randomc

First, interesting link, thanks for sharing. To address the comment above, I don't think that the exploitation of women is caused by the "sex-positive movement".

Do you suppose that the exploiters think they are doing something morally objectionable? Why assume that? I would say sex-positive ideals might influence their thinking in a situation where the harm they inflict isn't immediately obvious to them. The idea that 'it's just sex' provides what they may see as a justification for their actions.

Also, if the 'it's just sex' maxim is vaunted by a group of girls, there may be pressure to get involved despite misgivings.

According to this definition, the exploitation of young girls and boys is the antithesis of sex-positive, because exploitation, is, by its very nature, coercive.

Agreed, but we're talking about teenagers and morally incompetent older men. I somehow doubt they are aware of the philosophical foundations of the movement they're caught up in.

http://www.ceop.police.uk/Documents/ceopdocs/CEOPThreatA_2012_190612_web.pdf

The inquiry i thought had been published is still underway, but an assessment is given on p.13 of the above link

...scratch that, it's here;

http://www.ceop.police.uk/Documents/ceopdocs/ceop_thematic_assessment_executive_summary.pdf

There's still another inquiry underway still to be published.

You can question my credibility all you want, but that tere is a problem in the UK is a fact. There was a white paper published fairly recently...

The age of consent in your town is 16? Wow.

UK is 16, Denmark and Germany 14. They actually have far lower rates of teenage pregnancy... but they're traditionally more open about sex than Brits. 14 would be to young for UK as it is now, just as 16 might be too young for US at the moment.

I grew up in a very sex-positive atmosphere, but myself and my peers were also taught the ramifications of sex very early. As well, the schools went to great lengths to hammer in the "no means no" meme. My adult mentors stressed that I should wait to have sex with someone I truly cared for, and someone who would respect me -- I think that was a good rule, and I followed it. The end result was that I never felt pressured to have sex as a teenager, and when I finally did meet someone who pressured me (in my 20s), I was able to fend it off without any emotional or physical harm.

 

I guess what I'm saying is, yes, sex comes with consequences and as a result, any sex-positive "movement" has to reflect that. IMO, Sex education is not just about teaching kids the physical ramifications, but also the emotional ramifications of sexual activity.

TBH, i think sex education in the UK is pretty good. There's just unusual peer pressure on teenagers right now and weak societal boundaries.

Since the age of consent where you live is 16, and you seem to have no restrictions about who a 16 can have sex with as many jurisdictions do, I'd say the problem isn't one of any sex-positive movement. Your jurisdiction has chosen to leave these girls to the mercy of middle-aged men when they could just as easily invoke accepted practices from other countries to keep them from being preyed on. In many countries it's illegal for someone who is either in a position of authority or beyond a certain age difference to engage in sex with even a consenting 16 year-old.

As i said, policing such issues is very difficult. Legislation might act as a disincentive, but the underlying problems would still be there.

I think all these people who are so anti sex and think everyone is just laying around fucking are jealous, they lay awake at night worried that some where some place some one, is having a good time... because they can't...

I think it's reasonable to take issue with the sex-positive movement. My position is that some regulation of sex through societal norms and beyond law is necessary, because the difference between sex and sex crime is a grey area even in principle. In practice, it's impossible for police forces to deal with; it's very often a third rail issue; they can't win whatever they do. The incentive is to brush it under the carpet or look the other way.

For example, in my town, there is group of middle aged men who control a group of 16 year old girls for the purposes of sex. It's all entirely legal, the girls are willing participants. What's unusual about it other than the age of the guys is that they are a very loosely formed group. They have little in common but that they fuck these girls.

The police keep an eye on it, but don't/can't intervene.

As i say, all completely legal, but i have to admit to losing a couple of nights sleep over it.

Denying people contraception and sex education is a truly moronic reaction, but so is jumping on the sex-positive bandwagon, as you seem to do.

DO YOU DISAGREE WITH THE ARGUMENT THAT THE PRO-LIFE ORGANIZATIONS ARE ANTI-CONTRACEPTION? Hala hala! I don't usually yell, but you're moving the goalposts and that's quite annoying.

 

Yes, these links do not explicitly discuss how the anti-contraception movement subjugates women. They show that the pro-life organizations are anti-contraception. There is evidence supporting the argument that the anti-contraception movement is really about controlling women (subjugate means "to bring someone under control"), but it's in other literature. I'd love to get into that, but first, I would implore you to respond to the question at hand, which is, for the 20th time,

 

Do you disagree with the argument that the pro-life organizations are anti-contraception?

No.

I need to think about this some more. I mean, yes, the concept of personhood is important to the abortion debate. I would argue it's more important than the concept of when life began, because from a biological perspective, life does not begin at conception, life just changes from haploid to diploid. (When I say "just", I am in no means trying to diminish the amazing dance of fertilization.)

