I don't know that I'd feel motivated to boycott Dawkins over this (OSC says things that upset me on a regular basis and I haven't stopped buying his books). But I haven't actually paid money to read Dawkin's stuff anyway.
What makes me most upset is the comments on the first article.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I might be missing something here, but, I think I'm with Richard Dawkins on this one.
A man very politely asked her to have coffee with him, and then promptly leaves her alone when she says no.
What's the problem exactly?
Why does she need to ridicule the poor nervous guy who asked her if she wanted to talk? He wasn't being sexually forward or aggressive or pushy. He didn't call her any names or leer at her or touch her. He asked her if she wanted to have coffee and talk. And she tears him apart for it.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
Not that I'm defending her, but there's a difference between being approached during the day and invited for a coffee date in a public place versus being invited to someone's hotel room at 4am while in an enclosed space. Its the sort of situation that can make a girl nervous.
Still, I think her posting about the story online is in poor taste (and I say that having done something similar and feeling bad about it now.) However, Dawkin's response seems to be in even poorer taste. Personally, I wasn't a fan of the man beforehand as I find militant atheists as stupid as militant Christians.
I do find it kind of sad that even after her talk, this man seemed oblivious to the uncomfortable situation he was putting her in.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Dawkins, being insufferable? Why I never!
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I didn't see her comments as ridiculing. She wasn't saying the guy was a horrible person. She said he did something that came across as awkward and creepy, and people in general should try not to come across as awkward and creepy. I think this is perfectly good advice. She didn't use his name or anything that I've seen.
Some additional comments she made on her blog (in response to someone stating he might not have meant anything sexual)
quote:There is a small chance that this man meant nothing sexual in his comment, despite the fact that I had clearly indicated my wish to go to bed (alone) and the fact that the bar had coffee and therefore there was absolutely zero reason to go to anyone’s hotel room to have it. Sure. There’s a chance.
But regardless, the point I was making was that people need to be aware of how their comments might make someone feel extraordinarily uncomfortable and even feel as though they are in danger. This person failed to recognize that even though I had been speaking about little else all day long.
[ July 17, 2011, 04:17 AM: Message edited by: Raymond Arnold ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Dogbreath, have you read what she actually said herself about the encounter? Not what others say to describe it, but her own telling? I ask because it doesn't sound like you did, judging by the words you're using such as 'tear him apart'.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
It's possible the man was creepy.
It's also possible that Rebecca Watson has an unhealthy anxiety about and fear of males.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:It's possible the man was creepy.
It's also possible that Rebecca Watson has an unhealthy anxiety about and fear of males.
At this point, I'm less annoyed and more amused that you can say this with a straight face.
When Rebecca Watson just spent the day explaining in detail why she finds men doing that sort of thing creepy, going ahead and doing it anyway makes you creepy, period. At best in an incompetent, pathetic sort of way and at worst in a genuinely creepy way.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Rakeesh: Yes. I also read some through the comments, where she, at different points, calls him creepy and pathetic, talks about how he totally doesn't get her and obviously sees her as a a sexual object, and is otherwise uncharitable toward him.
I think she'd be totally justified and I'd support her bashing if the guy in question had been pushy or sexually explicit in his comments, especially if he kept on pursuing her after she said no. That is a very serious problem that needs to be addressed - guys assuming girls want to be pursued and not taking no for an answer. But she's taking a guy who, by her own account, was polite and friendly and merely asked her if she wanted to talk, and saying "don't act like this." That's just stupid.
From Raymond's quote of her: "people need to be aware of how their comments might make someone feel extraordinarily uncomfortable and even feel as though they are in danger."
You can't get much tamer than "I find you very interesting, and I would like to talk more." That's not a comment that makes me feel extraordinarily uncomfortable or in danger whatsoever. It's just about the opposite.
That being said, I wouldn't have gone back to his room either, but I would've replied "no thanks, I need to get to sleep" or something and been done with it. I figure he'd probably feel embarrassed enough by himself without going online and telling 75000 people about how stupid and pathetic he was.
If the guy wanted a better chance at talking with her alone, he could've gone up to her in the bar and asked her if she wanted to meet for coffee the next morning. I certainly don't think he was very smooth or socially gifted. But it's obvious from the story he's a well meaning dweeb, not a ravenous sex starved predator.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
It's presumptuous on her part to assume that she was being hit on rather than merely being invited back to the dude's apartment for a pleasant conversation, which was why airing the incident is fairly tacky -- as if she's advertising that someone might have possibly found her sexually attractive and she rejected him.
Indeed, to take her at word is ridiculous. For if the guy was in fact hitting on her, his only crime is making her feel "uncomfortable." If he was suave and not the nerd beta male he most certainly was, there might not have been discomfort on her part and might have had herself a pleasant early morning in his arms, and we not have heard of the incident. But no, the dude was an awkward geek.
