Let's have a calm, polite and substantial discussion about gender and sex

[Kitteh]

o look another thread about gender that turns into 'how to get laid' I'm sure that's exactly what this place needs

[Kitteh]

o look another thread about gender that turns into 'how to get laid' I'm sure that's exactly what this place needs

To be fair "you [plural or singular] need to get laid" could be posted in virtually every thread on the forum and would almost universally be appropriate and helpful advice.

Sure but going to this place for sex advice is...uh, yeah.

[Kitteh]

Honestly, I don't have much to say about the idea that feminism is about raising women over men or that feminists don't care about any problems men have or w.e other than lol. The thing is, I've never encountered someone who actually believes these things irl. They're really just a vocal group on the internet, which makes sense because these kinds of chronically stupid misunderstandings can only happen from behind a computer screen. The bigger problem irl is general apathy, a sense that feminism is a past movement and why should we care nowadays, the so-called "post-feminism", which is very different from internet neckbeard anti-feminism.

[Kitteh]

Honestly, I don't have much to say about the idea that feminism is about raising women over men or that feminists don't care about any problems men have or w.e other than lol. The thing is, I've never encountered someone who actually believes these things irl. They're really just a vocal group on the internet, which makes sense because these kinds of chronically stupid misunderstandings can only happen from behind a computer screen. The bigger problem irl is general apathy, a sense that feminism is a past movement and why should we care nowadays, the so-called "post-feminism", which is very different from internet neckbeard anti-feminism.

This.

Personally, the fact that women are, in fact not equal anywhere in the world despite all of the efforts of the feminist movement is pretty obvious. Yes, there are issues- such as child custody, and education, life expectancy, and so on where women are favored over men, and these are important. And it's important that there are people who are working on them- but it makes sense that these people be men. After all, men are the most adversely affected by these issues, we are the ones who have the most stake and understanding there. So I understand why feminists, per se, don't work on these issues. And I think these exceptions are generally just that - they are still subordinate to the general kyriarchy of social relations, which men, (as defined by the kyriarchy itself - as are the whole concepts of masculine and feminine) are placed on a higher position than women. I would say it is less about men vs. women per se than analysis and social critique, in general. Which also extends to race, class, sexual orientation, disability, body and beauty standards, and so on. Actually, the older I get, the more firmly rooted I see that this hierarchy is in multiple ways.

When it comes to women my thoughts are that they have it so much better in the U.S. compared to the middle east that no one should complain. Men have it better here too so I'm not complaining either.

lol, cuz everyone in the US has it better than people in Somalia nobody in America should ever complain about anything amirite?

[Kitteh]

The social conservative spin to this issue is even more disgusting than the rape chant itself. The ideas that stigmatize rape survivors in mainstream society are not the result of a drift away from sexually repressive Judeo-Christian standards of compulsive monogamy, they are the result of centuries of those attitudes affecting how we view sex and especially female sexuality. It should be blatantly obvious to anyone with a brain that there is a connection between religious attitudes that see virginity until marriage as a standard that everyone should follow (especially women, because obviously the valuation of virginity has never been applied equally to both genders by the church) and the belief that it's okay to rape a girl who gets blackout drunk at some party and then place some of the blame on her for "putting herself in that situation". The idea (on a micro level, as you put it) that banning frat parties is going to do anything to fight rape is born out of the same idiocy. The problem isn't that people have drifted away from the values that DC Al Fine thinks we should follow; it's that they've taken those values to their logical conclusion in modern society, and prescribing more of those values as the solution to this problem makes as much sense as prescribing cigarettes to treat lung cancer.

[Kitteh]

The social conservative spin to this issue is even more disgusting than the rape chant itself. The ideas that stigmatize rape survivors in mainstream society are not the result of a drift away from sexually repressive Judeo-Christian standards of compulsive monogamy, they are the result of centuries of those attitudes affecting how we view sex and especially female sexuality. It should be blatantly obvious to anyone with a brain that there is a connection between religious attitudes that see virginity until marriage as a standard that everyone should follow (especially women, because obviously the valuation of virginity has never been applied equally to both genders by the church) and the belief that it's okay to rape a girl who gets blackout drunk at some party and then place some of the blame on her for "putting herself in that situation". The idea (on a micro level, as you put it) that banning frat parties is going to do anything to fight rape is born out of the same idiocy. The problem isn't that people have drifted away from the values that DC Al Fine thinks we should follow; it's that they've taken those values to their logical conclusion in modern society, and prescribing more of those values as the solution to this problem makes as much sense as prescribing cigarettes to treat lung cancer.

