Why is female sexuality and empowerment so deeply threatening to the conservative rel - Page 3

Skeptic Ginger · 4th June 2012, 09:01 AM

Originally Posted by tomwaits

It seemed like a simple question to me. I don't think it's absurd at all.

The absurd thing was Truethat posting straw men. I believe you missed that.

Originally Posted by tomwaits

Well, the point is that it's not tough tiddlywinks necessarily for the woman, since she has the option of having an abortion or using a morning after pill, an option which the man does not have.

Because having an abortion is such a minor thing.

As for the morning after pill, they are not always available. And sometimes birth control fails when the couple didn't realize it. You seem to have narrow view of the possible situations here.

Originally Posted by tomwaits

One method would be that if the mother decides to have the child against the father's wishes, then he shouldn't be liable for child support. ...

Off topic and extensively argued in other threads. The child isn't party to that arrangement. The responsibility was during the act of intercourse, at any point after that things are what they are.

Skeptic Ginger · 4th June 2012, 09:17 AM

Originally Posted by truethat

No you basically understand exactly what I'm saying. SG and others accuse me of being "draconian" as you say when I'm not. You can't force a woman to have an abortion. But you can force a man to have a child.

So we are talking about forcing men to have sex?

See Cain's post.

Originally Posted by truethat

Their argument (but only for the woman) is that birth control fails.

No, that is not anyone's argument, it's the way you distort reality to fit your beliefs. If birth control fails, both parties are responsible. You are judging, that because a woman can (in more and more limited circumstances) have an abortion, the father of the child shouldn't be on the hook for child support if he doesn't want a child. You are arguing that your version of "fair" trumps biology. I don't see it that way.

Originally Posted by truethat

My point is that it is wrong for a woman to have sex with a man without birth control and that if she does get pregnant she has many options available to her to prevent the unaffordable pregnancy. A man does not.

And others are pointing out to you that the options were equal at a different point along the process. Arguing the options are not equal later, when they were equal earlier doesn't cut it.

Originally Posted by truethat

What causes us to butt heads I guess is my knowing that there are a good number of women in the world that try to use pregnancy to "trap a guy" so to speak, into marrying her or being in a long term relationship with her. Not all women of course, or even the majority. (Sad that I have to post that but that's what I'm going to get accused of saying) But enough women that this creates a social issue when men cannot afford to pay child support. And the woman alone cannot afford to raise the child on her own.

Got any evidence of this stereotype?

Originally Posted by truethat

That's why single mothers are the highest number of people receiving public support in society. And this is one reason why so many people concern themselves with women's sexuality etc. It's not about oppression it's about our taxes being spent in a way they shouldn't need to be spent if women were more responsible about having children they can't afford to raise on their own.

Back to only the woman is responsible.

I'm guessing more than half of those women had a partner that abandoned them, they didn't have one night stands and decline abortions after the fact.

cartesy · 4th June 2012, 09:18 AM

Originally Posted by Dcdrac

Why is female sexuality and empowerment so deeply threatening to the conservative religious cultures? What would happen to those cultures if women were free to make their own sexual choices, and exercise their own personal power? Would free, healthy, sexual, productive women bring down a society or dramatically strengthen it?

Part of the answer is that it says so in the bible. The NT says that gays are an abomination and that wives should obey there husband. Of course, it also says that slavery is ok, and they're able to ignore that bit. But we can't expect them to ignore every nasty thing in the NT, that would be ludicrous

. They already have to justify to themselves why they're completely ignoring the horrible first half of the Bible (the OT)

truethat · 4th June 2012, 09:25 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

So we are talking about forcing men to have sex?

See Cain's post.

No, that is not anyone's argument, it's the way you distort reality to fit your beliefs. If birth control fails, both parties are responsible. You are judging, that because a woman can (in more and more limited circumstances) have an abortion, the father of the child shouldn't be on the hook for child support if he doesn't want a child. You are arguing that your version of "fair" trumps biology. I don't see it that way.

And others are pointing out to you that the options were equal at a different point along the process. Arguing the options are not equal later, when they were equal earlier doesn't cut it.

Got any evidence of this stereotype?

Back to only the woman is responsible.

I'm guessing more than half of those women had a partner that abandoned them, they didn't have one night stands and decline abortions after the fact.

Got any evidence for YOUR stereotype. How does a partner "abandon" them? A man is not required to stay with a woman. That's the blind spot you don't realize you have.