I suppose a legal defintion would be better if consistent with end-of-life issues as well. Afaik, cognitive function is the determinant in terminal illness and since there seems to be consensus that cognitive function is absent in the first 12 weeks of development, that would be a consistent time-frame. I think i'm right to say that the vast majority of abortions occur in that time frame anyway, so it's not impracticle.

However, when you have multiple groups of people who can't agree about when personhood begins, and you have a situation where a female, who is currently a legal person, can be physically or economically harmed by designating a foetus as a person, then it becomes a women's rights issue.

I suppose my point is that framing it in terms of women's rights rather than more general civil rights is not necessary in making a sound argument for abortion, and therefore to do so is nothing but political manoeuvering. Special rights for particular groups is the essence of privelege and so worth avoiding if possible.

None of the articles make the suggestion that it's all about subjugating women, not even the slate one.

Rather, the underlying theme, if any, seems to be an aversion to promiscuity and the promotion of "a culture of life".

So the inference remains unjustified, and without justification, there is reason to suspect an agenda from those who assert it.

Perhaps women's rights are only peripheral if you happen to be a man. But if you're a woman who has to face negative economic or physical consequences due to carrying a pregnancy to term, the concerns become far more pragmatic than philosophical. This is why people who swear up and down that they're pro-life get abortions.

Whether the decision is pragmatic is the concern of the individual making it - the point remains that the definition of personhood should be the deciding factor in law.

One point: I don't really think you can argue that a baby or child has full and rightful ownership of itself. They are beholden to the (hopefully benevolent) dictatorship of their parents or caretakers. So why would you say that a foetus has the "full and rightful ownership" of itself? Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean by that?

If dependency reduces the legal and moral status of someone's life, it follows that the elderly, disabled, or just temporarily ill have lesser value.

I don't think self-ownership can exist on a spectrum, rather, it's a dichotomy.

What are YOU talking about? I thought that Imatfaal (post 105) was making the point that religion doesn't seem to be the underlying cause of the link between the bills and statutes concerned and therefore must be some other casuse.

Abortion has NEVER been a standalone issue. It's always been wrapped up in women's rights issues. Ask anyone you know who's pro-choice why they're pro-choice, I'll bet you any money they'll say that it's because they believe that women have a right to choose what to do with their bodies.

So it's impossible to talk meaningfully about abortion without talking about women's rights? Why so specific? A basic ethical principle is that individuals are full and rightful owners of themselves, so the pro-choice position can be arrived at without special consideration of the particular group it affects.

In fact, the pro-life position is best supported by the same argument; at the point at which a foetus can be defined as a person, it has full and rightful ownership of itself, no less than does the women carrying it.

It's on the definition of personhood that the entire issue depends, the specific issue of women's rights is peripheral.

It seems you're implying that because a proportion of the population doesn't see a link between the pro-life agenda and the anti-contraception agenda, then there must not be a link.

Maybe they see a link maybe they don't. What you are implying is they don't see a link and that if they did they would change their minds. I don't think the data we're using allows that conclusion. All than can be said is that women are evenly split on the issue. The figure that 80% don't identify as feminists possibly suggests women's lib may not be the focus of this issue for American women.

You are making the positive claim that the conspiracy exists, so the burden of proof is yours, and all you have provided in evidence is an anecdotal blog post.

Why is the argument not good? Can you be more specific? What would make you more convinced of her thesis? And just to remind you so, her thesis is that the main actors and organizations in the pro-life agenda are also anti-contraception. She argues that these actors and organizations are more concerned about making sure that women feel the consequences of sex than they are of reducing the abortion rate.

Supposing the link exists between these main actors, inferences to motives such as "making women feel the consequences of sex" and "demonising female sexuality" are extremely tenuous, and i'm no less justified in suggesting that the motive for making such inferences is agenda driven, than the agenda suggested by the inference is itself.

If there is no consistent religious argument, as imatfaal argues in the thread he linked, that still doesn't necessitate or justify the inferences made.

You seem to have mistakenly thought that this topic was about something other than American politics. Just read it again with that in mind and it will start making sense.

And yes, this is about American politics.

The implication being that a meaningful discussion about abortion in the US is not possible if taken as a stand alone issue. It's neccesary to consider wider agendas. Well OK; for some of you the important frame here is a wider plot to subjugate women. I pointed out that according to the GSS women seem split about 50:50 on the issue and Jeskill has pointed out that 80% of American women do not identify as feminist.

Given that, and assuming the objective here is a fair and balanced discussion, i think i'm perfectly justified in questioning the massive slant this discussion has taken. American women do not, as the GSS indicates, see a plot to subjugate women as being the right context for this discussion.

I think the original blog post does make a good case that the leaders of the pro-life movement do want to subjugate women. If you read it all, you would know that she makes this argument.

Yes she makes the argument. It's not very good. It's a rebuttal of an interpretation of a narrative, just some poorly supported handwaving about peoples motives.

I cannot find a self-consistent religious argument that fits all the bills in the pipeline and acts on the statute books.

Could that be because you're cherry-picking what you need to support theory?

