If you are arguing most of them are acting from oppressive sexual mores (as in your initial post,) I strongly disagree. That was the whole of my point.

Again, no argument but, also again, being unrealistic is not in itself oppression or oppressive, though it can foster that.


Based on the link, restrictive social norms considered negative are oppression and those considered positive are chastity. The same principle is considered either oppression OR chastity solely on a given individuals opinion of it, irrespective of its nature. Those are strained arbitrary definitions.

A restrictive norm is oppression if (and only if) imposed on consenting adults against their will, and chastity only if it is abstinence. The same restriction can qualify as both, regardless of what advocates on either side choose to label it, but marital sex is not chastity and opposing pedophilia not oppressive. Note that the article refers to social NORMS that may or may not be enforced by law. I have no idea who decided "encouraging sexual SELF-restraint" is oppression, but someone should get them a dictionary, because "self oppression" is a contradiction in terms.

Inaccurate, inconsistent and subjective definitions are a running theme in that article. The use of "oppression" is a good example, but what is to be made of "Many societies which aggressively regulate sexual behavior tend to have high levels of hidden child sexual abuse, although if this level is lower or higher per capita than in sexually permissive societies is unknown"? That usage of "high" is very relative; we cannot know if the prevalence of hidden child abuse in sexually permissive societies is "high" unless we know its prevalence elsewhere. The statement is meaningless, and sounds like someone wants us to believe, but cannot prove, that "oppression" (whatever that means at the moment) fosters pedophilia. The next statement is similar, that some Westerners "choose" to define "normal" as "not perverted," which even the author immediately notes is a just a truism reflecting perennial practice; normal=¬perverted.

Regardless of the articles muddled presentation, however, it is also a truism that when you accused people of oppression you (not I) labeled them oppressors. That was the whole point, no? Won't someone think of those oppressed by the parochial morality of others? Its only major failing is being untrue.


Arguing from age of consent laws is inevitable in this case because only minors face significant obstacles to contraception and sex ed. They constitute nearly everyone vulnerable to "oppression," and their SEXUAL oppression is simply denying their ability to consent to sex, as they are denied it with so many other things. They are also proscribed from drinking, voting, military enlistment, full time jobs and signing legal contracs, but no one demands their "liberation" from those "oppressions." Age of consent laws are an approximation of an underlying generally accepted morality, yes, but not an oppressive nor unrealistic one, surprisingly enough.

Sex ed is more about health than about safety (the latter excludes childbirth, beyond a mothers welfare,) but I will not argue if the distinction is only semantic.


If age of potential pregnancy is the metric, we apparently must begin implants around 5 (at least 8, if we discount the earliest three pregnancies on record: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_birth_mothers.) I am VERY sure few people will accept implanting birth control in girls when they start school.

I do not overestimate teen judgement (believe me,) it is simply a matter of logic: Available birth control CANNOT deter sex, and does REMOVE a deterrent, therefore it MUST encourage sex overall, though not necessarily by measurable amounts. Surely we do not need a study to prove the self evident.


You WOULD say that, you MAN! Seriously, it is not worth considering until it happens, but that is most teens attitude teens toward standard sex. The PROBABILITY is low but the CONSEQUENCES serious; what that does to risk depends on whom we ask. If, for example, we ask those 600 pregnant Brits, their answer probably differs from yours. I would wager dollars to donuts scores, perhaps hundreds, got Implanon precisely because they are pro life, pro sex and anti-personal pregnancy.


Parents will continue passing on their sexual mores to their children; those children may or may not embrace them, but as long as the parents are not coercing adherence after the age of consent there is no oppression. In terms of abortion specifically it gets a bit more complicated because of the risks of pregnancy, which are elevated for girls, especially young ones, and because of incestuous rape; obviously an abusive parent cannot be trusted with decisions about their daughters body.

Again, I generally endorse those above the age of consent and aware of the risks doing whatever they like to their own bodies, but have reservations about most forms of hormonal forms of birth control because in most cases the full risk is unknown. I was prepared to tentatively endorse NuvaRing until I saw this: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-42848006/at-merck-an-undercover-video-and-40-deaths-plague-nuvaring-birth-control-brand/?tag=bnetdomain

The German article CBS links does not say how many women used NuvaRing (that I can tell; my German is rusty, but if yours is no better and you are still hanging around the LHC you can probably find a translator.) I did notice there were less deaths reported using it than any of the other hormonal birth control cited. Bigger question: Why must I (and apparently everyone not a gynecologist) read a Swiss newspaper to learn of a USFDA report on fatal contraception complications...?

Whether a pro life parent wants their child forced to carry a pregnancy to term if raped is only half the question. The need to balance two mortal risks, however small, plus the difficulty and subjectivity of doing so, is a great reason to leave the decision in the hands of legal guardians. It sounds like you agree but, once again, I urge making it VERY explicit when trying to persuade others of your views. Many people get nervous about the possibility of ACTUAL oppression in the form of the state demanding to raise their children for them, ESPECIALLY when people talk about parents not passing on their oppressive sexual mores, .


I usually speak descriptively, and this exchange illustrates much of why. The pro life movements views on the necessity of childbirth as a consequence of sex runs as broad a gamut as we should expect in such a large group. The "every sperm is sacred" view is very popular with many Catholics, perhaps most; the Vaticans position is essentially the impression you have of pro lifers in general: No abortion, no birth control; procreation is the primary goal of every sexual act. I would expect the Greek Orthodox view to be similar, but do not know their doctrine well (a few others here could almost certainly say.) Protestants... Protestants are all over the place theologically, from liberalism little more than vague secular humanism to a level of repression that would shock Cotton Mather. With Jews and Muslims I imagine it varies by degree of orthodoxy, though Jews practically invented secular humanism masquerading as religion around the time Luther nailed his theses to the Wittenberg chapel. With other religions I can only guess, and among non-religious pro lifers you would probably have to ask them individually.

It is really not as monolithic as you seem to think. As to sexual mores, I agree we covered it; I am descriptivist by nature, disliking definitions that change by user.


Probably for the same reason the police spend more time preventing murders than they do preventing heart attacks, even though the latter kill far more people. There is a tremendous difference between death, taking a life and murder, and pro lifers believe that, in the case of the unborn, the last is far easier to cause OR prevent than is the first. They are, of course, wrong; banning abortion only dooms women seeking it to die or be seriously, often permanently, injured in secret, nonsterile unprofessional environments. I know there are pro lifers who consider that justice, because one of them told me so point blank at wotmania. I do not, however, believe them the norm, because I have spoken with too many who feel otherwise.

Bottom line is that falsely demonizing pro lifers as having ill intent is no more fair, accurate or constructive than demonizing pro choicers that way.