For all the bluster, you've yet to show any evidence whatsoever for your logic. It's absurd because *gasp* social conservatives don't like rape either!!!!

Seriously, how does this follow in any other situation? "Dave Ramsey wants people to stay out of debt so obviously he loves it when loan sharks break debtor's legs."

The logical connection here is really simple: stating that a culture which "encourages sexual promiscuity" leads to rape relies on the notion that there is a connection between consensual promiscuity and rape, which is one of the biggest problems with secular discussion of rape and a huge part of the stigma faced by rape survivors. "Opposing rape" in itself is meaningless, obviously nobody seriously "supports rape". But that doesn't mean that one isn't [inadventantly] promoting the same ideas that stigmatize people who have been raped and make them less likely to report it, etc. Just like very few people actually believe white people are the superior race, but just because someone isn't personally bigoted doesn't mean that they don't support things that have racially discriminatory effects.

idk who Dave Ramsey is so not sure what that second part means

[Kitteh]

hmm, that is an interesting question, I'm not quite sure about. I'll admit to being biased in this regard and having a very different view of promiscuity than you do . I feel like part of the problem with what DC Al Fine said was not just disapproval of promiscuity in general, it was specifically linking cultural approval/toleration of promiscuity with rape. I don't think it's possible to make that argument in a way that doesn't perpetuate rape culture because that argument implicitly rests on a connection between promiscuity and rape that is extremely problematic. Whether you can make a critique of promiscuity in general though (not specifically as a cause of sexual abuse) is a little different I think. It definitely depends on what you base disapproval of promiscuity on; I don't the argument that human beings inherently crave love and emotional connection and that pursuing sex alone is unfulfilling as promoting negative discourses about rape necessarily (although I'd disagree with that argument on a number of points). I think it gets tricky when a moral element is added to the argument. It does seem like a slippery slope from moral/ethical disapproval of promiscuity (from a secular or religious standpoint), to the logical conclusion from that sexually promiscuous people are immoral or at least behaving immorally, to that immorality being considered relevant when those people are raped. I'm not sure how to avoid that...so tldr I guess that it's not impossible probably but definitely tough and maybe impossible when arguing from some standpoints.

[Kitteh]

Thank you for your answer! I agree with most of what you're saying here, aside from a few particular points that are probably obvious to both of us. (If they're not I can go into more detail but I feel like we have decent understandings of each other's viewpoints on this.)

haha yeah I think I can guess which points we disagree on here :b

[Kitteh]

yeah, I don't like when leftist people resort to this libertarianish argument of personal autonomy. like when people argue against anti-gay social conservatives with "how does someone being gay affect you?". you shouldn't support lgbt equality because you "don't mind people being gay, it doesn't affect me". you should support it because there is nothing morally wrong with being queer, or, in this case, nothing morally wrong with choosing to have sex with a bunch of people. leaving the argument at "well it doesn't affect you so don't push your views on other people" strikes me as a bit cowardly and not being willing to carry your arguments to their full, logical extent.

[Kitteh]

I disagree that that is how the gay rights movement has made progress. Actually I think its the opposite: people coming to realize that gay equality does affect them, albeit indirectly. It's pretty generally acknowledged that the strongest force behind increasing acceptance of lgbt people has been greater visibility; enough people coming out that mainstream society begins to realize that lgbt equality isn't something limited to some fringes in San Francisco, that it affects their own friends, family, children, people in their community even in small towns and rural places, etc. By making the issue personal, rather than something not relevant to them directly, it becomes a lot harder to believe that being gay is sinful or whatever because that means looking people you know and like[d] in the face and calling them sinners. That doesn't really seem like an example of people learning to not care because it doesn't affect them.

Also by "libertarian" I didn't mean like affiliated with the Libertarian Party or that ideology, more of like a general term. Same way some people use "liberal" in that situation with a very different meaning from how its commonly used (esp in the US). Maybe "laissez-faire" would have been better? idk that general kinda thing, you get what I'm trying to say.

