Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
DURING THE EARLY hours of January 8th 2013 (the eve of David Bowie’s 66th birthday) word began to circulate in cyberspace concerning a new David Bowie single as well as the promise of a new album. David Bowie fans awoke to a new song called ‘Where Are We Now?’ which was accompanied by a haunting, almost Beckett-like, video focused on his Berlin years and directed by Tony Oursler.
The release of the single and The Next Day album, just two months later, ended years of groundless speculation and rumour concerning Bowie’s career and overall well-being. In old and new media settings, Bowie was retired, Bowie was ill, Bowie was a recluse who spent his days painting. Bowie was leaving New York.
The dominant media narrative which greeted the news that Bowie was recording again rehearsed many of these ill-founded and baseless rumours. In fact, Bowie had remained active as an artist following his recuperation from a significant health scare in 2004. He had clearly decided to work on his own terms and at his own pace.
In the supposed hiatus between 2004 and 2013, Bowie collaborated by performing or recording with a wide range of performers (including Alicia Keys, David Gilmour, TV On The Radio and Lou Reed). He performed live twice with Arcade Fire in 2005 (a band whom he had championed and continues to record with occasionally) and in 2007 he curated the prestigious Highline Festival in Manhattan. All of this, in addition to working as a music producer and as an occasional actor in films like The Prestige (2006), appearing in animation series such as Sponge Bob Square Pants (2007) as well as playing a variety of cameo roles.
Culture as lived experience
Some three months before his ‘re-emergence’, the University of Limerick in Ireland convened a major academic event on David Bowie. Strange Fascination? A Symposium on David Bowie was held over three days in late October 2012. The event featured papers, performances, artwork, screenings and a panel discussion on Bowie’s legacy to date. Participants (academics, fans, academics who are fans, fans who are academics) travelled from across the world to discuss, dissect, debate and most importantly to celebrate the work of one of the most significant figures in contemporary popular culture.
There was a very high level of media interest in the event. Predictably, there was some bemusement or lack of understanding in certain media quarters as to the legitimacy of subjecting David Bowie to such earnest scrutiny in an academic setting.
To us however the reasons were very clear. As working academics interested in culture and cultural production (in all senses of the term) we do not see ourselves as being locked away Rapunzel-like in an ivory tower. Our task is to engage with culture and cultural production as a real and lived experience whether in the library, on the street, in the supermarket or in the moshpit.
A real icon
In our media-saturated world the word ‘iconic’ is an over-used and abused term. David Bowie is one of the few artists to whom the term is deservedly ascribed. In convening Strange Fascination? and in editing this book we seek to engage critically with one of the most enduring, intriguing and complex figures within popular culture and to add to the emerging academic debate which seeks to assess Bowie’s significance as a song-writer; performer; recording artist; music producer; actor; film producer and painter.
Our purpose is to offer new perspectives on Bowie texts (taking ‘text’ in the broadest sense as some aspect of material culture having the ability to be ‘read’ – from song texts to costumes, videos to album art; characterisations in film to the man himself, and his other selves).
The title David Bowie: Critical Perspectives also makes it clear that this book is neither an exhaustive account of everything David Bowie has ever done, nor a compendium of every analysis, opinion piece, or interpretation undertaken of his life and artistic output thus far. Such a task is beyond the realm of this book, and far from claiming to be definitive; this volume – even though it features examples from each of the decades of Bowie’s extensive career – is unapologetically quite the contrary.
The perspectives here are multiple but they are also specific, partial, varied, and sometimes even contradictory. All are driven to a greater or lesser degree with the deployment of theoretical scaffolding (some disciplinary specific, others cross – and multi-disciplinary) in order to critically explore ways to think, talk about, and analyse the extensive and always provocative artistic output of David Bowie in its social, historical, political, and cultural context.
Unsurprisingly, virtually all of the chapters make claims for rethinking Bowie in a broader historical, cultural, political and aesthetic context, and, we would say, with good reason. Has there ever been an artist as intellectually, musically and visually compelling, as David Bowie?
Martin J. Power, Aileen Dillane and Eoin Devereux, University of Limerick.
David Bowie: Critical Perspectives has just been published by Routledge (New York).
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
My daughter will be taught about sex,sexual partners,morality and respect for herself and others by ME and her dad not by anyone pushing their agenda or beliefs on her. After all Catholics BELIEVE that sex before marriage and masturbation is wrong and harmful and that is their Belief and they are welcome to it, but it does not make them right.
who said masturbation is wrong?
and as a Catholic I don’t believe that sex before marriage is wrong. That’s just like saying Poles NEVER smile, complain a lot and are anti-Semitic….and unfounded generalisation.
and finally, “One young student told TheJournal.ie” – has been the whole basis of 2 weeks of pi$$ poor, agenda driven, “reporting” by thejournal.ie. – And still haven’t interviewed any of the students who were actually sellotaped.
Matt, you are not a Catholic. You THINK you are a Catholic. You cannot decide what is right or wrong under Catholic doctrine, at least not when it comes to certain things, and on the matter of sex before marriage, the church has decided for you.
Of course, you can simply accept that you are not really a catholic, then you can decide for yourself whether or not sex before marriage is right or wrong.
But then you couldn’t start your reply with ‘as a Catholic’… could you.
Emilio, there is a BIG difference between ADVOCATING abstinence, and dictating it.
But of course someone who does not attend services & gets their “information” from 3rd parties WOULD know better.
