Questioning Abortion as an advance towards freedom

[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.

[Moontanman]

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Would you mind directing me to the part of that link that supports your assertion?

[randomc]

I don't think i can do that, moontanman, because it doesn't discuss sex positive ideals

[Moontanman]

I don't think i can do that, moontanman, because it doesn't discuss sex positive ideals

 

 

Then why did you use it to support your assertion?

[randomc]

you got me

[Moontanman]

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.

 

 

In other words you have made an assertion that is not supportable? Come on dude you can't make such a outrageous assertion and not back it up...

[randomc]

Fine, i retract my assertion that jumping on the sex-positive bandwagon is moronic. My opinion remains that there exist negative consequences that are very difficult to deal with, and so i question the wisdom of encouraging it.

[Moontanman]

Fine, i retract my assertion that jumping on the sex-positive bandwagon is moronic. My opinion remains that there exist negative consequences that are very difficult to deal with, and so i question the wisdom of encouraging it.

 

 

You know that's not the only assertion you made you cannot support...

 

I have the same problem, 16 year old girls line up at my front door every morning, looking to be dominated by a middle aged old man...

[randomc]

The link i provided should really make that a bit more plausible for you...BTW, middle aged to me is early thirties through to maybe fifty or thereabouts. I didn't say or mean to imply old men.

 

But no, ican't support my anecdote. That's why i provided the link that describes similar situations across the UK.

[Moontanman]

The link i provided should really make that a bit more plausible for you...BTW, middle aged to me is early thirties through to maybe fifty or thereabouts. I didn't say or mean to imply old men.

 

But no, ican't support my anecdote. That's why i provided the link that describes similar situations across the UK.

 

 

No it doesn't, it might represent some sort of twisted fear on your part but you did not in anyway support that assertion. It was a cheap shot and typical of people who lay awake at night worrying that some where, some how, some one is having a good time... while they either can't or won't allow them selves to have a healthy sexual relationship or anything else that doesn't control other peoples behavior to match theirs...

 

Control freaks...

[mooeypoo]

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.

 

Let me get this straight.

 

The exploitation of women is due to the "It's just sex" maxim who you claim is vaunted by a group of girls.

 

So, in other words, since women treat sex casually, they get exploited. Is this what you meant to say, or is this just a byproduct of what you were unsuccessfully trying to say?

 

I mean, not that it's the first time I hear the "blame the victim" mantra, but this one's a relatively imaginative one. Kudos for that. I'll ignore the enormous generalization you seem to be making about women in general and their supposed exploitation in general, so we can concentrate on the crux of the blame issue.

 

I guess I shouldn't be too surprised, though, because of your earlier comment that:

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.

 

--is a perfect example for flawed logic.

 

First, if you think that the difference between 'sex' and 'sex crime' is grey area even in principle, I would suggest you keep your genitalia inside your pants and never use them for sex, in fear you may accidentally be criminal with it.

 

Second, this statement is not different than saying that the difference between using a computer and using a computer criminally is a grey area.

It's not a grey area.

 

Neither is violence or criminal sex. It's very clear, really. If it's not concensual, it's not legal. If it's with a minor it's not legal. If it's violent and hurt someone, it's not legal.

No grey here. Not even shades of grey.

 

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.

16 year old prostitution is legal? Where is this again? As far as I understand it, that's not supposed to be legal. Not because of prostitution necessarily (that's a different issue) but because they're minor.

 

I'd like to get more details on this, seeing as you're using it as an example to show how your entire idea is correct. Proof or drop it, as we often say to science people.

 

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.

 

What is "sex positive bandwagon" and who are you to tell anyone what to do with their own genitalia? If I want to have sex with a woman, or a man, or two men and three women, it's my business. The only way you should care about it is if my act is hurting someone else. Which, unless you're considering having blueballs from not being able to join in "being hurt", is not hurting anyone.

 

 

 

So. You seem to claim sex and criminal sex are too close together. That's scary.

You seem to claim "positive sex" is bad. The solution is easy: don't practice it.

You seem to claim that women bring about their own exploitation. I dare you to repeat this to a woman who's been raped. All three, in fact.

 

 

 

And let me reiterate: If you don't see a big difference between sex and criminal sex, please keep you sex to your own hands, and stay away from others.

 

Unbelievable.

 

~mooey

[Ringer]

 

First, if you think that the difference between 'sex' and 'sex crime' is grey area even in principle, I would suggest you keep your genitalia inside your pants and never use them for sex, in fear you may accidentally be criminal with it.

 

 

I know and agree with what you are getting at, but I think think there is some grey area in some very specific circumstances. For example, I use to be of the mindset that while having sex if you wanted to try something do a kind of 'test run' of beginning to do it and gauge the reaction of your partner. If they said to stop or seemed not to enjoy it stop, if they seemed to enjoy it keep going. Once when this happened I was told that I did something that they did not want and they were thinking about getting police involved. I never thought when doing that I was being coercive or doing something non-consensual, but I was unknowingly. Most sexual crimes are completely non-grey, but sometimes things like this could be considered somewhat grey (pretty dark grey, but grey nonetheless). You may very well disagree, and I could see why one would, but I do think there are some specific times when it's slightly grey.

[mooeypoo]

I know and agree with what you are getting at, but I think think there is some grey area in some very specific circumstances. For example, I use to be of the mindset that while having sex if you wanted to try something do a kind of 'test run' of beginning to do it and gauge the reaction of your partner. If they said to stop or seemed not to enjoy it stop, if they seemed to enjoy it keep going. Once when this happened I was told that I did something that they did not want and they were thinking about getting police involved. I never thought when doing that I was being coercive or doing something non-consensual, but I was unknowingly. Most sexual crimes are completely non-grey, but sometimes things like this could be considered somewhat grey (pretty dark grey, but grey nonetheless). You may very well disagree, and I could see why one would, but I do think there are some specific times when it's slightly grey.

 

There are also some people (women and men, though admittedly mostly women) who abuse the sexual harassment laws to get revenge or get advancements at work, suing (or threatening to sue) people due to false charges. There are also occasions of false rape charges.

 

People abuse the law. That doesn't mean that there's no difference between sex and criminal sex.

 

 

I see what you mean, Ringer, but I think this distinction is incredibly important to stress over and over again.

 

~mooey

[Ringer]

There are also some people (women and men, though admittedly mostly women) who abuse the sexual harassment laws to get revenge or get advancements at work, suing (or threatening to sue) people due to false charges. There are also occasions of false rape charges.

 

People abuse the law. That doesn't mean that there's no difference between sex and criminal sex.

 

 

I see what you mean, Ringer, but I think this distinction is incredibly important to stress over and over again.

 

~mooey

 

And I wholeheartedly agree. I know why people say there is no grey area, and I say it myself at times, when speaking to people who use people abusing the system as an excuse to be apathetic or worse in these situations. Both sides , those who abuse the system and those who ignore the crimes, are equally disgusting, for lack of a better word. Because both of those groups undermine the seriousness of what happens in these situations and continue to make proper discussion of the topic impossible.

 

I am in no way advocating that there isn't a difference in sex and criminal, and apologize if it read that way. The vast majority of these crimes are no question black and white. Hell there are times when I get angry that certain things are technically legal, but again that's abusing the system. I figured someone may bring out one of those super specific examles to undermine your point, so I brought it up to avoid a page of discussion of back and forth of whether it was black and white or not.

 

[edit] Also, who do you think would win between our avatars? Badass blowtorch lady Vs. Gatling Kitty![/edit]

 

 

Edited November 12, 2012 by Ringer

[mooeypoo]

And I wholeheartedly agree. I know why people say there is no grey area, and I say it myself at times, when speaking to people who use people abusing the system as an excuse to be apathetic or worse in these situations. Both sides , those who abuse the system and those who ignore the crimes, are equally disgusting, for lack of a better word. Because both of those groups undermine the seriousness of what happens in these situations and continue to make proper discussion of the topic impossible.

 

I am in no way advocating that there isn't a difference in sex and criminal, and apologize if it read that way. The vast majority of these crimes are no question black and white. Hell there are times when I get angry that certain things are technically legal, but again that's abusing the system. I figured someone may bring out one of those super specific examles to undermine your point, so I brought it up to avoid a page of discussion of back and forth of whether it was black and white or not.

 

Agreed completely.

 

[edit] Also, who do you think would win between our avatars? Badass blowtorch lady Vs. Gatling Kitty![/edit]

The kitty, totally. It has 9 lives.

[Ringer]

The kitty, totally. It has 9 lives.

 

Yeah, but he's pretty fat. He may have spent a few on heart attacks already

[Keith*]

I believe a woman has the right and responsibility to be allowed to concentrate on raising her children to adulthood.

This is a need of the state, to have healthy raised adults, as:

The state cannot end death, so it needs healthy replacement adults to continue the state in the best condition it can function.

Healthy as defined as physically and mentally sound, within a reasonable loose standard, to allow for freedom of expression,

with minimal costs in criminal and physiological trauma to the state as a whole.

 

The state must recognize the breakdown in state needs above, when it fails to mandate training of K-5 grade children in requirements

of the state, pitfalls of unplanned sexual behavior, birth-planning and preparation.

A state that cannot hold it's citizen's hand, from birth to grave, is a failed state, and must be remodeled to assume that status explained above.

 

 

 

I'm sorry I had to talk funny there. I was trying to get it right in my own head. To get to the root. I believe I did.

Edited November 12, 2012 by Keith*

[Ringer]

I believe a woman has the right and responsibility to be allowed to concentrate on raising her children to adulthood.

 

Yes, because men bear no responsibility to take care of what they were half responsible for.

[Keith*]

Yes, because men bear no responsibility to take care of what they were half responsible for.

Yes, behind every irresponsible boy, is found irresponsibly trained adults.

The state has the prime responsibility in all aspects of training young men to be responsible.

A responsibly trained child is a responsibly prepared adult. They are one in the same.

[Ringer]

Yes, behind every irresponsible boy, is found irresponsibly trained adults.

The state has the prime responsibility in all aspects of training young men to be responsible.

A responsibly trained child is a responsibly prepared adult. They are one in the same.

 

I'm not really sure if you are agreeing with my sarcasm or being sarcastic yourself. Partly because I'm not to sure what you are talking about. Is the woman the state who has the 'right and responsibility to raise her child', and does the man not have just as much right and responsibility? If not then how is it solely the states responsibility to train responsible adults when that is what goes in to raising them?

[Keith*]

I'm not really sure if you are agreeing with my sarcasm or being sarcastic yourself. Partly because I'm not to sure what you are talking about. Is the woman the state who has the 'right and responsibility to raise her child', and does the man not have just as much right and responsibility? If not then how is it solely the states responsibility to train responsible adults when that is what goes in to raising them?

By concentrate on her child, I assume too she has an equally supportive husband. This is an ideal environment the state should be promoting-- since the time the wife and husband were children--birth to grave.

Those who have issues (that the state has failed to maintain training from birth to grave) must be rehabilitated. This is a complex form of retraining, which is different in nature for:

--irresponsible parents

--irresponsible children

--pregnant women who don't want to carry to term

--irresponsible parents who wont pay child support for a son who is irresponsible.

 

The above issues (I did not list them all) should not be a concern, distraction, to those birthed couples who are concentrating and responsible.

Rehab and training are two different worlds.

It is easier for the state to train everybody from childhood correctly, from the beginning, as the system is self-regulating.

Edited November 12, 2012 by Keith*

[jeskill]

So the way to "fix" women is to create a totalitarian state that enforces its worldview on all via brainwashing/coercion?

 

Yeah, that'll work.

Edited November 12, 2012 by jeskill

[Moontanman]

So the way to "fix" women is to create a totalitarian state that enforces its worldview on all via brainwashing/coercion?

 

Yeah, that'll work.

 

 

How about just providing actual sex education to children instead of lies and innuendos based on Fairy Tales and a false sense of value on sexual innocence for females?

[Phi for All]

By concentrate on her child, I assume too she has an equally supportive husband.

Well, this is wrong, and it's the fallacy that's at the heart of the abortion controversy. People with well-regulated lives assume everyone else's lives are like that as well, but that's not the reality of it. The context at conception is often very different from the context later on in the pregnancy or after a child is born. Men often skip out on women, or they show their true colors when faced with marriage and children when all they wanted was sex for an evening.

 

Saying the state should raise more responsible people doesn't negate the fact that abortions will always be sought, will always be necessary because life isn't perfect. It's barbaric to expect a woman to raise a child on her own, it's barbaric to risk her health on unsafe illegal abortion and no matter what education or prevention methods are made available, abortion will always need to remain an option.

 

It's insane to keep this chokehold on the idea of "life begins at conception". It doesn't begin there, it's an ongoing and developing process and it's hypocritical to attach some kind of overarching importance to that particular moment just because a sperm was successful at its job. Certainly the state should provide education and make birth control available, but abortion needs to be available as well because without it, we're not protecting the rights of women and we're not respecting the variables of reality.

[randomc]

Good piece by Peter Singer on the future of the sanctity of life debate in abortion and wider contexts;

http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/200509--.htm