Plus I would think the guy might have felt comfortable enough to do what he did considering that they had been hanging (in a group) for hours before the incident.
Again, the man might have been guilty of creepiness but the chick in question might be guilty of militant feminism and of envy/hatred of male desire.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
And it is also in fact very rational for the dude in question to have made that overture in that way (when they were secluded). Why would he risk the embarrassment of getting rejected in front of so many others?
Miss Watson simply lacks empathy for men. Militant feminism will do that to you.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Since I know from first hand experience how easily one can conflate different users with similar (but at the core, very different) arguments, I want to stress I'm not of the same mind as Sa'eed on this. I have no issue with feminism, or Rebecca Watson, and I think her actions were for the most part appropriate. I do have a problem with how discourteous she's being towards the gentleman who asked her to talk: I feel like she's set her figurative sites on the wrong target. The man did her no harm.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Whenever I have been made to feel uncomfortable by male attention - because it was late, or I was alone, or it was inappropriate, or it was overly aggressive - I have been told that I should feel flattered. And then told that I shouldn't even mention it, because it's just showing off, or because it's mean to the unnamed man.
It's not that the people concerned necessarily knew that they were doing something creepy. They probably had no clue. That is the problem.
For me, there are times and places where coming on to women (even a stranger) is okay. In social settings, where she's not alone. In safe, unthreatening places, where she feels secure.
When someone does something stupid or disturbing, I think it's good, for everyone, to be made aware that this is not something that you have to just put up with, or be grateful for. And women should be told, in exactly the same way, if something they have done is simply not alright or appropriate.
As for Dawkins, my opinion of him as a scientist is through the roof but the view of him in the media as some sort of atheist Pope makes my blood boil. As an atheist, he does not speak for me, and to me a lot of the things he says about religion are awful and completely unjustified.
So the fact that he's said something else that is hurtful, badly thought out and out-of-proportion to the problem at hand, doesn't exactly surprise me.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Again, the man might have been guilty of creepiness but the chick in question might be guilty of militant feminism and of envy/hatred of male desire.
quote:Miss Watson simply lacks empathy for men. Militant feminism will do that to you.
Sa'eed branching off from a thinly veiled starting point to start making presumptuous and creepy denigrations against a woman?
Why
I
Never Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Inconceivable!
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Since I know from first hand experience how easily one can conflate different users with similar (but at the core, very different) arguments, I want to stress I'm not of the same mind as Sa'eed on this.
I actually caught myself starting to conflate you. I realized it on my own, but it was a good reminder. I wanted to ignore him completely, but he made one point that's a little interesting that ties in with everything else.
quote:When I started this site, I didn’t call myself a feminist. I had a hazy idea that feminism was a good thing, but it was something that other people worried about, not me. I was living in a time and culture that had transcended the need for feminism, because in my world we were all rational atheists who had thrown off our religious indoctrination so that I could freely make rape jokes without fear of hurting someone who had been raped.
And then I would make a comment about how there could really be more women in the community, and the responses from my fellow skeptics and atheists ranged from “No, they’re not logical like us,” to “Yes, so we can **** them!” That seemed weird.
So I started speaking more about women. About how they’re not idiots. About how they can think logically but maybe there are other social pressures keeping them away from our message, like how we tell women they should be quiet and polite and not question what is told to them. I spoke about how people need role models, and there were so few women on stage at these events.
And I got messages from women who told me about how they had trouble attending pub gatherings and other events because they felt uncomfortable in a room full of men. They told me about how they were hit on constantly and it drove them away. I didn’t fully get it at the time, because I didn’t mind getting hit on. But I acknowledged their right to feel that way and I started suggesting to the men that maybe they relax a little and not try to get in the pants of every woman who walks through the door. Maybe they could wait for her to make the first move, just in case.
And then, for the past few years as the audience for Skepchick and SGU grew, I’ve had more and more messages from men who tell me what they’d like to do to me, sexually. More and more men touching me without permission at conferences. More and more threats of rape from those who don’t agree with me, even from those who consider themselves skeptics and atheists. More and more people telling me to shut up and go back to talking about Bigfoot and other topics that really matter.
And I said no. I learned more about modern feminism and about how their goals so clearly overlapped those of the humanists and skeptics and secularists, and I wrote and spoke more about the issues within that overlap because so few other skeptics were doing it.
So here we are today. I am a feminist, because skeptics and atheists made me one. Every time I mention, however delicately, a possible issue of misogyny or objectification in our community, the response I get shows me that the problem is much worse than I thought,
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee: Whenever I have been made to feel uncomfortable by male attention - because it was late, or I was alone, or it was inappropriate, or it was overly aggressive - I have been told that I should feel flattered. And then told that I shouldn't even mention it, because it's just showing off, or because it's mean to the unnamed man.