The whole section on Self gratification in the above article gives the impression that they believe masturbation is wrong. I was raised catholic and went to Catholics schools with nuns teaching me and we were taught that sex before marriage was a sin and touching your self was as the nun put it is perverse and dirty. We had basic sex ed in secondary school but we had at least 2 visits from American Christian groups telling us that god was watching us, and abstinence was the only way to be pure. Also don’t assume that because someone has a Polish surname that they are Polish I could look at Featherstone and assume hmmm very British surname and spout a load of idiotic crap, I’m Irish I married an Irish man who’s Grandfather was polish.
“The whole section on Self gratification in the above article gives the impression” – no it doesn’t – read it again – “O’Reilly said they “don’t focus on that in our talks and it’s not part of the content of our talks”.”
Poorly written & misleading.
As for my own experience of sex education in a Catholic school – It was a given that teenage boys would masturbate – as sure as the sun rises, for our part, we were told it was natural. (mid 80′s at that)
@Matt – You haven’t explained your reference to Poles. You surely didn’t bring it up just because you assumed Orela must be Polish…did you? You wouldn’t be that stupid…would you?
She answered it herself – offended at being generalised by having a Polish surname while at the same time generalising Catholics, and for some strange reason, dragging the English into it too.
“….and unfounded generalisation.” at that.
If you sign up to the Catholic ethos, one has to assume that you follow that ethos. If you don’t then why do you call yourself a Catholic?
Please see response to Emilio’s earlier dictation.
Dodge the question, why don’t you.
I wasn’t offended to be considered polish I was irritated that you looked at my name and assumed you you could spout the crap you spouted after that .I brought the English into it to an example of your assumption( I picked a random posters name) I haven’t generalised Catholics, the church’s teaching is that sex before marriage is sinful and so is maturbation,it says that altough psychology and sociology show that masturbation is a normal phenomenon of sexual development, especially among the young,” this does not change the fact that it “is an intrinsically and seriously disordered act”. I’ve grown up in a catholic country and surrounded by Catholics and practised for a longtime. So I’m using my personal experience not generalisation.
They don’t TELL, they ADVOCATE (let me know if you need me to explain the difference). I call myself a Catholic because I am a Catholic.
@ Orela – then you can appreciate that be spouting that Catholics think masturbation is a sin and that sex before marriage = eternal damnation is also an assumption.
In MY experience – I have never been told masturbation is wrong – but in fact normal & natural (provided it’s at an appropriate time & place!) – & sex before marriage, in my lifetime, has never been portrayed sinful, but that restraint be advisable.
So you’re a Catholic and you don’t believe sex before marriage is wrong. Why is your church so mistaken on this matter then?
Then you’ve been lucky ,your experience is a great one thenI’m only 31 but I was told these things were sinful and would lead to damnation and if you look up catholic teachings on it you will see that’s the stance on it. Now things seem to be changing and yes they are advocating restraint .
They’re not. They’re simply “promoting” restraint.
But I guess you’re ultimately right – leave them at it, let them sleep with whoever they want – sure what harm can it do? it’s only sex.
When did I say leave em at it ,let them sleep with whoever,it’s only sex!!!!! I have the upmost respect for the importance of a healthy Safe sex life. I originally stated that I would be teaching my daughter about respect for herself,others and sex.
That was for Briny.
Delighted they want to remain virgins until god gives the go ahead but they should stop telling other young impressionable minds about their religious cult and it’s traditions. Will we go to hell for fornication unless we pay for a wedding?
Fair enough,
Ah Jaysus – the idiot DJ has turned up – I’m outta here.
The Centre of Disease of Control openly admit on their link that monagamous relationships are the best way in evading incurable std’s such as genital herpes. Being Catholic doesn’t change reality. http://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/latex.htm
@Matt Connolly
“…who said masturbation is wrong?”
Um… every single catholic teacher and priest who talked about the issue when I was at school.
Matt, in Mark 7:21, Jesus explicitly states that sex before marriage is wrong. If you’re a catholic, you either believe that or that Jesus was wrong. The latter is an interesting stance.
If they come near my child’s school she will not be attending!
Exactly! I will be making it VERY clear to my daughter’s school that they do not have permission to talk to her. Theirs is a very alarming, blinkered view of sex and sexuality.
Indeed, the whole point is not about whether some of the messages are OK, but about access to our children by groups specifically promoting a Catholic view of relationships.
Our state school system is 95% controlled by the Catholic Church, but 100% funded by the state. The Catholic Church is at pains to state that this total domination is OK since they implement diversity and welcome students from all backgrounds. The reality is that they discriminate in their admissions policies in favour of children from a Catholic background, and their ethos permeates the whole school. Since the majority of parents do not want a religious education system, the church needs to understand that if they are taking state funding to implement the state’s education system, then they need to provide an education that caters for all – or stop taking the money.
Schools need to be implementing the state RSE Relationships and Sexuality Education module, as they are required to do – very many of them have not done so, according to a recent report from Department inspectors, despite this requirement. The module is informed by best practice and is a very responsible and moral one, but it does not push only the Catholic point of view, and allows space for students to explore for themselves the whole area of relationships. Simply telling adolescents that not having sex until you are married is a good thing, and presumably not discussing contraception, is not on in this day and age.
The church either needs to pass over patronage of 75% of its schools (since 75% of parents do NOT want a religious school for their children) or else provide a state education that truly caters for all. Whoever the state decides to fund to provide our state education system on behalf of the state must be able to cater for all citizens in a spirit of respect and inclusion.
