Active Users:1172 Time:22/11/2024 01:46:02 PM
If you are arguing most sex ed opponents are naïve/ignorant, I agree. Joel Send a noteboard - 05/02/2012 08:42:17 AM
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.
No argument here; I oppose abstinence-only sex ed. I merely sought to explain why many support it for reasons unrelated to "oppression." Kids should be taught abstinence is the only perfect means of preventing pregnancy (because it is,) but also receive comprehensive contraception education because 1) nearly all will have sex before their majority (let alone marriage) anyway and 2) so they understand contraception is not a panacea. In particular, not only does it imperfectly prevent pregnancy, but most is USELESS against STDs. That is irrelevant to abortion, but HIGHLY relevant to health.

Yes, for sexually active people, getting STD screenings is very important. Planned Parenthood does just as much of that as it provides birth control. Hm, it's almost like they're aware of these facts, and act based on them!

People who support abstinence-only education have unrealistic ideas about both sex and their children. There's no getting around that. As I said, sex ed affects the future adult, not just the current teenager.

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

I said outright age of consent
varies by locale, and there is often some latitude when both (or however many) partners are close to the same age.

How specific did you want it? Age of consent varies by country and, within the US, by state. It is close in most cases, (only varying two years in the US,) though, again, minors near the same age often receive legal latitude few adults enjoy. I believe the rule of thumb is one must be within four years of their partners age, so in many (NOT all) jurisdictions it is legal, not only at 17, but even at 19, sometimes even 20, to have sex with 16 year olds even in the nineteen states where age of consent is >16. After 21 it is simple: Anyone <17 is off limits, except in the 31 states where the age of consent is 16. In eleven states the age of consent is 18 but, depending on local "grace period" (if any,) someone who recently turned 22 might legally be able to have sex with someone who turned 17 nearly a year ago. Better?

For once, I thought MY point would not suffer from more brevity. I still think it does not. GENERALLY SPEAKING, US society and law discourages minors having sex, so many "nonoppresive" people oppose teaching kids to safely do something currently illegal for them.

As to relevance, tangents are by definition tangential to a point, and therefore not completely unconnected. In this case, age of consent is far more than a tangent; many people oppose sex education, not out of oppression, but because they (and the law) oppose kids having sex in the first place. Obviously, that is both naïve and short sighted, because most kids do it despite the law, and even those who do not should know how to have safe sex once they are no longer kids. I do not SHARE that view, but do UNDERSTAND it, to a degree your statement did not reflect, so I sought to explain it. Ignorance or idealism are no better justifications than malice, but not abusive, tyrannical or "oppressive." Painting sex ed opponents as "oppressors" offers a rallying point and sense of superiority similar to painting pro choice people as "baby murderers" but is no more fair or accurate.

I have only said that their sexual mores are oppressive; you are the one who seems insistent on labeling them oppressors because of that. The terminology of sexual oppression is not new, and I certainly did not invent it myself. Just look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_norm, for starters.

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 silly. Those laws are a low-order approximation to the underlying morality. We consider sex to be wrong if one or both (or more) parties have an impaired or undeveloped ability to consent. There are many nuanced situations in which that could be the case; the law makes gross approximations by age because it can't accurately evaluate most of those situations on an individual basis. I am sure that some people under the age of consent are still mentally able to consent, and some people over it are not able. The legal age of consent was not handed down from on high, and its existence is not an argument against safety education (which is what sex ed actually is).

There's a difference between understanding why people hold the views they do, and accepting those views as legitimate or grounded.

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.

That would reduce, but NOT eliminate, abortion and we both know it (I hope.)

While I agree ignoring reality is often the problem, ignorance is not oppression, though it can lead to that, inadvertently or otherwise. A lot of pro lifers (and pro choicers) could support implants (in the absence of real medical concerns) as an abortion alternative, but finding majorities who support them for 12 or 14 year olds would probably be difficult. Fourteen is WELL below the age of consent in all 50 states, and even people who recognize it happens anyway try to avoid anything encouraging it (and, yes, telling teens contraception eliminates the chance of pregnancy would encourage sex, in addition to being false.)

Some 12 or 14 year olds can still get pregnant; if we're really trying to prevent unplanned pregnancies, that's where to start. I think you're overestimating the amount of risk assessment or weighing that teenagers do at any point. Availability of reliable birth control has not been shown to encourage sex.

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.

