If you are arguing most sex ed opponents are naïve/ignorant, I agree. - Edit 1
Before modification by Joel at 05/02/2012 09:00:52 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.
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 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 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.
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.
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.
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 did I (and apparently everyone not a gynecologist) have to 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, .
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.
As I explained to nossy:
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.
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
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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 did I (and apparently everyone not a gynecologist) have to 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.
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.