Female sexuality is easier to contol...? I beg your pardon? do you mean that women are easier to control in a patriarchal male-dominated society and in a patriarchal male-dominated households? That might make a bit more sense, but works against your argument.

 

Then again, abortions have nothing to do with sexuality, or the "control thereof" of sexuality of women. Last I checked, both men and women contribute to the event that might necessitate abortion, but I might have to review my biology booklet.

 

Whatever male 'instincts' you're refering to, I am hopign they're not some reference to rape, seeing as rape was longlong proven to have nothng to do with sex and everything to do with control.

 

So, in short, wtf are you talking about?

I wandered off topic there. I was just trying to find a cross-cultural explanation for any link between female subjugation and regulation of sex. I thought it would be interesting to know if female subjugation served some functional purpose other than moral regulation of sex.

Woss goin' on?

Anyway, you say "The result of their politics is just that..."

I konw this is just a 'makes sense' argument, but i see traditional homosocial culture as a control of male sexual jealosy and mate guarding rather than female sexuality. The problem has been stood on it's head throughout history for convenience; female sexuality is easier to control.

And with reliable contraception these male instincts (?) are obsolete.

Would you care to show exactly where I said there was a plot to subjugate women?

I do apologise.. you said...

anti birth control people have long used abortion as a smokescreen for their real agenda

...which immediately followed Imatfaal's...

It is truly worrying that it all makes much more sense if you remove the propaganda and view it as a huge conspiracy to subjugate half the population, "keep women in their place", and exert control through the regulation of sex. There is a concerted movement towards the demonization of female sexual liberation, and re-establishment of the male ownership of sex

I just assumed you were attaching yourself to this view.

I guess you didn't read the article?

Look, the blog post argues against the pro-life movement very succesfully, my point is merely that to take this as an indication of an agenda to subjugate women is ridiculous.

Well, 80 % of people don't think of themselves as feminists according to these same surveys. If you can't see the patriarchy, how are you going to be able to see the relationship between the pro-life agenda and the anti-contraception agenda?

That's an interesting point. How do you measure gender dominance amongst the working classes? Does anybody even bother to do it - i would say not, maybe it's been done. Anyway ,the gender equality discussion seems to me very much focused on the elite.

And I see you've resorted to an ad hominim fallacy in lieu of an actual rebuttal based on evidence.

I suppose i did.

There again, you demand rebuttal based on evidence, but don't provide actual evidence of a plot to subjugate women (per imatfaal/moontanman). Just an anecdotal blog post.

I think of it as where the value for the slope of the function on the graph is going and also where it's been, i.e, the local trend of the slope (per Timo). The value '8' in your example is an average of where it's been and where it's going.

I think it can be useful for predicting or recovering data you can't (or don't feel like) directly looking at.

Is it really feasible to talk about abortion as part of an agenda to subjugate women? A quick perusal of the GSS shows women to be about 50:50 on abortion. ESDS (UK general social survey) unfortunately requires registration from an institution (which says it all about the UK). Anyway, you guys are treating the underclasses as pets, as is usual with social lefties.

Whoever wrote that blog post is extremely sexy.

I can heartily confirm the author is a VERY sexy man.

...but I'd like to see what major international conflict was resolved peacefully, rather than belligerently, because of the intervention of religion.

oh, oh, now that's the stickler because migl said...

...wars they've stopped

da da DADAAAAA

absence of evidence can be evidnce of absence.

http://blogs.scienceforums.net/yourdadonapogostick/2012/10/28/evidence-and-its-absence/

Why is there so many religion-related threads in SFN? I think the biggest fallacy on this topic is that religion and science are somehow/supposedly mutually exclusive.

They should be. Come on ewmon, what is the meaning of religiosity?

Bohr was an instrumentalist and he thought that we can effectively make a distinction between the classical measuring apparatus and the quantum world but even the measuring apparatus should be treated as a quantum system, so no I'm not arguing for the instrumentalist philosophy of science, I'm arguing for a sound idealistic philosophy of science, its the very act of observation that retrospectively creates a reality which wasn't there before, the universe doesn't exist when no one is looking at it and this is the fact of this world.

Aha, so you're saying exactly that an instrumentalist position is precluded.

My understanding of QM is very superficial, i just thought maybe you were arguing a straw man to some extent. But i don't know .

This paper might be interesting for anyone else trying to follow the discussion...

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0609163

immortal,

what you are arguing for seems to be a roughly instrumentalist philosophy of science, plus some oriental esoterica. Is that right?

I once read that there are more scientists and engineers alive now than all the accumulated scientist/engineer predecessors combined. I wonder if there's anything any individual could come up with that someone else won't figure out within a couple of years.

I just find it interesting that people are so motivtaed by the glory of discovery.

So they should be drilled SO THAT they can provide a convincing explanation?

Which raises the question what's so important about a creationist's agenda?

OK, fuck you, guy. Now you're just being glib.

I did not! I copy pasted it.

and i put it back.

Well I can see how a thread called Relationship Help would attract you.

I resent that.