[Kitteh]

I...don't generally view choice of ice cream flavor as a moral category?

Then you aren't a real American, Nathan... if that is your real name (and it doesn't sound very American either, ifyouknowwhatimean).

Well of course the only flavor for Real Americans is cookie dough.

I hope we can all agree on this.

[Kitteh]

yeah, I don't like when leftist people resort to this libertarianish argument of personal autonomy. like when people argue against anti-gay social conservatives with "how does someone being gay affect you?". you shouldn't support lgbt equality because you "don't mind people being gay, it doesn't affect me". you should support it because there is nothing morally wrong with being queer, or, in this case, nothing morally wrong with choosing to have sex with a bunch of people.

Two things... 1) People are busy.  If something doesn't affect me I don't give it any more thought.  We don't have time to ruminate over every single thing that doesn't affect us.

People evidently do pay some attention to this issue, it seems.

2) Sleeping with a bunch of people was scientifically proven to be a bad idea decades ago.  Where are people taking sex ed?!

Somewhere that doesn't greatly overhype the dangers of pregnancy and STDs from safe sex to scare kids into abstinence.

[Kitteh]

yeah, I don't like when leftist people resort to this libertarianish argument of personal autonomy. like when people argue against anti-gay social conservatives with "how does someone being gay affect you?". you shouldn't support lgbt equality because you "don't mind people being gay, it doesn't affect me". you should support it because there is nothing morally wrong with being queer, or, in this case, nothing morally wrong with choosing to have sex with a bunch of people.

Two things... 1) People are busy.  If something doesn't affect me I don't give it any more thought.  We don't have time to ruminate over every single thing that doesn't affect us.

People evidently do pay some attention to this issue, it seems.

I didn't use the words "everyone" and "never."  A lot of use come on this forum for recreation.  There are plenty of things we discuss on here just for the fun of it but at the end of the day our main thinking on a lot of it is who cares because either way it has no impact on my life.  That does not make us bad people.  I really don't want to think about gay marriage.  If someone is gay and wants to get married that's their business.  It wouldn't affect my marriage or whether I was friends with them.

Not talking about this forum, I'm talking about the fact that lgbt rights seems to be a pretty big deal for very very many straight people on all sides of the issue.

2) Sleeping with a bunch of people was scientifically proven to be a bad idea decades ago.  Where are people taking sex ed?!

Somewhere that doesn't greatly overhype the dangers of pregnancy and STDs from safe sex to scare kids into abstinence.

Sounds like you got "taught" in a bizarro world version of Texas.  Any medical text will tell you increasing the number of sex partners in a life time is correlated with increased morbidity and mortality.  I prefer to get my information from peer reviewed scientific studies not a Burning Man rumor mill.  It's interesting that you have to trot out the strawman of abstinence in order to defend promiscuity.  I don't think saying to a kid use a condom and try to only change monogamous sex partners only once every two or three years qualifies as "abstinence."  Would you advise a 16 year old that it is totally okay to sleep with HUNDREDS of people in a 10 year period as long as they use a condom?  Do you have any idea how reckless that type of advice is?

I'd be interested in seeing the studies you're talking about, actually.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1) Correlation != causation obvs

2) Meaningless unless controlled for safe-sex practices.

The basic point here is that:

*contrary to popular misconception, the vast majority of STDs are either curable, usually asymptomatic, or very easily prevented with vaccination (HIV and to some extent herpes which is often asymptomatic are the only ones that don't fall into one of those categories)

*again contrary to popular belief this isn't the 80s anymore, with proper treatment an HIV+ person can live with few health effects

*the risk of acquiring an STD is highly dependent on demographic factors (being black/latin@, poor, a gay man, etc),

and most importantly

*nobody is saying that having dozens of sexual partners is harmless, but that given that the risks are smaller than popularly believed can be reduced greatly with safer sex practices the risk-benefit scale is on the side of not letting the fear of STDs stop you from having sex with someone you really want to

[Kitteh]

*contrary to popular misconception, the vast majority of STDs are either curable, usually asymptomatic, or very easily prevented with vaccination (HIV and to some extent herpes which is often asymptomatic are the only ones that don't fall into one of those categories)

And you think that is a good thing?!  Wow.  What are they teaching kids in sex ed these days.  Asymptomatic STIs that can be treated are the worst because people don't know they have them.  They pass them on to other people and then one day years down the road they can't get pregnant and wonder why.  There are so many sad stories out there caused by asymptomatic STIs.  Putting propaganda on the internet that asymptomatic is a nice feature is crazy.  Seriously.  Read the scientific literature.