Hear hear, Miss Filed!
Would you not agree that the early sexualisation of children is something that is quite alarming. Whether you agree with them on anything else, they’re right about that.
Yes poo poo, it is; but counter-acting early sexualisation of children with a blinkered message to avoid sex is going to be catastrophically confusing for kids. Children need to be educated to see past media representations of sexuality and to feel free to explore their own sexuality in a safe way and at an appropriate age for them.
Kids shouldn’t be exploring their sexuality at all, young adults should. I think the like of lady gaga and rhianna is spreading a far more dangerous message to young girls in particular than this institute of whatever you call them.
So at what age should sex ed start, poo poo? Are you saying we should tell them nothing till they’re 16 (or whatever age you deem to be Young Adult)?
I’m saying that children should be taught about sex and sexuality from an early age (probably 8 or thereabouts) in an age-appropriate manner and in a safe environment; not left in the dark to wonder about it and experiment themselves.
Denmark is a country where sex Ed is taught in such a manner. They start young and teach it comprehensively till they leave school. As a result, the average age to first have sex in Denmark is 19, older than in many other countries. Their rate of teen pregnancy is also very low.
What a load of nonsense. So you suggest we wait until they are craving for sex before we teach them about it? Too late by then.
Also poo poo, I think messages from the likes of Rhianna, Lady Gaga, Pink etc are very empowering for today’s young women; they are the agents of their own sexuality and are unapologetic about that, as they should be.
Just so you know Miss Filed for the record,
Catholic schools are not 100% by the State. The teachers are paid for and grants are paid to schools by the Dept of Education. But the day to day running of all schools under Catholic patronage comes from parents and the Bishops coffers, not the State.
Similar arrangements are in place for Protestant and Muslim schools.
Im not arguing against you, I just want to ensure people are informed of the facts.
Education is power. There is nothing wrong with making the case for abstinence but this idea of waiting till marriage is gone. We should be teaching children to wait until they are in a relationship but in case something happens in the meantime this is how you protect yourself. Pure Of Heart seem to be stuck in a bygone Ireland – we have to be realistic. Parents also need to be proactive, contact your child’s school, find out what their policy is on outside groups and which they endorse. Don’t leave it until it’s too late and these nutters have had your childs attention.
“There is nothing wrong with making the case for abstinence”
It is as effective as ‘hold it in’ potty-training.
With even more explosive consequences.
I agree Emilio, its not realistic to expect teens to not want to experiment but there needs to be less peer pressure to have sex, teens need to know that if they don’t want to its okay too.
I haven’t seen the name of the schools in question mentioned. But I believe they should be named if they haven’t already. It’ll send out a warning to others and I think it’s necessary under the circumstances.
So are you saying Good Early that our national schools that are under Catholic Church patronage get less funding than other schools? No school in our public state education system gets 100% funding – the parents fund-raise and each parent pays a ‘voluntary’ charge in all of our state schools – that is the scandal of our state education system. However, they are still state schools in the same situation, no matter what the patronage. So that is a moot point.
It is also the case that the state pays for the upkeep, refurbishment and re-building of many schools where necessary, even though the state does not own the school buildings and they are paying to maintain those church assets.
What charges are paid directly by the actual church, may I ask?
I am not against the Catholic Church. I am against a largely state-funded national education system where 95% of the schools are run with a Catholic ethos as this offers no choice to parents who do not want their children to attend a religious school (which even by Iona’s reckoning is more than 50% of parents, and more likely 75%). That majority who don’t want a religious education should not be subject in our state-funded system to Catholic indoctrination.
@GoodEarly
The major expenses are paid by the State via teachers wages (the biggest expense by far!) and capitation grants. Insurance is usually paid by delegation via the LA, Parents do contribute by fundraising etc. but relatively speaking it is small.
I’m not sure exactly what the “Bishops coffers” as you put it contribute towards, – please feel free to account for it as I would love to know. It would be interesting to see what “the bishop” contributes by comparision to State funding, – it’s miniscule I would wager, – the Church tend to be very shrewd with their money.
You’d likely find the Church may own a lot of the building though Alan. There are a hell of a lot of convent schools and many others likely owned by the Churches.
@Sam Thats a different point altogether, the point was about operational costs.
Anyway, – Church owned buildings would be destitute and in decay without state support. Effectively, we (the taxpayer) have been giving them money to upkeep and extend their property (and they like to remind us it is theirs).
Yes Sam that is an historic situation – those buildings were paid for by the people of Ireland, people like my parents putting money in the plate at mass every week. Were it not for the fact that these buildings are in the name of the church – rather than the members of the church (who we are always being told ARE the church) then we would not have 95% of Catholic-controlled state schools at a time when the majority of parents do not want this.
My own view is that the church do well out of this deal. They get nearly all the money to run their schools in line with their ethos from the state. They get their building and assets refurbished, extended and even re-built with money from the state.
We need to address this fundamental inequality and situation where the church has the state over a barrel because the state cannot afford to buy the buildings they have been maintaining for years with state money.
Poo Poo talking shyte as usual.
Jane Travers,
Rihanna and Lady Gaga are just selling sex to pre-teen girls, with nearly every song of theirs worst then Robin Thickes – Blurred Lines, but he’s a white man with the rap bit of the song containing the most offensive lyrics but no feminist wanted to call out a black guy for rapping cause that’s racist.