Many times a man "abandons" the woman because he feels she tried to trap him into a relationship using a baby. It happens. You don't want to admit it but it does happen.

As far as welfare goes, it happens a lot more than a woman in dire straights who through no fault of her own winds up with a child she cannot afford.

I am not stereotyping, I'm pointing out facts. Facts that have been backed up be ad nausem on here. You refuse to look at the facts, or try to twist the facts to support your own bias.

The fact is nearly half of all unwanted pregnancies were had by women who were not using birth control when they had sex.

Yes a man is definitely obligated to use a condom. Not just for pregnancy but also for health reasons.

You just dismiss the examples given by men as anecdotal. In my opinion when anecdotal evidence becomes a large percentage, is ceases to be merely anecdotal.

There are plenty of links in this thread you can use. I've probably given you over 30 links in the time we've had this discussion. You refuse to accept the facts. I've even posted links from extremely biased feminist sites that support the claim. You reject those as well.

Cain · 4th June 2012, 10:11 AM

Originally Posted by truethat

No you basically understand exactly what I'm saying. SG and others accuse me of being "draconian" as you say when I'm not. You can't force a woman to have an abortion. But you can force a man to have a child.

A couple of points. First, men definitely have to get better at talking women into having abortions. Right now we're a bit too focused on talking them into having sex. Everyone knows a Victor who has, like, nine baby-mamas because his argument is always: "I'm not ready to be a dad. I play X-Box nine hours a day." Your first play should always be "I love you too much to have a kid right now. Let's be honest, we're not ready yet." YET. It's teh same way you got laid: make false promises about how much you love her and how you're going to be together. "I want us to travel the world first. We have kids, deal with all that craziness, retire, and then travel the world again. See how much its changed. What do you say." If that's not working THEN you threaten to quit the Best Buy job and work under the table at your buddy's restaurant. Better yet, threaten to leave the country. Travel the world right now bangin' girls all across Latin America!

While women undoubtedly resort to "oops pregnancies" so they can play mommy/suck obscene sums of "child" support from a rich guy, I'm sympathetic to the rationale behind current laws (for reasons mentioned by tomwaits).

What would be the public policy implications if a man could opt out of child support by claiming he's in favor of abortion? Would we have fewer pregnancies? I doubt it. On the contrary, I think we'd probably have more because men would realize they could screw with fewer repercussions. The state would have to step in to provide assistance for unwanted children and fatherlessness would be even more widespread, a pattern that would no doubt be repeated in future generations.

Besides, you do not have even parity when it comes to raising a kid as females end up bearing most of the responsibilities. Big deal, Dad has to cut a check.

Men use deception to get women into bed, women use deception to keep men around. It's wrong for men to force women into sex, and it's wrong for women to cuckold men. A law with a favorable pain-to-glory ratio is one that would require mandatory paternity testing for all live births.

Silly Green Monkey · 4th June 2012, 04:06 PM

And when paternity tests do more than disqualify/fail to disqualify men as the child's male parent, perhaps that will make sense.

PhantomWolf · 4th June 2012, 09:32 PM

The article answers the question pretty well.

Certain cultures fail to teach males to control themselves, and instead have them blaming women for their lack of self control. I don't think it's a religous thing either, we see it throughout a lot of cultures around the world without the need for religion to be used. Also while the burqa is common in Middle Eastern Islamic contries, it is quite rare in non-Middle Eastern ones (Though as Middle Eastern Islam, specifically Wahhabism has had more influence on them it has increased) with women often having more powers as well. I'd actually suggest that it isn't even a case of right vs left, or conservative vs liberal, but rather Authoritarian vs Liberterian. I would suggest that the more authoritarian a society is, then the more repressed the people are, and since those who seem to gravitate to the positions of authority are male, they tend to not want to apply quite the same restrictions to themselves, so they repress the women more then the men to prevent themselves facing those restrictions.

Mark6 · 15th June 2012, 01:50 PM

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

The article answers the question pretty well.

Certain cultures fail to teach males to control themselves, and instead have them blaming women for their lack of self control. I don't think it's a religous thing either, we see it throughout a lot of cultures around the world without the need for religion to be used.