*contrary to popular misconception, the vast majority of STDs are either curable, usually asymptomatic, or very easily prevented with vaccination (HIV and to some extent herpes which is often asymptomatic are the only ones that don't fall into one of those categories)

Nice.  I was wondering which @$$holes I had to thank for this...



Yeah.  Just keep on ph-cking.  Everything is gonna be peachy... until it isn't.

I don't have time to dump a medical library on you right now but sufficed to say everything else you said was equally absurd and in some cases even more dangerous.

To the other forum members please do not listen to a word this guy has to say on this topic.  What he is saying is totally reckless and contrary to every piece of published scientific literature I've ever seen.  Use common sense.  Eating carrots, running, and having sex are all good things... in moderation.  Wrap it up and try and minimize your number of sex partners.

So far you've proven that you don't know what the word asymptomatic means (hint: infertility is a symptom, therefore a STD which leads to infertility is by definition not asymptomatic) and that gonorrhea is becoming more resistant to antibiotics used to treat it (which bacteria have a tendency to do, because of this thing called natural selection).

Frankly though, I don't think "minimizing your number of sex partners" is going to be a problem for you or most of the people reading this.

[Kitteh]

Some interesting points here, can't write something long because on phone, maybe later;

Angus: "free speech" doesn't mean "I can say whatever I want and nobody can criticize me for it". it means "I can say whatever I want and the govt can't put me in jail or kill me for it". Obvs you can believe that people should have the right to say idiotic bullsh!t and still tell them that what they're saying is idiotic bullish!t.

Gustaf: I absolutely agree with this. For me, I think about it a lot in relation to having very submissive and somewhat masochistic sexual/romantic preferences and how that relates to my own gender. Or that I actually *like* shaving my legs and...other areas, despite the fact that I dislike the social pressure on women to stay clean-shaven. Is that "my own preference" or have I picked it up from society? Yeah in the end it is impossible to separate out what is "really you" and what is socially influenced. I guess the best answer is just to do whatever works for you and others, don't do things because society tells you to if you don't want to but if you don't mind fitting into social roles than w/e. Not 100% satisfied with that answer but it seems alright. Still something I ponder a lot.

[Kitteh]

Gustaf: I absolutely agree with this. For me, I think about it a lot in relation to having very submissive and somewhat masochistic sexual/romantic preferences and how that relates to my own gender. Or that I actually *like* shaving my legs and...other areas, despite the fact that I dislike the social pressure on women to stay clean-shaven. Is that "my own preference" or have I picked it up from society? Yeah in the end it is impossible to separate out what is "really you" and what is socially influenced. I guess the best answer is just to do whatever works for you and others, don't do things because society tells you to if you don't want to but if you don't mind fitting into social roles than w/e. Not 100% satisfied with that answer but it seems alright. Still something I ponder a lot.

Both. It is a personal preference you have picked up from living in your society. I would argue that that is the case for most personal preferences. I think whether something is "really you" or "socially-influenced" is a false dichotomy. Everyone internalizes the society they grew up in, and "you" wouldn't be "you" without your society.  I fail to see any conflict between social influence and personal autonomy.

Similarly, I think there is a false dichotomy between what is socially-constructed and what is natural. I think people tend to forget that what they're calling "social constructs" have influenced biological evolution and been influenced by biological evolution. I don't think it is even possible, and perhaps not even desirable, to separate out nature from social constructs. I actually think there is nothing wrong with having social norms, and indeed humans could never function without social norms. The only problem is when social expectations become too rigid or unrealistic.

I generally agree, and I'd also add along the "'socially constructed' vs 'biologically innate' is a false dichotomy" line that given increasing understanding of neuroplasticity it's very possible that social influences can lead to biological differences within an individual's lifetime. Like for example it seems like it'd make sense that if girls are socially pressured away from math beginning in childhood than that would result in physical differences in regions of the brain having to do with mathematical processing by adulthood.