We will never completely eliminate the chance of pregnancy without actually removing the reproductive system, but we can get the chance low enough that it isn't worth worrying about.

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.

The BBC article only cites REPORTED problems, which makes a big difference (hence drug trials actively seeking reports from all test subjects.) If I had to bet, I expect most of the pregnant women in that BBC article thought their implants made pregnancy impossible, and were outraged at the result of "ignoring reality."

All hormonal treatments have side effects, yes; that, and how little we know about the long term ones of most, has much more to do with reservations than does any "oppression." You should have seen my wifes eyes pop when I read her that line about implants for 12 year olds, and not because Norway is some anti-reproductive rights bastion. She actually talked more about her doctor putting her back on the pill because of concerns about osteoporosis with injections and what they did to her menstruation. We both fully support reproductive rights, but think everyone getting an implant at 12 a really bad idea.

Incidentally, your phrasing there was ambiguous, but for the purposes of an online discussion I can assume you meant implants should be available for 12 year olds rather than compulsory (i.e. reproductive CHOICE, not just oppression via government rather than guardian.) In light of the fight Perry started when he tried to mandate the HPV vaccine for TX school girls, I recommend making it explicit when trying to convince people. I generally support peoples freedom to do whatever they wish with their own bodies so long as they know the risks (though the importance of understanding the risks often makes minors an exception to that general rule,) but many disagree. Either way, no "choice" shoved down the throats of kids (and their parents) is better than another.

I think that we need to move toward social norms which would make getting a birth control implant (at whatever age) the accepted, usual, and responsible option. Spreading disinformation about birth control must be discouraged, as well as parents foisting oppressive sexual mores on their children. The operative question to be asked is, "do you want your daughter to be forced to carry a pregnancy to term if she gets raped?" (Assuming, in the ideal world of the (fictitious) reasonable pro-life movement, abortion is outlawed once such implants exist.)

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, .

Pregnancy is always on the sexual table (or heterosexual table.) If you consider that "oppression," take it up with Mother Nature, but you severely overextended the meaning of "oppression." Noting that was a high point of my reply, and much (though not all) of my point. Practically no US adult is sexually "oppressed" (the few exceptions are oppressed illegally, so changing laws will not help them) and you are a little old to believe every parental choice a child dislikes "oppression."

It is neither fair nor accurate for EITHER side to paint the other as seeking to brutalize children; it may feel good, but is counterproductive.

You are speaking descriptively. My impression is that the "pro-life" movement view that fact prescriptively, i.e., pregnancy should be the consequence of sex.

I address your misunderstanding of the idea of oppressive sexual mores above.

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.

That one is news to me, but a natural death is not killing, and killing not necessarily murder. On the other hand, logic is often the first casualty of such debates.


As I explained to nossy:

Yes, miscarriages are natural. So are any number of diseases, disorders, injuries, etc., but we still try to cure those so that people don't die. If a zygote is a person, why does the "pro-life" movement give zero attention to medical research that might save more of them from miscarriages?

