Ohio teens guilty of rape, face year-plus in jail

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by StealthMode

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.

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!

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

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!

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. I suspect that, depending on your locale, the messages given to young people can be any combination of the two.

[StealthMode]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

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

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...

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

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

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

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

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.

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.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by StealthMode

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.

Sometimes having these discussions on a message board is tough since you take longer to realize you are on the same page.