So you say these woman are empowering for young woman and agents of their own sexuality like the same way all strippers, prostitutes and pornstars are but these groups at least don’t sell sex to young girls just men which is why you are against them selling sex but not Rihanna.
Actually, plenty of feminists called out Blurred Lines for its rapey lyrics. Google that and you’ll find lots of articles pointing that out.
Well I’m not in the habit of ‘googling blurred lines for rapey lyrics’ so I’ll just have to take your word for it I suppose.
They are the farthest thing imaginable from empowering for young women. They aren’t in control of their own sexuality, it’s controlled by record companies who use it for their own financial gain. Just as prostitutes and strippers are not in control, what they do is controlled by their paying customers. If you think prostitutes have any control of their situations or sexuality you should read Paid For by Rachael Moran.
The bishops coffers? Get real. The bishops live in palaces while parents scrimp together money to try and get their kids out if prefabs.
Salaries paid by the state – ie the taxpayer.
Grants which pay for almost everything else (running costs, maintenance) paid by the state.
What exactly comes from the bishops coffers? Money to silence abuse victims?
The extremely liberal view of sex with multiple partners don’t alter the reality that even the Centre of Disease Control openly admit that the best method of evading incurable STD’s is actually to remain monogamous. Do you fear on educating your child that condoms are limited & no contraceptive pill will not deal with emotional side of sexual relationships. http://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/latex.htm
Ray, women in this country have been viewed in blinkered polarised categories for a very long time, thank to our friends the catholic church; we’re either virgins or wh0res; Madonna-type mother figures who are not at all sexual, or Mary Magdalene prostitutes who are available to men.
Here’s the thing, women don’t fall neatly into those categories; we are complex sexual human beings who have a right to our own sexuality, and it’s high time that was recognised. (Can you imagine men being polarised in that fashion, as Daddies or gigolos? I can’t.)
Rihanna, Pink, Miley etc are all massively successful women who make millions for themselves and their record labels. Do you think at this stage that they are being forced to do anything they don’t want to? For crying out loud, Madonna was owning her sexuality and shouting about it in the 80s, and we applauded her for it.
As for Robin Thicke – well, there’s a splendid example of nominative determinism if ever I’ve seen one ;)
Part of my last comment was aimed at Grace as well, sorry.
Interestingly, that comment was blocked from submitting the first time because of the word “wh0re”… Daft.
@Grace Greene
“They aren’t in control of their own sexuality, it’s controlled by record companies who use it for their own financial gain. ”
This myth that women are helpless beings who cannot step outside the door (or remain inside the house) without being taken advantage of by some shady character needs to be exploded.
Generally speaking, women are not helpless beings that are controlled by others against their will. We have free will, we have sentience, we have thoughts and feelings and desires. We have our own minds for crying out loud.
Seeing exploitation first where there may not be any is indicative of a society that has and continues to have a massive problem with women owning their own sexuality and bodies and making the decisions that are appropriate to them.
The same argument applies to the abortion issue. Generally speaking, women who choose abortions do so of their own free will.
We need to get over this idea that women are mindless, helpless second class people without a clue.
Very well said, Florence :)
Interesting to learn that this “charitable” organisation works out if the same building as that other “charitable” organisation Iona
Iona is an institution no less…
They should all be put in an institution.
I thought we were a secular state now. Why is this rubbish allowed to be thought in our society.
*taught
Before the police get here.
What evidence have you of that?
Seriously, there is no apparatus of the state not inflicted by the church.
Ireland is not & never has been secular.
Look at the 1st sentence of the constitution.
Actually promoting having fewer partners is no harm. After all condoms are limited in preventing sti’s & pregnancy. Contraceptives are categorized by the WHO in the same section as aspestos in ref: to increase risks as cancer. No religious belief can change facts. http://www.examiner.com/article/birth-control-pill-listed-as-carcinogen
What in your opinion Marion is the tight amount of sexual partners?
Secular yes, but still free also I hope. I wouldn’t be of a religious persuasion myself, and I wouldn’t subscribe to what they’re teaching, but I would certainly not want them to not be allowed to teach it. There are consent forms, parents can opt out on behalf of their kids if they share my views, or if unsure they can attend the class themselves first and decide then according to the article.
Frankly, it doesn’t seem like the worst thing in the world to have people offering an alternative viewpoint to the constant barrage of promiscuity and sexuality bombarding the youth through modern media etc.
Most importantly though, this is not being forced on kids without consent, to not allow people teach such things just because they have a basis in religion is a form of censorship, and a greater evil than people promoting abstinence and/or religion IMHO.
Marion do you know that driving less reduces the risk of having a car crash? No what are you trying to say?
My opinion doesn’t matter it is the outcome of substantial studies in ref: to reality that matters. We all can have an opinion but the conclusion doesn’t alter reality.
Great typo Jeremy
I know…. I hate my phone.
Well aside from your nonsensical reply….. Your opinion would enlighten us.
Again, how few sexual partners is appropriate?
Also, terrific Facebook profile.
David Quinn on your friends list no less!
How did the ‘prayer walk to keep Ireland pro-life’ go??
Will there be another prayer walk this year?
If by limited you mean 99% effective at preventing pregnancy and the transmission of STIs, then you’re right. Also your link is in reference to oral contraceptives so please don’t tar all contraceptives with the same brush. Condoms are by far the most effective method of protection.
Marion you are absolutely right. Your opinion does not matter.
Your lies are dangerous, though.