I suppose the key word there is male attention. What qualifies exactly? A smile and a "hello"? An introduction? More than that, what should a male reasonably expect to be inappropriate? By her account, this guy had been at the convention and had been hanging out in her group at the bar for a few hours, I don't think asking her if she wanted to get coffee and talk is inappropriate, or something that should make her uncomfortable.
I wouldn't even mind that it is something that makes her uncomfortable, or even her asking her fans not to come up and talk to her like that, it's the fact she accuses this guy of sexualising her and disrespecting her wishes and so forth, and calls him pathetic and threatening. (Her panel, btw, was about people sending her crude e-mails. She said nothing about guys hanging out with her or meeting her for coffee)
There are obvious things you *shouldn't* do when you're alone with a girl you don't really know: any form of touching, making sexual comments, being aggressive or pushy. Casual conversation, on the other hand, seems appropriate. I met one of my girlfriends sitting outside my building smoking, just the two of us, and at night even! Not all women are nervous around men. I've met several random girls who've talked my ears off in elevators.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
quote: Casual conversation, on the other hand, seems appropriate.
Oh, I'm obviously not against casual conversations between men and women in random places. I have those all the time!
I just feel that there is a big difference between having a nice chat, or, out of the blue, being pressed to go home with a random stranger, or to get into his car and go with him to a 'party', or being invited back to his hotel room.
And sometimes, this then leads to you being followed. Or shouted at. Or chased. Or grabbed.
And each time one of these things happens, it makes you more wary the next time some random stranger in an uncomfortable situation gives you one of these unwanted invitations. It's not being nervous around men. It's being worried about your well-being in inappropriate situations.
As I see it, nice casual conversations at night, just chatting and having a smoke outside where you live or work is not the same situation at all.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Raymond Arnold: I suppose I can understand her point of view better reading that, but it still doesn't explain her going off on a guy who by all appearances isn't sexually harassing her.
I'm very well acquainted with heavily male dominated communities. I'm part of an organization that's 97% male. On the other hand, our females are some of the most dangerous, strong, brutal women on Earth. They're used to being alone with men, are very used to getting hit on (and very openly and crudely at that), and can dish it out just as well as they take. I'm not sure if the cause is sexism or just the expected result of putting lots of extremely physically fit sexually frustrated young people together. If it's worth anything, male Marines hit on each other (jokingly) with far more frequency and intensity than they hit on females.
...But when I imagine an awkward young man asking a female Marine if she wanted to get coffee and talk, I imagine her response would be to hug him and say "aww, you're so adorable." It's difficult for me to imagine this as a threatening situation. If these atheist conventions are anything like my workplace, why did she choose the respectful coffee guy to gripe about instead of one of the assholes who come up and touch her or proposition her?
Bella Bee:
I think what's going on is how I see the situation in my mind (I've never in my life felt sexually threatened) and how you and Rebecca Watson see is very, very different. I'm only looking at how he actually acted - was polite, left her alone after she said no, etc., whereas you're seeing how him placing himself in a position where other men might act inappropriately is in itself inappropriate, because of past encounters Rebecca might have had.
You can only take that so far, though. I was always taught "ask politely, the worst that can happen is she says no," whereas now it's "even if you ask politely, it still might make her think you're a rapist?" I'd be more worried about the guys who are being physically forward with you.
[ July 17, 2011, 12:08 PM: Message edited by: Dogbreath ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It didn't take Sa'eed long at all to show his true colors. Initially I thought this might be one of his threads not designed to troll his agenda, too. More fool me!
-------
Dogbreath,
quote:Yes. I also read some through the comments, where she, at different points, calls him creepy and pathetic, talks about how he totally doesn't get her and obviously sees her as a a sexual object, and is otherwise uncharitable toward him.
I think she'd be totally justified and I'd support her bashing if the guy in question had been pushy or sexually explicit in his comments, especially if he kept on pursuing her after she said no. That is a very serious problem that needs to be addressed - guys assuming girls want to be pursued and not taking no for an answer. But she's taking a guy who, by her own account, was polite and friendly and merely asked her if she wanted to talk, and saying "don't act like this." That's just stupid.
Well, let's be clear. She wasn't just criticizing him because he asked her to talk. When you describe it like that, you're stripping the event of its context. And I don't mean that by asking her for coffee in his hotel room at 4am, he wasn't really asking her for coffee and conversation (though frankly-and none of us can know, really-I think it's pretty unlikely 'coffee and talk' was really just coffee and talk. Knowing dudes, I expect it was something like 'coffee and talk and if something else happens great!'