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.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
This message last edited by Joel on 05/02/2012 at 09:01:36 AM
Reply to message
Susan G. Komen cuts funds to Planned Parenthood. (with updated edit) - 02/02/2012 04:32:27 PM 2193 Views
The most annoying part is in the sixth paragraph- abortions are only a small part of their thing - 02/02/2012 05:08:07 PM 1084 Views
I agree. - 02/02/2012 05:20:17 PM 996 Views
I can understand it though. - 02/02/2012 05:45:55 PM 1055 Views
I can too, it just isn't for me. - 02/02/2012 05:58:33 PM 966 Views
Actually, there are longer-acting forms of birth control than the pill. - 03/02/2012 12:37:42 AM 981 Views
I do think that preventing abortions is their primary goal. - 03/02/2012 01:08:05 AM 942 Views
If they don't see that link, it's because they haven't looked. - 03/02/2012 02:42:42 AM 1027 Views
That is a little unfair. - 03/02/2012 12:48:46 PM 1237 Views
Won't someone please think of the children?! - 04/02/2012 05:03:27 AM 1026 Views
I think you're leaving out some important points. - 04/02/2012 03:40:48 PM 968 Views
Ah, the good ol' silent majority. - 04/02/2012 07:32:29 PM 942 Views
So which moron is feeding you this crap? - 04/02/2012 10:27:15 PM 967 Views
A zygote isn't a person, because it doesn't have a brain. - 05/02/2012 12:33:29 AM 961 Views
It worries me when we think alike.... - 05/02/2012 01:22:35 PM 1001 Views
Brain waves at 8 weeks are a myth. - 05/02/2012 08:46:06 PM 1105 Views
"brain function... appears to be reliably present in the fetus at about eight weeks' gestation." - 05/02/2012 10:42:35 PM 1016 Views
Oh please. - 05/02/2012 11:13:50 PM 980 Views
Re: Oh please yourself. - 06/02/2012 09:15:26 PM 857 Views
Quite a telling reply. - 07/02/2012 04:38:20 AM 923 Views
Re: I quite agree. - 08/02/2012 06:03:23 PM 1127 Views
You're taking an issue of objective facts and treating it like a day of playground gossip. - 09/02/2012 03:47:06 AM 967 Views
No, your source, in which there is very little that is objective, did that for me. - 11/02/2012 02:59:45 AM 990 Views
I see you have continued to provide no factual arguments. - 14/02/2012 04:53:28 AM 1226 Views
I presented factual rebuttals. - 19/02/2012 01:56:45 AM 1018 Views
You continue to miss the point. - 23/02/2012 10:22:24 PM 1108 Views
Well, yes. - 04/02/2012 11:14:47 PM 1028 Views
A silent majority may as well not exist, if it has no tangible effects. - 05/02/2012 12:54:34 AM 973 Views
You ignoring it is not the same thing as it having no tangible effect. - 05/02/2012 02:11:36 AM 1066 Views
Ignoring what? You haven't shown me anything solid. - 05/02/2012 05:25:23 AM 966 Views
It's ok, we're done. *NM* - 05/02/2012 09:29:05 AM 589 Views
Since few people oppose ADULT contraception access, that might be wise in this case. - 04/02/2012 08:25:49 PM 1055 Views
Re: Since few people oppose ADULT contraception access, that might be wise in this case. - 05/02/2012 02:11:28 AM 967 Views
If you are arguing most sex ed opponents are naïve/ignorant, I agree. - 05/02/2012 08:42:17 AM 800 Views
Re: If you are arguing most sex ed opponents are naïve/ignorant, I agree. - 05/02/2012 10:04:59 PM 967 Views
Re: If you are arguing most sex ed opponents are naïve/ignorant, I agree. - 06/02/2012 08:57:38 PM 948 Views
I'm done discussing my use of the term "oppression." The Tim Ryan stuff is interesting, though. - 07/02/2012 05:37:05 AM 1046 Views
Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it. - 08/02/2012 06:01:32 PM 1137 Views
Re: Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it. - 09/02/2012 05:30:58 AM 1003 Views
Re: Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it. - 11/02/2012 02:58:00 AM 1033 Views
Re: Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it. - 14/02/2012 04:29:08 AM 1096 Views
Re: Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it. - 19/02/2012 01:54:30 AM 1012 Views
Re: Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it. - 23/02/2012 10:59:32 PM 1311 Views
Re: Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it. - 07/03/2012 01:47:44 AM 966 Views
Re: Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it. - 15/03/2012 10:27:23 PM 1225 Views
There are problems with the implants - 03/02/2012 01:42:55 AM 991 Views
You have a talent for understatement. - 03/02/2012 01:08:40 PM 976 Views
I agree that they have made Beast Cancer a cult but splitting with PP is just smart - 02/02/2012 05:39:49 PM 1126 Views