Marion I ‘m confused….your going on about condoms not being effective and how bad the pill is, your coming across very anti contraception and your a pro lifer……doesn’t matter if you have one or ten sexual partners going by your comments you just want every woman to have loads of babies or become nuns!
I would support a campaign were people opposed to Youth Defence/Iona/Pure in Heart send the numbers of sex partners they’ve had on a postcard to Marion.
Marion, condoms are a great protection against STDs and pregnancy when used properly. But this is all beside the point. The point is that people as you can see are against our children being indoctrinated into a specifically conservative Catholic viewpoint on relationships and sexuality. Do you think the state’s RSE module supports promiscuity? It certainly does not!
It is hideous to indoctrinate children and that is what is happening with Pure in Heart, or indeed any unwanted Catholic indoctrination that is forced upon our children as if they are fodder for extremists.
You simply cannot see that we no longer tell people what to do these days like in the good old days of the Catholic Church when I grew up – we educate them about their choices in a spirit of respect and morality.
Why are you trying to belittle Marrion, Jeremy ? what the woman does in her own time is her business i find it kinda creepy that you would even bother to actually go on to someones profile!
Belittle?
Don’t need to.
The woman is bat-poop crazy.
Simple as
Yes you are correct. Or do you think the media should not inform the public of red or yellow alert to discourage people driving in bad weather taking into consideration the recent weather or have ads in ref: to not drink/driving or be under substance abuse, in reality we all know the following involves higher risks driving. The same with multiple partners even the Centre of Disease Control US admit monogamy lessens the risk of STI/STD’s. http://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/latex.htm
@Marion
“After all condoms are limited in preventing sti’s & pregnancy. ”
Lies. Lies. Lies.
Condoms are 100% effective if used correctly. The failure rate is not down to the condom failing randomly. It’s because people don’t use them correctly.
But a seat belt in a car is also less effective if not used correctly.
Taking the contraceptive pill increases your risk of breast cancer by only a small percentage. But there are plenty of things that human beings do in life that increases their risk of cancer: smoking, drinking to excess, no exercise, prolonged exposure to harmful chemicals… The list is endless.
You are scaremongering and peddling LIES. If you don’t want to use contraception, don’t use it. Why are you so concerned with what other people do with their bodies and lives in private?
Please share with the class.
They are in for a disappointing wedding night
Substantial evidence or personal conclusion. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2369033/Devout-Catholic-couples-best-sex-say-Catholics-studies-Catholic-guilt-myth.html
Catholics have better sex says CATHOLICS!! Ah stop. You’re embarrassing yourself now!
Really well substantial evidence to prove the contary? But then how would those who are non-Catholic actually know or understand anyway. http://www.examiner.com/article/birth-control-pill-listed-as-carcinogen
“Practice makes perfect” and all that :P besides, sex is a natural part of life and if god really didn’t want us doing it then he wouldn’t have given us the instincts and desires would he?
Or the bits and bobs!
He gave sexual desire to be fulfilled within biblical ethics and guidelines if you follow a biblical world view. Out side of biblical morals God calls this fornication or adultery depending on your marital status. As for practice makes perfect this is true with one partner over a lifetime. Accept or reject a biblical position but don’t make silly arguments about it.
Oi Marion you do realise women get as much satisfaction as men with sex ?
Wynner, don’t you go about placing those impure thoughts in pure Marion’s head. The thought of women having sexual desires and actually enjoying sexual life freely without shame makes her very uncomfortable.
Very uncomfortable and very envious too.
ah shucks I’m not Catholic, does that mean my sex life is bad?
Kian David Griffin, living in the moment and worrying about the wedding night isn’t the point – a marriage built on chastity is proven to be far more stable than the alternative. Casual ‘hook-up’ culture means that when the relationship is tied down by marriage, if ever, each party is constantly second-guessing the other. You’re always wondering if her willy ravaged hole is yearning for one of its previous occupants. Has there been bigger and better? Who’s she texting, who’s contacting her on facebook? He’s good at hitting her spot – how many other girls have experienced this? Something like 50% of women can’t orgasm during sex, so if this guy can do it, and exudes the confidence that comes with it, won’t other girls be after him? Who did he practice on to make perfect? Marriage is the way it’s supposed to work, but it has been usurped by psychotic materialist culture. The odds are stacked against it nowadays, unless it’s between 2 people of genuine integrity and dignity. However, these virtues are extremely rare among a populace who has been raised on TV, where infidelity, violence and materialism has been promoted relentlessly.
*laughing hysterically* Terence, my “willy-ravaged hole” has been totally happy with my husband and partner of nearly 20 years now. Having sowed my wild oats, I have never had to wonder about other men :)
Same goes..how would the Catholic s know better.. the first person they
have sex with is gonna be the same fecker for the rest of their life ..not saying its a bad thing but ..
Brilliant comment Jane!
Thank you Sandra. I would bow if my willy-ravaged hole didn’t get in my way ;)
Rugby, I do not think the Catholic viewpoint is in question here. I don’t mind at all how anybody chooses to live their lives.
What I really object to is the notion of our young people as being some kind of group to be preyed upon by people who wish to indoctrinate them. If it was a case that there were enough non-Catholic state schools that we could choose it would be a different matter.
I wonder how Catholics would feel if their children, in our state schools, were being subjected to only Muslim or only Buddhist or only Atheist groups coming into the school to give them one-sided sessions on morality as the one truth, without any other balancing information??? Well, that is how the majority of parents who do NOT want religious schools feel – only we have no choice. Our child’s right to an education that respects their background is simply not being catered for – and with between 50 and 75% of Irish parents saying they do NOT want a religious education for their children, this simply is not good enough.