No, she was critical of him because after a day of talks and detailed discussions-to which he was a listener-about how she didn't like being approached in a sexual way at these meetings, how uncomfortable it made her and many women, how she didn't appreciate the way women at such gatherings are treated as 'hey let's date!' rather than 'hey let's talk about rationalism!', etc., this guy then went ahead and behaved in a way that (by appearances, and she cannot be faulted for thinking this, btw*) that specifically contradicted all of it. And he knew what she thought about that, and why, and did so anyway.
So that's why she wasn't criticizing him just for asking to talk.
quote:You can't get much tamer than "I find you very interesting, and I would like to talk more." That's not a comment that makes me feel extraordinarily uncomfortable or in danger whatsoever. It's just about the opposite.
What if that was coupled with an invitation to spend time alone with someone in their hotel room at 4am, after a day of talking about why you didn't want that kind of thing right now?
quote:That being said, I wouldn't have gone back to his room either, but I would've replied "no thanks, I need to get to sleep" or something and been done with it. I figure he'd probably feel embarrassed enough by himself without going online and telling 75000 people about how stupid and pathetic he was.
Embarrassed how? I mean, did she name him? Describe him? Give out his email address?
quote:If the guy wanted a better chance at talking with her alone, he could've gone up to her in the bar and asked her if she wanted to meet for coffee the next morning. I certainly don't think he was very smooth or socially gifted. But it's obvious from the story he's a well meaning dweeb, not a ravenous sex starved predator.
It's really not obvious at all, given the context. Well, it's obvious he wasn't a ravenous sex-starved predator (some of those terms are contradictory, btw, in that sexual predators are not necessarily sex-starved). If he was, the story would've had a much more awful ending.
But by making the either/or those two extremes, you're actually doing the same kind of thing Dawkins himself did: "It wasn't the most awful kind of male-female interaction, therefore it was unobjectionable." He may very well have been a well-meaning dweeb, but how is she to know? What signs did he give to show that aspect? Asking her for coffee alone in his hotel room at 4am, after listening to her talk about at great length why that sort of thing was objectionable to her? Is that why he's a well-meaning dweeb?
quote:I'm very well acquainted with heavily male dominated communities. I'm part of an organization that's 97% male. On the other hand, our females are some of the most dangerous, strong, brutal women on Earth. They're used to being alone with men, are very used to getting hit on (and very openly and crudely at that), and can dish it out just as well as they take. I'm not sure if the cause is sexism or just the expected result of putting lots of extremely physically fit sexually frustrated young people together. If it's worth anything, male Marines hit on each other (jokingly) with far more frequency and intensity than they hit on females.
And that's really just a starter. Do you really want to suggest that the military handles rape well? Though to be honest, in a grim and realistic kind of way, I'm not surprised-people being people, the shift from male-only to gender-integrated was never going to be (in terms of what would actually happen) anything but dreadfully messy.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Heck no. I know for a fact that it's handled terribly. I would like to say that the article is discussing soldiers, i.e, the Army - which actually has an appreciable number of females. Females are very rare around here, and are legitimately much, much tougher. We're also much more close knit. I'm rather tired (it's 1:13 am here) so maybe I'm not writing as clearly as I could, but my point was "I know how much it sucks for females in a male dominated field."
I was comparing some of the really monstrous sex offenders we've seen, and the sort of flak females have to take daily from guys who aren't rapists but still make their lives a lot harder, to the polite coffee guy. It's not a lesser evil comparison, it's a "I can't really perceive this as threatening at all, he's awkward, not predatory" comparison. apples and orangutangs, not sticks and trees.
(FWIW, there are more male-on-male rapes yearly in the Marines than there are male-on-female. A statistic I heard from the UVA)
[ July 17, 2011, 12:40 PM: Message edited by: Dogbreath ]
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
Regarding the gentleman's intentions:
If my husband were at a conference and a woman in an elevator at 4am asked him up to her room for coffee and chat, I'd expect him to decline. Because the most likely interpretation is that he is being hit on, and our understanding as a married couple precludes acceptance of such invitations.
Now, maybe this person just wanted to chat. Maybe this person is a time-travelling Russian spy trying to defect and needs a contact, or maybe this person is socially awkward in spades and really just wants to pin someone down to sign them up on Amway. Who knows? I still expect my husband to decline, and he and I would still refer to it as "that time he got hit on in the elevator at that conference." I'm fine with that.
I'm also fine with RW describing the event in general terms and reminding men who attend such conferences of how it may be taken. As Bella Bee said:
quote:Whenever I have been made to feel uncomfortable by male attention - because it was late, or I was alone, or it was inappropriate, or it was overly aggressive - I have been told that I should feel flattered. And then told that I shouldn't even mention it, because it's just showing off, or because it's mean to the unnamed man.
It's not that the people concerned necessarily knew that they were doing something creepy. They probably had no clue. That is the problem.
She didn't call him out by name, she didn't compare herself to a woman at risk of FGM, she didn't call to castrate the guy. