kimmy Posted July 9, 2016 Report Posted July 9, 2016 I very much agree with you! There shouldn't be any option of an "enthusiastic yes!" at that age. Children shouldn't be led to entertain the idea that they can give their consent to sex at that age! The message in the curriculum should be clear and unambiguous to the children. NO, means, NO! If you had the slightest clue what you were talking about, you'd understand that "no means no" is exactly the point of teaching people about "enthusiastic consent". -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
dialamah Posted July 9, 2016 Report Posted July 9, 2016 I very much agree with you! There shouldn't be any option of an "enthusiastic yes!" at that age. Children shouldn't be led to entertain the idea that they can give their consent to sex at that age! Maybe the 'enthsusiastic yes' message is directed to boys - Your partner must give an ENTHUSIASTIC YES before you have sex; who can give enthusiastic consent if they're passed out? Ever think of that? Probably not; your ability to think even a little bit outside the box you've dived into is evident. Not that I think the act you are referring to anywhere says "teaching kids to say yes enthusiastically"; I think that is your misstatement of what it actually says, culled from one of your 'sources'. Quote
betsy Posted July 9, 2016 Author Report Posted July 9, 2016 (edited) Even if the "molester" is also 13 years old? Fairly sure that "statutory rape" only applies when one party is legally an adult. You seem to be under the assumption that these 13 year olds will be having sex with grown men. The vastly more likely situation is that they'll be interacting with other teenagers. -k Experimention among peers is normal! You know I'm not talking about children playing doctor! Besides, even with peers, the child should not be given the mixed message that she could give consent to have sex, even if it's with another 13 year old. The message in the curriculum must be clear and unambiguous. Edited July 9, 2016 by betsy Quote
betsy Posted July 9, 2016 Author Report Posted July 9, 2016 (edited) If you had the slightest clue what you were talking about, you'd understand that "no means no" is exactly the point of teaching people about "enthusiastic consent". -k I know that's what they want to teach. And I'm saying, it's a convoluted way to teach it because of their age! The "enthusiastic consent," implies that there is an option to give consent! Well, at 13 years of age....there is not that option, no mattter how willing this kid is, to engage in sex! If they want to stress the point of saying no, then they should've said "EMPHATIC NO!" That's unambiguously clear! Edited July 9, 2016 by betsy Quote
?Impact Posted July 9, 2016 Report Posted July 9, 2016 (edited) Fairly sure that "statutory rape" only applies when one party is legally an adult. The Criminal Code of Canada still applies to youth sentenced under the Youth Criminal Justices Act, unless there is specific clauses in the JCJA that supersede it. I believe for sexual offences the Criminal Code still applies. That being said, the Criminal Code does make some very specific statements about the age of the complainant, the age of the offender, and the difference between their ages along with any position of authority that the offender may hold. The application of consent also is considered given the difference in ages. Edited July 9, 2016 by ?Impact Quote
betsy Posted July 9, 2016 Author Report Posted July 9, 2016 (edited) Maybe the 'enthsusiastic yes' message is directed to boys - Your partner must give an ENTHUSIASTIC YES before you have sex; who can give enthusiastic consent if they're passed out? Ever think of that? Probably not; your ability to think even a little bit outside the box you've dived into is evident. Not that I think the act you are referring to anywhere says "teaching kids to say yes enthusiastically"; I think that is your misstatement of what it actually says, culled from one of your 'sources'. Gender shouldn't enter into this. If they're directing this specifically to boys, then they're even more idiotic! They think no girls initiate the sex interlude? Besides, how do you define an "enthusiastic yes?" "Uh....she sounded enthusiastic to me." You're more likely to be misunderstood to be willing if you're not saying, no! What's wrong with saying, NO? Edited July 9, 2016 by betsy Quote
betsy Posted July 9, 2016 Author Report Posted July 9, 2016 (edited) Gee....don't tell me that this days, "no" doesn't mean what it's supposed to mean! See what happens when the politically correct mess around with language! Now, they're contorting themselves trying to come up with something that means, NO! Edited July 9, 2016 by betsy Quote
?Impact Posted July 9, 2016 Report Posted July 9, 2016 Well, at 13 years of age....there is not that option, no mattter how willing this kid is, to engage in sex! What is 'sex!'? first base, home run? Are you Amish, kids can't even hold hands? Quote
BubberMiley Posted July 9, 2016 Report Posted July 9, 2016 Btw, who was the guy that wrote this? A confessed CHILD PORNOGRAPHER!Once again, you are either deliberately lying or uniformed. Ben Levin didn't write one word of the Ontario sex ed curriculum. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
betsy Posted July 9, 2016 Author Report Posted July 9, 2016 Here....see how these older kids are confused! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUS2cuBNQSc Quote
kimmy Posted July 9, 2016 Report Posted July 9, 2016 Gee....don't tell me that this days, "no" doesn't mean what it's supposed to mean! See what happens when the politically correct mess around with language! Now, they're contorting themselves trying to come up with something that means, NO! "Enthusiastic consent" includes "no means no" as well as situations where the victim is incapacitated or unable to think clearly or too frightened to say no. Like that Stanford kid who found a girl passed out and raped her, because she was too drunk to say "no". She didn't say "no", but she didn't give consent either. Situations like roofies and rohypnol. Bill Cosby's and Roman Polanski's victims couldn't say "no" because they were too incapacitated with Quaaludes to know what was going on. But they couldn't give "enthusiastic consent". -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
betsy Posted July 9, 2016 Author Report Posted July 9, 2016 (edited) "Enthusiastic consent" includes "no means no" as well as situations where the victim is incapacitated or unable to think clearly or too frightened to say no. Like that Stanford kid who found a girl passed out and raped her, because she was too drunk to say "no". She didn't say "no", but she didn't give consent either. Situations like roofies and rohypnol. Bill Cosby's and Roman Polanski's victims couldn't say "no" because they were too incapacitated with Quaaludes to know what was going on. But they couldn't give "enthusiastic consent". -k Aw, c'mon. Rapists won't care whether you give consent or not! You think Cosby or Polanski drugged their victims so they couldn't say no? If one has to resort to drugging his victims, is it safe to assume that the pervert knows the victim wouldn't squeak out a pathetic yes, what more, an enthusiastic one! Edited July 9, 2016 by betsy Quote
dialamah Posted July 9, 2016 Report Posted July 9, 2016 (edited) Experimention among peers is normal! You know I'm not talking about children playing doctor! Besides, even with peers, the child should not be given the mixed message that she could give consent to have sex, even if it's with another 13 year old. The message in the curriculum must be clear and unambiguous. If kids are experimenting among themselves, then having the knowledge of consent, pregnancy, STDs etc is important. Well, at 13 years of age....there is not that option, no mattter how willing this kid is, to engage in sex! If they want to stress the point of saying no, then they should've said "EMPHATIC NO!" That's unambiguously clear! We may not WANT kids of 13 to have sex, but some of them, even from 'good families' are going to anyway - to say there isn't that 'option' is disingenuous. If a 13-year-old is having sex, it's better that they understand the concept of consent and that they know how to protect themselves from pregnancy and STDs. Gender shouldn't enter into this. You think no girls initiate the sex interlude? Besides, how do you define an "enthusiastic yes?" "Uh....she sounded enthusiastic to me." You're more likely to be misunderstood to be willing if you're not saying, no! What's wrong with saying, NO? "Just say No" education campaigns have been proven to be unsuccessful at reducing teen pregnancy and STDs. Providing kids with comprehensive information about sex, including consent, has been proven to reduce teen pregnancy and STDs. Unlike you, I took a look at the links provided for the actual curriculum. Here is some of what it says about teaching consent; note that abstinence and delaying sex is also part of the curriculum. Nowhere does the word 'enthusiastic" appear in any context. Perhaps you need to consider that your sources are manipulating you. Sexual health, understood in its broadest sense, can include a wide range of topics and concepts, from sexual development, reproductive health, choice and sexual readiness, consent, abstinence, and protection, to interpersonal relationships, sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression, affection and pleasure, body image, and gender roles and expectations. Sexual development is one component of overall human development, and learning about healthy human development begins at an early age. It is important for that learning to be appropriate to children’s age and stage of development. Younger children learn the names of body parts, begin to understand how their bodies work, and develop skills for healthy relationships, which include demonstrating respect for others it is important to teach the information in a variety of ways and to provide ample opportunity for information to be repeated and for skills such as refusal skills to be practised and reinforced. Examples need to be concrete. Students need to be taught about their right to refuse and about ways of showing affection appropriately and recognizing and respecting consent. respecting signals of agreement or disagreement and consent or lack of consent; and negotiating – all these are important skills. A clear “yes” is a signal of consent. A response of ”no”, an uncertain response, or silence needs to be understood as no consent.”explain the importance of having a shared understanding with a partner about the following: delaying sexual activity until they are older (e.g., choosing to abstain from any genital contact; choosing to abstain from having vaginal or anal intercourse; choosing to abstain from having oral-genital contact); the reasons for not engaging in sexual activity; the concept of consent and how consent is communicated; and, in general, the need to communicate clearly with each other when making decisions about sexual activity in the relationship Teacher prompt: “The term abstinence can mean different things to different people. People can also have different understandings of what is meant by having or not having sex. Be clear in your own mind about what you are comfortable or uncomfortable with. Being able to talk about this with a partner is an important part of sexual health. Having sex can be an enjoyable experience and can be an important part of a close relationship when you are older. But having sex has risks too, including physical risks like sexually transmitted infections – which are common and which can hurt you – and getting pregnant when you don’t want to. What are some of the emotional considerations to think about?” Student: “It’s best to wait until you are older to have sex because you need to be emotionally ready, which includes being able to talk with your partner about how you feel, being prepared to talk about and use protection against STIs or pregnancy, and being prepared to handle the emotional ups and downs of a relationship, including the ending of a relationship, which can hurt a lot. Personal values, family values, and religious beliefs can influence how you think about sexuality and sexual activity. A person should not have sex if their partner is not ready or has not given consent, if they are feeling pressured, if they are unsure, or if they are under the influence of drugs or alcohol.” Edited July 9, 2016 by dialamah Quote
betsy Posted July 9, 2016 Author Report Posted July 9, 2016 (edited) If kids are experimenting among themselves, then having the knowledge of consent, pregnancy, STDs etc is important. We may not WANT kids of 13 to have sex, but some of them, even from 'good families' are going to anyway - to say there isn't that 'option' is disingenuous. If a 13-year-old is having sex, it's better that they understand the concept of consent and that they know how to protect themselves from pregnancy and STDs. "Just say No" education campaigns have been proven to be unsuccessful at reducing teen pregnancy and STDs. Providing kids with comprehensive information about sex, including consent, has been proven to reduce teen pregnancy and STDs. Unlike you, I took a look at the links provided for the actual curriculum. Here is some of what it says about teaching consent; note that abstinence and delaying sex is also part of the curriculum. Nowhere does the word 'enthusiastic" appear in any context. Perhaps you need to consider that your sources are manipulating you. What's wrong with saying an outright, EMPHATIC NO? You can't stop them from indulging in sex....but you don't have to give them a flawed phrase! Why confuse kids with an ambiguous phrase, "Enthusiastic sexual consent," which implies it's alright to have sex with anyone as long as you'd given your consent? Enthusiastically, I must add. Maybe clapping hands while jumping up and down would be enthusiastic enough. At age 13, there's no such thing as sex with consent! Edited July 9, 2016 by betsy Quote
kimmy Posted July 9, 2016 Report Posted July 9, 2016 Aw, c'mon. Rapists won't care whether you give consent or not! You think Cosby or Polanski drugged their victims so they couldn't say no? Well, basically, yes. That's how this style of predator works. If one has to resort to drugging his victims, is it safe to assume that the pervert knows the victim wouldn't squeak out a pathetic yes, what more, an enthusiastic one! The more typical situation is college parties, raves, music festivals, and so on, where people may have had alcohol and/or drugs voluntarily, and been taken advantage of. Again, like Stanford rapist Brock Turner. -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
betsy Posted July 9, 2016 Author Report Posted July 9, 2016 (edited) dialamah, "Just say No" education campaigns have been proven to be unsuccessful at reducing teen pregnancy and STDs. Providing kids with comprehensive information about sex, including consent, has been proven to reduce teen pregnancy and STDs. They're more concerned with sexual assault, and abuse in this curriculum. That's not exactly the same thing with pregnancy and STD! Edited July 9, 2016 by betsy Quote
betsy Posted July 9, 2016 Author Report Posted July 9, 2016 Well, basically, yes. That's how this style of predator works. The more typical situation is college parties, raves, music festivals, and so on, where people may have had alcohol and/or drugs voluntarily, and been taken advantage of. Again, like Stanford rapist Brock Turner. -k Kimmy, perverts don't drug their victims so they can't say no. They drug them so they can't fight back, or run! Quote