How do you know if you can’t compare?
Terence should get a blow-up doll, it would come straight from the factory and he wouldn’t have to worry about who’d been ravaging it’s hole.
Ah lads…calm the passion now…it’s just a bit of crack…”will ravaged hole”…really?
‘Willy ravaged hole’ how nice! Isn’t it great Terence, the way you tie a woman’s worth to how many partners she’s had? Lovely language too. Why does it matter at all how much sex any person has as long as its consensual and they use protection? That’s not how you define a person’s worth.
This is not about objectification or the over-sexualisation of girls and women, those are huge problems but this issue is about normal, healthy sex and relationships. Where did you get the figure that ‘ something like 50% of women can’t orgasm during sex?’ that would depend on what you mean by sex, if you mean the act of penetration then yes the figure may be high, largely because the vulva and vagina don’t have a lot of nerve endings (that wold make childbirth even more unpleasant) female orgasms come from the clitoris and the vast majority of women can achieve orgasm this way, even the women who can have a ‘vaginal’ orgasm during penetration are actually experiencing clitoral stimulation through the body if the clitoris and vaginal canal happen to be physically close together. If this was taught in sex education rather than the cultural idea that a woman ‘should’ orgasm during penetration we might have a lot less sexually dissatisfied women. Its good news for the lads too, once you have working fingers and a tongue there’s no need to worry about penis size!
Teaching abstinence has been proven over and over again to not work, its completely unrealistic and goes against human nature. Sex education regarding health, pleasure, consent, respect and contraception does work, people are going to have sex, they should at least be informed instead of ignorant. This is what is taught in The Netherlands and Scandinavia and their teenage pregnancy and abortion rates are lower than other European countries. Keeping people in ignorance only leads to mistakes. People will have sex, how are they supposed to protect themselves against pregnancy, disease and abuse if they don’t know anything about sex, contraception, relationships and their own bodies?
Oh and my 13 year relationship hasn’t disintegrated because we both had sex and relationships with other people before we met, it only made us realise what we actually wanted from a relationship instead of going in blind.
I agree that Ireland needs more choice for parents and it is bothersome that one religion should run most of the schools. Personally I am for Irish nationalism not state promoted religion of any kind.
Now look Seamus, why did you have to bring religion into it? If I’m getting a sex doll, it’ll be secular, not Muslim
Jaysis that made me laugh! “her willy ravaged hole”! I’ve been with my partner for 10 years and we enjoy a great sex life. Guess what, we’re a straight couple, not married, we do use contraception and we don’t have kids. I guess contraception works. When we do have kids they will not be going to a catholic run school. Especially if they breed ignorant people like you.
I always enjoy your comments Jane, ive read a good view, very well rounded intelligent comments that most modern women will relate too :) Now that Marion on the other hand, lol ill say no more…..
These people are wired to the moon, there is absolutely no truth in suggesting that abstinence before marriage is Gods way….none whatsoever. They are filling kids heads with a load of rubbish in my view.
We’re not in the 60′s anymore
Well Marion, the problem is that these are STATE schools, funded 100% by all of us citizens, and they have a duty to provide an education that respects the background and diversity of all children, not to push a Catholic agenda.
The state’s own Relationships and Sexuality Education module is a moral one and is not in any way encouraging young people to have sex. However, nor is it a Catholic agenda. Our schools need to be implementing the curriculum that they are required to do by the state, or else stop taking the money to be state schools.
It depends on which God you are talking about certainly not the one in the bible.
abstinence before marriage is Gods way…?
What god?? there is no god anyway.
Absolutely. Why not invite the Humanist and Atheist groups to the schools to promote the healthy range of benifits of teenage sex and exploration, and to broaden the minds as soon as you turn the legal age of 16years. This would work so much better for our Irish society as a whole.
In fairness Erik, humanists and atheists are not an amorphous group and there is no common stance on morality, sexuality or relationships and sexuality education!
I do also reject the idea that our lovely young people should be subject to ANY groups visiting them to try to win over their hearts and minds with a particular moral path! They are not fodder for people who want to bend others to their will and they deserve more respect and a well thought out programme underpinned by best practice.
There is also the question of how qualified these groups are to work with young people in this area, whether they are Garda vetted, and whether their programmes are underpinned by best practice in working with young people and an understanding of the emotional and social development of young people.
What we already have, that satisfies all these criteria, is the Department’s Relationships and Sexuality Education module. It does not seek to indoctrinate or influence. It seeks to facilitate young people to learn about and explore relationships and sexuality in a supportive and respectful way.
Here is a link to what the Department required all state schools to do by 2003; many of them have still not done it. Should they be at liberty to just pursue their own line and ignore the curriculum, while at the same time taking the funding to be a state school???
http://www.education.ie/en/Schools-Colleges/Information/Post-Primary-School-Policies/Policies/Relationships-and-Sexuality-Education-RSE-.html
So parents, ASK YOUR SCHOOL have they implemented RSE or what stage they are at, for example have they done step 5 of the instructions:
“When the school authorities approve the draft document, it becomes the school Relationships and Sexuality Education Policy statement, and should be circulated among parents and teachers.”
And have they done step 6:
“Your RSE programme will be drawn up by school staff in line with the NCCA curriculum and guidelines and your own RSE policy.
Before they are implemented, programmes should be available in the school for parents who wish to see them.”
Are the Centre of Disease Control in the US nutters to for stating the monogamy is the best way of evading incurable STD’s? Or perhaps reality hurts for those who don’t want to deal with reality. http://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/latex.htm
Yes Marion, the reality is that the best way to avoid STIs is to avoid sex.
The reality also is that we are sexual beings, with needs and drives and desires. As such, our young people need to learn how best to protect themselves both emotionally and physically.
Saying “Just Don’t Do It” over and over again protects nobody.
Not in a million years would I let these people near my kid. What if he ends up not marrying and living at home with us until we croak. I don’t want his right to impure sex messed with.
Set up by Christians for Christians but don’t worry because “it’s for everyone”. Voluntary for schools but certainly not for pupils
they sound like a very dishonest group, if they are bead rattlers they need to be upfront about it and not use equivocation and pretend they are something they are not.
Conspiritorial looneys really do exist. Accusations without evidence as per usual.
I can only spot one loon in the comment section
And your evidence to support your argument. Oh! as usual accusations.
Why have you a psychiatric report in ref: to myself? I’ve never being diagnosed with having a psychiatric condition.
Arguing about it, enough said. If you’re explaining you’re losing.
Marion needs a good ride..
Thanks Pasceasy. That’s my first “laugh out loud” moment today :)
The CDC US are explaining the following on their website are they losing too? http://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/latex.htm
The whole point is Marion, if a young person is going to have sex before marriage and they are old enough (let’s say 17 or 18) to find out about condoms then it is their choice to weigh up the risks for themselves, is it not, including the risk of pregnancy in the unlikely event of failure of the condom. I’m just wondering what you think it is to do with you what other people choose to do… If nobody used contraceptives (as in your world they are not morally acceptable even for married people) we would have massive over-population on this island. Why don’t you stick to your own life and leave other people’s private lives out of it? And if you think that telling young people to be chaste until marriage is going to work, then you live in a parallel universe. I would prefer if they are going to have sex that they are protected. Obviously no sex education programme is ever going to encourage young people to have sex, but despite that some will and they need to be educated…
Wouldn’t agree with them in a million years…but I do think there’s an awful lot of sexualisation of young women in particular these days! We need to get away from that message to young women, a healthy sex life is great and not only for the married, what tosh!
Indeed there is but the traditional dualistic church view of women’s sexuality is not one that is useful to our young women in that regard. Helping them to develop confidence in their own judgement, and to explore this commercial culture that commodifies young women’s bodies, and helping them to have the self-esteem not to be a victim of that over-sexualisation of women in society (not just a problem for young women by the way) and make choices on their own terms is surely a better way to go. A confident young woman with high self-esteem will make the right choices for herself and resist pressure to do anything she does not want to do or she does not think will be good for her. Sure, there will be mistakes in life when you are young, but that applies to all areas of our lives!
I teach sex education – it’s done through the SPHE department (not religion). It’s very balanced and age appropriate – It all comes down to the school and the teacher. The catholic school I teach in is very open and supportive of a proper balanced sex education class.
The problem is that every student in Ireland should be receiving the same sex education class..it shouldn’t vary from school to school.
The interesting thing is that schools have a right to tailor the programme according to their ethos – which I do not think they should have… Should schools be allowed to tailor biology to teach creationism, if that is their belief? Our young people are entitled to this information and the RSE curriculum is informed by best-practice and an understanding of the emotional and social development of young people.
I’m wondering did your school tailor the programme at all or just deliver it exactly as it came from the Department? Did they go through the steps here:
http://www.education.ie/en/Schools-Colleges/Information/Post-Primary-School-Policies/rse_policy_guidelines.pdf
A recent inspectors report from the Department found that nearly half of all schools had not implemented any RSE programme whatsoever, despite being obliged to have this in place by I think 2003, and had no plans to do so. That’s the problem.
Teachers developed the RSE programme after completing SPHE training on RSE.
I remember my school sex education. An elderly lady came in to tell us that our bodies wouldn’t be physically developed enough to have sex until we were around 19 or 20 years old. She then went on to tell us about the horrors of oral sex and how she’d be disgusted if her husband suggested something like that to her!!
Pure in Heart seem to be deliberately fudging the issue here. I doubt many people – Catholics or non-Catholics – would have an issue with telling teenagers that it’s better to wait to be sexual active. The issue is this appears to be abstinence-only education whose sole message is “don’t have sex before marriage” and which then leaves teenagers completely unprepared if they do.
It’s been proved with data that US states which have abstinence-only education have _higher_ rates of teen pregnancy.
Also, is Pure in Heart are not using so-called “shaming” tactics, why did they invite the infamous Pam Stenzel for a talk?
They came to our school and it was a complete waste of time. Instead of being told that your soul is corrupted by sex and you as a person are downgraded with every sexual experience we should have been given a realistic talk about contraception, sexually transmitted diseases, the age of consent, how to deal with sexual assault. The idea that people are going to remain chaste until marriage is unrealistic in modern society…
Thanks for telling us, Liam. Good to hear an opinion of them from someone at the receiving end!