Latin America comes to mind

4th June 2012, 09:01 AM	#81
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,515	Originally Posted by tomwaits It seemed like a simple question to me. I don't think it's absurd at all. The absurd thing was Truethat posting straw men. I believe you missed that. Originally Posted by tomwaits Well, the point is that it's not tough tiddlywinks necessarily for the woman, since she has the option of having an abortion or using a morning after pill, an option which the man does not have. Because having an abortion is such a minor thing. As for the morning after pill, they are not always available. And sometimes birth control fails when the couple didn't realize it. You seem to have narrow view of the possible situations here. Originally Posted by tomwaits One method would be that if the mother decides to have the child against the father's wishes, then he shouldn't be liable for child support. ... Off topic and extensively argued in other threads. The child isn't party to that arrangement. The responsibility was during the act of intercourse, at any point after that things are what they are.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

4th June 2012, 09:17 AM	#82
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,515	Originally Posted by truethat No you basically understand exactly what I'm saying. SG and others accuse me of being "draconian" as you say when I'm not. You can't force a woman to have an abortion. But you can force a man to have a child. So we are talking about forcing men to have sex? See Cain's post. Originally Posted by truethat Their argument (but only for the woman) is that birth control fails. No, that is not anyone's argument, it's the way you distort reality to fit your beliefs. If birth control fails, both parties are responsible. You are judging, that because a woman can (in more and more limited circumstances) have an abortion, the father of the child shouldn't be on the hook for child support if he doesn't want a child. You are arguing that your version of "fair" trumps biology. I don't see it that way. Originally Posted by truethat My point is that it is wrong for a woman to have sex with a man without birth control and that if she does get pregnant she has many options available to her to prevent the unaffordable pregnancy. A man does not. And others are pointing out to you that the options were equal at a different point along the process. Arguing the options are not equal later, when they were equal earlier doesn't cut it. Originally Posted by truethat What causes us to butt heads I guess is my knowing that there are a good number of women in the world that try to use pregnancy to "trap a guy" so to speak, into marrying her or being in a long term relationship with her. Not all women of course, or even the majority. (Sad that I have to post that but that's what I'm going to get accused of saying) But enough women that this creates a social issue when men cannot afford to pay child support. And the woman alone cannot afford to raise the child on her own. Got any evidence of this stereotype? Originally Posted by truethat That's why single mothers are the highest number of people receiving public support in society. And this is one reason why so many people concern themselves with women's sexuality etc. It's not about oppression it's about our taxes being spent in a way they shouldn't need to be spent if women were more responsible about having children they can't afford to raise on their own. Back to only the woman is responsible. I'm guessing more than half of those women had a partner that abandoned them, they didn't have one night stands and decline abortions after the fact.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

4th June 2012, 09:18 AM	#83
cartesy New Blood Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 13	Originally Posted by Dcdrac Why is female sexuality and empowerment so deeply threatening to the conservative religious cultures? What would happen to those cultures if women were free to make their own sexual choices, and exercise their own personal power? Would free, healthy, sexual, productive women bring down a society or dramatically strengthen it? Part of the answer is that it says so in the bible. The NT says that gays are an abomination and that wives should obey there husband. Of course, it also says that slavery is ok, and they're able to ignore that bit. But we can't expect them to ignore every nasty thing in the NT, that would be ludicrous . They already have to justify to themselves why they're completely ignoring the horrible first half of the Bible (the OT)
cartesy New Blood Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 13

4th June 2012, 09:25 AM	#84
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,623	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger So we are talking about forcing men to have sex? See Cain's post. No, that is not anyone's argument, it's the way you distort reality to fit your beliefs. If birth control fails, both parties are responsible. You are judging, that because a woman can (in more and more limited circumstances) have an abortion, the father of the child shouldn't be on the hook for child support if he doesn't want a child. You are arguing that your version of "fair" trumps biology. I don't see it that way. And others are pointing out to you that the options were equal at a different point along the process. Arguing the options are not equal later, when they were equal earlier doesn't cut it. Got any evidence of this stereotype? Back to only the woman is responsible. I'm guessing more than half of those women had a partner that abandoned them, they didn't have one night stands and decline abortions after the fact. Got any evidence for YOUR stereotype. How does a partner "abandon" them? A man is not required to stay with a woman. That's the blind spot you don't realize you have. Many times a man "abandons" the woman because he feels she tried to trap him into a relationship using a baby. It happens. You don't want to admit it but it does happen. As far as welfare goes, it happens a lot more than a woman in dire straights who through no fault of her own winds up with a child she cannot afford. I am not stereotyping, I'm pointing out facts. Facts that have been backed up be ad nausem on here. You refuse to look at the facts, or try to twist the facts to support your own bias. The fact is nearly half of all unwanted pregnancies were had by women who were not using birth control when they had sex. Yes a man is definitely obligated to use a condom. Not just for pregnancy but also for health reasons. You just dismiss the examples given by men as anecdotal. In my opinion when anecdotal evidence becomes a large percentage, is ceases to be merely anecdotal. There are plenty of links in this thread you can use. I've probably given you over 30 links in the time we've had this discussion. You refuse to accept the facts. I've even posted links from extremely biased feminist sites that support the claim. You reject those as well.
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,623	__________________ “Do not argue with an idiot they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain

4th June 2012, 10:11 AM	#85
Cain Straussian Join Date: May 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 6,933	Originally Posted by truethat No you basically understand exactly what I'm saying. SG and others accuse me of being "draconian" as you say when I'm not. You can't force a woman to have an abortion. But you can force a man to have a child. A couple of points. First, men definitely have to get better at talking women into having abortions. Right now we're a bit too focused on talking them into having sex. Everyone knows a Victor who has, like, nine baby-mamas because his argument is always: "I'm not ready to be a dad. I play X-Box nine hours a day." Your first play should always be "I love you too much to have a kid right now. Let's be honest, we're not ready yet." YET. It's teh same way you got laid: make false promises about how much you love her and how you're going to be together. "I want us to travel the world first. We have kids, deal with all that craziness, retire, and then travel the world again. See how much its changed. What do you say." If that's not working THEN you threaten to quit the Best Buy job and work under the table at your buddy's restaurant. Better yet, threaten to leave the country. Travel the world right now bangin' girls all across Latin America! While women undoubtedly resort to "oops pregnancies" so they can play mommy/suck obscene sums of "child" support from a rich guy, I'm sympathetic to the rationale behind current laws (for reasons mentioned by tomwaits). What would be the public policy implications if a man could opt out of child support by claiming he's in favor of abortion? Would we have fewer pregnancies? I doubt it. On the contrary, I think we'd probably have more because men would realize they could screw with fewer repercussions. The state would have to step in to provide assistance for unwanted children and fatherlessness would be even more widespread, a pattern that would no doubt be repeated in future generations. Besides, you do not have even parity when it comes to raising a kid as females end up bearing most of the responsibilities. Big deal, Dad has to cut a check. Men use deception to get women into bed, women use deception to keep men around. It's wrong for men to force women into sex, and it's wrong for women to cuckold men. A law with a favorable pain-to-glory ratio is one that would require mandatory paternity testing for all live births.
	__________________ *Arrested Development* is coming back! Michael (to GOB): Get rid of the Seaward. Lucille: I’ll leave when I’m good and ready.

4th June 2012, 04:06 PM	#86
Silly Green Monkey Cowardly Lurking in the Shadows of Greatness Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Colorado Posts: 3,043	And when paternity tests do more than disqualify/fail to disqualify men as the child's male parent, perhaps that will make sense.

4th June 2012, 09:32 PM	#87
PhantomWolf Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Lost Deimos Moon Base Posts: 9,893	The article answers the question pretty well. Certain cultures fail to teach males to control themselves, and instead have them blaming women for their lack of self control. I don't think it's a religous thing either, we see it throughout a lot of cultures around the world without the need for religion to be used. Also while the burqa is common in Middle Eastern Islamic contries, it is quite rare in non-Middle Eastern ones (Though as Middle Eastern Islam, specifically Wahhabism has had more influence on them it has increased) with women often having more powers as well. I'd actually suggest that it isn't even a case of right vs left, or conservative vs liberal, but rather Authoritarian vs Liberterian. I would suggest that the more authoritarian a society is, then the more repressed the people are, and since those who seem to gravitate to the positions of authority are male, they tend to not want to apply quite the same restrictions to themselves, so they repress the women more then the men to prevent themselves facing those restrictions.
	__________________ It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871) My Apollo Page. 1 on 1 Debating Forum for Skeptics and sceptics.

15th June 2012, 01:50 PM	#88
Mark6 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,173	Originally Posted by PhantomWolf The article answers the question pretty well. Certain cultures fail to teach males to control themselves, and instead have them blaming women for their lack of self control. I don't think it's a religous thing either, we see it throughout a lot of cultures around the world without the need for religion to be used. Latin America comes to mind
Mark6 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,173	__________________ Gamemaster: "A horde of rotting zombies is shambling toward you. The sign over the door says 'Accounting'"