betsy Posted July 9, 2016 Author Report Posted July 9, 2016 (edited) The more typical situation is college parties, raves, music festivals, and so on, where people may have had alcohol and/or drugs voluntarily, and been taken advantage of. Again, like Stanford rapist Brock Turner. -k So what? It's more of because they're out in public that's why. Unless people know you, who can tell if you're not just a drunk gf being carried out by her boyfriend? Making you unable to say no, is hardly the thing! It's incapacitating you so you'll be powerless! The perpetrator already knows that you wouldn't say yes! Edited July 9, 2016 by betsy Quote
?Impact Posted July 9, 2016 Report Posted July 9, 2016 (edited) At age 13, there's no such thing as sex with consent! Sorry Betsy, but this is the real world. Only two (murder & theft) of the 10 commandments apply here, and age was never a factor in the one you are thinking of anyway. In the real world 13 year olds do engage in sex (including home run, which you never answered). We can encourage them not to, but reality is reality and not your puritan dream world. What is your suggestion if your 14 year old daughter has sex with my 13 year old son, even though they both agreed to? Do you want to throw her in prison for 30 years with adults who will more than likely abuse her? Edited July 9, 2016 by ?Impact Quote
betsy Posted July 9, 2016 Author Report Posted July 9, 2016 (edited) Sorry Betsy, but this is the real world. Only two (murder & theft) of the 10 commandments apply here, and age was never a factor in the one you are thinking of anyway. In the real world 13 year olds do engage in sex (including home run, which you never answered). We can encourage them not to, but reality is reality and not your puritan dream world. What is your suggestion if your 14 year old daughter has sex with my 13 year old son, even though they both agreed to? Do you want to throw her in prison for 30 years with adults who will more than likely abuse her? Impact, I didn't bring up religion in my arguments. I'm talking about the reality in Canada. I don't know where you live. As far as I know, it's a crime to have sex with a 13 year old. You can't stop them from having sex if they are determined to have sex! You can't stop your 14 year old from having sex with a 40 year old male pedophile (if he got seduced and went along with it) anymore than I can stop my 13 year old from voluntarily going to bed with her teacher! Of course, these incidents will happen behind our backs. But the point is, the phrase that's being used by the school for the purpose that they want to achieve, is ambiguous. The phrase is misleading. Edited July 9, 2016 by betsy Quote
Peter F Posted July 9, 2016 Report Posted July 9, 2016 Kimmy, perverts don't drug their victims so they can't say no. They drug them so they can't fight back, or run! Heavens to Betsy! Have we forgotten all the court cases of the past? "I didn't hear her say 'no' or 'stop' at any time yer Honour" "Well, at fist she said 'no' and was a bit resistant but I thought she was just playing hard to get. After a while she stopped saying anything even when I took her shirt off..." " I thought she liked a little violence Y'rHonour - thats what her ex told me while we were in the bar, so..." Consent is crucial. Saying NO is crucial to even tiny children. Of course your sources deceive you by rephrasing No means No into 'teaching first graders to give enthusiastic consent". Quote A bayonet is a tool with a worker at both ends
?Impact Posted July 9, 2016 Report Posted July 9, 2016 I'm talking about the reality in Canada. I don't know where you live. But as far as I know, it's a crime to have sex with a 13 year old. I suggest you read the Criminal Code of Canada. It is a valid defense for your 14 year old daughter to have sex with my 13 year old son if he consented to the act. If she was 16 however it would not be a valid defense. Nothing is about encouraging kids to have sex, just acknowledging reality. Quote
eyeball Posted July 9, 2016 Report Posted July 9, 2016 What kids really need to be taught is that religion is ridiculous. Such stupidity in our midst is dangerous. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
kimmy Posted July 9, 2016 Report Posted July 9, 2016 Heavens to Betsy! Have we forgotten all the court cases of the past? "I didn't hear her say 'no' or 'stop' at any time yer Honour" "Well, at fist she said 'no' and was a bit resistant but I thought she was just playing hard to get. After a while she stopped saying anything even when I took her shirt off..." " I thought she liked a little violence Y'rHonour - thats what her ex told me while we were in the bar, so..." Consent is crucial. Saying NO is crucial to even tiny children. Of course your sources deceive you by rephrasing No means No into 'teaching first graders to give enthusiastic consent". Thanks, that's very well said. -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
kimmy Posted July 9, 2016 Report Posted July 9, 2016 Just a reminder, this thread has gone from the initial claim that Ontario's health curriculum is a conspiracy by pedophiles intended to groom children to have sex, to arguing the semantics of "no means no" vs "enthusiastic consent". The goalposts have moved so far that they're not even on the same field anymore. -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.