Begin with the Centre of Disease Control US which openly admits monogamy lessens the risk of STD’s/STI’s or are you willing to educate you children that the oral contraceptive pill is categorized with aspestos in relation to the risk of developing cancer. FACTS the so-called liberals are not so willing to disclose. http://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/latex.htm
OK now Marion, what is annoying me about you is that you are focusing on the effectiveness or not of contraceptives, when the reality is that your real objection is on the grounds of Catholic doctrine – so why not focus on that – are you ashamed of it? Be honest and admit that even if condoms were 100% effective you would not support their use!!! Disingenuous is the word that comes to mind…
The ‘interview’ itself was lazy and inept, O’Rourke pressed the representative on almost nothing and was pathetically vague in his understanding of the origins and associations of the organisation. After this interview I think Sean O’Rourke has deftly stepped into the ‘goofball’ camp along with Brendan O’Connor.
And then ‘The Journal’ replicates without input and research, this is pathetic.
It was a very soft interview alright.
I think we would be better served teaching sexual responsibility to our kids. My own view is to teach my children that sex has responsibilities attached to it (risk of pregnancy and also disease) and that the more information they have on the subject at the earliest appropriate age, the better. They aren’t always a willing audience but I want to make sure they see sex as a normal human urge, not tied up (pardon the pun) in religion what so ever!
However, having done some work in the area of sti’s, I wouldn’t be encouraging excessive promiscuity by anyone.
What happened to balanced representation on state radio? & shocking that the journal would republish this transcript without comment….
Having these weirdos anywhere near schools is a disgrace, I’d be more comfortable with scientologists coming in to talk to them, probably do less harm. The people in Pure in Heart should have to do a psych test, also, are they Garda vetted? Is their ‘course’ approved by any professional medical associations? These are the questions we want answers to!
Gist of this article: “Ah will you stop, we hardly said that, what we really said was…oh actually, no, we did say that”
It ought to be pointed out that the Bible isn’t against teen sex as such…it’s against pre-marital sex but at the time it was written people got married at 13-14.
It was written by bronze-age goat-herders who were constantly on the brink of extinction and needed people to marry early and have many kids to keep their tribe alive.
Many of the rules in the Bible as dismissed as being “ritual” laws because people couldn’t possibly obey them today but the church clings onto repression of sexuality like a badger with tetanus.
Having said that, Jesus did defend a women who was suffering extreme slut-shaming in the form of stoning…but I’m sure the pure-in-heart people are all sinless enough to advocate shaming dirty fallen women themselves.
We should have Home Rule not Rome Rule.
Goodman Eamonn colfer, you would fit in well with the good old paisley family !
A good relationship is about two people having total trust and belief in each other. There is no need to muddle peoples minds about sex because these things will happen in their own course if you let them and you don’ t need to believe in any God. So I would say to these religious people to feck off and mind there own business.
A “standalone” charity that just happens to share the Iona Institutes Address?
Its not a charity, its a registered company – 356064
Had pure in heart talking to us…hmmmm creepy
‘Heard someone from P.I.H. On the radio this morning. She bordered on a Pythonesque ‘Every Sperm is Sacred’ kind of lunacy.
But what can you expect from Right Wing Catholics? Certainly not a balanced, joyful view of sexuality.
Besides, most teenagers today have far more self-worth, self-respect, and sheer ‘Cop’ to be listening to that drivel …
Indeed I was asking the teenager what he thought of religious stuff like this in school being pushed on them without their consent, and he said we don’t pay any attention to all that boll*cks anyway. Good for him!
If you don’t intend to get married to the person you are having sex with does that make it just sex as opposed to sex before marriage. Loophole in the catholic teaching ? And I’m just being pedantic by the by. I would not let my daughter be preached to by these people ever.
Catholic idealists preaching abstinence??? Maybe they should teach the priests to stay away from children. (Not referring to all priests here… Save your red thumbs!)
Take note sex abuse existed in the church due to the personal ‘choices’ of so-called priests accommodating their own personal sexual desires. They were not monogamous either.
There are many reasons priests abuse. That would require a whole new thread. But a group who represent a faith that encourages such a degree of abstinence, based on a notion developed and taught by the same principles that educate their own priests is morally incorrect and should not be endorsed. Sex Ed should be from a neutral standpoint. Making our young people aware of STIs, unwanted pregnancies and a holistic and healthy view on sex and relationships. No need to scare the bejesus out of anyone.
They don’t have sex to have any view on it at all more dark ages view shouldn’t be listened to at all
These days of enlightenment the following facts have emerged fewer partners less risk of incurable STI’s/STD’s fact that is stated by the Centre of Disease Control US http://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/latex.htm
I’m not that freaked by sex as such. But that Catholic fundamentalism stuff really freaks me.
Austin Powers has asked me to establish the ” Impure at Heart” group. It subscribes to the view that sex is not evil and not intrinsically disordered.
@Paul Murphy
Sometimes, all that’s needed, is to let people speak.
When your ideas are completely crazy, sometimes that’s all that’s needed.
Let them speak –
they’ll hang themselves out to dry …
Did they use Sellotape bondage in 50 Shades of Grey?
Remember the Jesuit maxim ” Give me the boy and I will show you the man”
Is every parent asked for permission before this group comes in to preach their propaganda ? If yes, do they really know the right wing, catholic dogma their children are being indoctrinated with ?
I’m going to establish a wholesome Christian guilt ridden, judgemental, organisation in order to discourage young people from breathing until they marry. It’s a bodily function as is the act of sex, so I am wholly within my rights to condemn the inhalation of a nitrogen-oxygen mix. For the love of god..
Has anyone looked to the Bible to see what it says about sex before marriage…
I didn’t sign up for catholic ethos I was signed up at 2 days old then again at 7 then at 12 because I was told to because that what’s happened! Thank the universe I can now make up my own mind have opted out!
have your say