get pregnant with a finger." Men can't get pregnant but CAN be raped.

@Stealthmode, DBB's point about abstinence only education is that it only tells kids to wait until marriage instead of acknowledging the truth that teenagers are sexual beings who are experimenting with sex. It does not take the opportunity to discuss very important topics like consent, inability to form consent due to impairment from alcohol/drugs, etc, safe sex, as well as abstinence. Pretending like the vast majority of Americans aren't practicing pre-Marital sex (and haven't since the dawn of time) is counter productive and has led to high teen pregnancy rates in the states that are pushing abstinence only education.

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby (Post 2208685)

No, THIS is where you and I disagree: I don't see anything wrong with a "green light to sleep with everyone", assuming consent, risk minimization (condoms and BC), etc.

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby (Post 2208685)

No, THIS is where you and I disagree: I don't see anything wrong with a "green light to sleep with everyone", assuming consent, risk minimization (condoms and BC), etc.

Originally Posted by StealthMode (Post 2208683)

This is where we disagree--I see this as a very slippery slope argument. It's opposite from what people who push abstinence-only programs tend to say but it's just as fallible (to me) as saying those who get proper sex ed would take it as a green light to sleep with everyone. Both types of programs have their good and bad points. IMO the basic message I get from Ab-only is "Good girls don't have sex before they're women (i.e., graduated, married, however it's defined)." In an ideal world theres, nothing wrong with that expectation but a standard sex ed class operates from a more realistic viewpoint like AOII Angel said. Sometimes, the good girls do have sex before they are women--that fact may fall short of the standard set by the program but that doesn't skip straight to slut shaming.

Originally Posted by Phrozen Sands (Post 2208709)

... condoms, BC, etc. are no guarantee against STDs, so I actually see quite a bit wrong with that, unless I'm misunderstanding your post.

Originally Posted by Munchkin03 (Post 2208686)

I wasn't saying that it shouldn't be--fortunately it was in Ohio; had this happened in another state, all they could have gotten was a slap on the wrist (videotaped documentation notwithstanding). Of course, with the way things are now, no state is going to expand their definition of rape.

This to me is less a failure of abstinence-only sex Ed than a signal that HS athletes are often placed on a pedestal where they feel they can do no wrong. My rants about the failure of abstinence-only sex Ed is for another time.

Originally Posted by AOII Angel (Post 2208679)

As it should be. Placing a foreign object, should it be a penis, fingers or an inanimate object, in another person's vagina or anus without their consent is rape. Some jurisdictions may not be up to snuff on that, but the object inserted doesn't change the intrusion.

Originally Posted by Munchkin03 (Post 2208686)

I wasn't saying that it shouldn't be--fortunately it was in Ohio; had this happened in another state, all they could have gotten was a slap on the wrist (videotaped documentation notwithstanding). Of course, with the way things are now, no state is going to expand their definition of rape.

Originally Posted by StealthMode (Post 2208683)

Agreed.


This is the part I didn't get--what do the first 2 sentences have to do with each other? What I mean is, why single out abstinence-only programs if even standard or "excellent" sex ed courses do not address the extremely important subject of consent either? Pointing to the former implies that they contribute to the problem more than any other sex ed program which seems to be the message below.

This is where we disagree--I see this as a very slippery slope argument. It's opposite from what people who push abstinence-only programs tend to say but it's just as fallible (to me) as saying those who get proper sex ed would take it as a green light to sleep with everyone. Both types of programs have their good and bad points. IMO the basic message I get from Ab-only is "Good girls don't have sex before they're women (i.e., graduated, married, however it's defined)." In an ideal world theres, nothing wrong with that expectation but a standard sex ed class operates from a more realistic viewpoint like AOII Angel said. Sometimes, the good girls do have sex before they are women--that fact may fall short of the standard set by the program but that doesn't skip straight to slut shaming.

But you're right about it being EXTREMELY obvious that any sexual act with an unconscious girl is not permissible in any way. Additional education aside, that's a basic question of right and wrong. Even if these 2 were in a school that had NO sex ed at all, a 17-year-old and a 16-year-old would still be expected to know better and act accordingly.

Originally Posted by AOII Angel (Post 2208725)

You are missing the point that we discussed ADDING a discussion of consent to a good sex education program. In an abstinence only program, they would NOT be okay with adding this because the baseline assumption is that all students will say no to sex at all times until they get married. No one has suggested that abstinence only education has made people into rapists. We are arguing that it inhibits proper education. I can just imagine the heads rolling and the frothing at the mouth should schools start talking about sexual consent at schools in the South. Oh Lawd!

Originally Posted by AOII Angel (Post 2208725)

You are missing the point that we discussed ADDING a discussion of consent to a good sex education program.

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby (Post 2208680)

It's a very straight line from there to slut shaming, victim blaming, etc.

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby (Post 2208729)

Right. There's also, when it comes to abstinence-only education, a BIG DIFFERENCE between "abstinence is the only way to be 100% certain that you don't get pregnant or get an STI" and "everyone should 'save' themselves for marriage". The former is a factual statement that should be included in ALL sex-ed, the latter is slut-shaming.

Originally Posted by StealthMode (Post 2208793)

Oh no, I didn't miss that--I caught that first and completely agree. But it read to me like DBB started with this then moved into "Abstinence only sex ed is partially to blame for what these boys did." That's not how the post started so I asked her to clarify if that's actually what she meant. Her response clarified that wasn't what she meant but when she said...

...I disagreed with this because it seemed such a big jump but I acknowledge that was a sidebar separate from the original topic.

Bingo! Part of the disconnect is we have totally different ideas of "slut-shaming." That second statement is definitely idealistic and not appropriate to push on people unnecessarily in what should be an unbiased arena...but I wouldn't call it "slut-shaming" at all. We were going off different concepts but I totally get where you're coming from now.