I agree. - 02/02/2012 06:00:17 PM 908 Views
yes she is going to have to piss off one group or the other - 02/02/2012 06:12:31 PM 976 Views
Right - 02/02/2012 06:24:14 PM 1026 Views
Do you see a way Komen could have avoided pissing off one side? - 02/02/2012 06:55:36 PM 973 Views
No, I don't. I don't believe I said that? - 02/02/2012 07:53:50 PM 881 Views
You didn't; I inferred it from the way you phrased that ("if she HAS to..."). Sorry. - 02/02/2012 08:06:11 PM 964 Views
I know I'm not always clear. - 02/02/2012 08:32:47 PM 966 Views
Just curious... - 02/02/2012 10:07:49 PM 949 Views
Not at all. - 02/02/2012 10:24:19 PM 1012 Views
Not at all? - 02/02/2012 10:32:31 PM 903 Views
No. - 02/02/2012 10:47:04 PM 866 Views
My argument is based on my belief that the pro-choice women are more dedicated to women's causes - 02/02/2012 11:17:24 PM 957 Views
Re: My argument is based on my belief that the pro-choice women are more dedicated to women's causes - 03/02/2012 12:08:01 AM 955 Views
wow that may be the worst advice I had in weeks - 03/02/2012 12:13:18 AM 918 Views
Ooor, the best. - 03/02/2012 12:25:56 AM 900 Views
ok now you are just being mean *NM* - 03/02/2012 12:46:12 AM 588 Views
The thread was going too well - I thought we needed the meanness. *NM* - 03/02/2012 11:30:39 AM 534 Views
rabble rouser *NM* - 04/02/2012 04:24:01 AM 551 Views
I misread this at first - 03/02/2012 12:51:44 AM 959 Views
not to mention codeine seems to make me double post - 02/02/2012 11:17:26 PM 2003 Views
I'm not so sure I agree. Or not completely. - 02/02/2012 06:14:11 PM 892 Views
I don't diagree with the way you see it - 02/02/2012 06:39:41 PM 964 Views
More inevitable than anything, considering who started Komen. - 02/02/2012 10:19:34 PM 909 Views
Never having heard of any of those except PP, my opinion may not be the most relevant... - 02/02/2012 08:32:48 PM 1033 Views
You don't know stuff. - 02/02/2012 08:43:38 PM 996 Views
I know the stuff that matters. - 02/02/2012 09:55:08 PM 897 Views
That's true. - 02/02/2012 10:34:32 PM 988 Views
they may also be a afraid that PP will go the way of ACORN - 02/02/2012 11:04:16 PM 1040 Views
"Accused" of = unfounded slander. - 03/02/2012 12:13:30 AM 1051 Views
This is so foreign a debate for me - 02/02/2012 10:16:15 PM 1015 Views
Must be nice. *NM* - 03/02/2012 12:26:49 AM 640 Views
Re: stuff - 03/02/2012 09:18:53 AM 914 Views
I'm sorry, but what're we talking about when we're talking about "cancer" - 03/02/2012 12:49:34 PM 947 Views
Obviously not adenocarcinoma, no. - 04/02/2012 07:36:06 AM 959 Views
I"m not that fussed. I'm just generally leary of research that has results like that - 04/02/2012 08:35:04 PM 904 Views
Fair enough. - 04/02/2012 10:17:31 PM 974 Views
They restored funding incidentally - 03/02/2012 05:43:47 PM 893 Views
Unless I've missed it - 03/02/2012 05:56:15 PM 981 Views
You must have missed it then - 03/02/2012 07:07:13 PM 895 Views
If you're referring to Cannoli - 03/02/2012 07:19:25 PM 1049 Views
Multiple was not an accidental choice of words - 03/02/2012 11:46:30 PM 924 Views
Then I agree that maybe this is not the thread for you. - 04/02/2012 12:41:42 AM 957 Views
Re: Then I agree that maybe this is not the thread for you. - 04/02/2012 01:53:25 AM 1149 Views
Well, I'll try again for both of us. - 04/02/2012 02:56:42 PM 979 Views
Re: Well, I'll try again for both of us. - 04/02/2012 07:40:25 PM 946 Views
well at least there will not be any doubt about this being a political decision - 03/02/2012 06:24:14 PM 1093 Views
I think that ship sailed long ago. - 03/02/2012 08:45:13 PM 898 Views
Truth - 04/02/2012 02:07:20 AM 1003 Views
I do wonder a bit which lawmakers Fox thinks "pressured" Komen. - 03/02/2012 08:29:50 PM 894 Views
are you trying to disprove the study you posted? - 03/02/2012 09:20:12 PM 1022 Views
To me, it depends on the nature of the contact, which I have not dug enough to discover. - 03/02/2012 10:43:45 PM 924 Views
you admit you have no incite into what happened - 04/02/2012 04:27:17 AM 948 Views
Actually, it looks like Komens new VP (and former GOP GA gubernatorial candidate) had the incite. - 04/02/2012 04:24:14 PM 996 Views
educated guess don't work when you are tinfoil hat wearing kool-aid drinker - 04/02/2012 09:33:49 PM 894 Views
Dude. - 04/02/2012 11:20:49 PM 837 Views
Yo mama? - 05/02/2012 05:32:11 AM 990 Views
whhhhhhyyyyyy - 04/02/2012 11:23:58 PM 965 Views
Why would I not think that? - 05/02/2012 05:46:15 AM 865 Views

Reply to Message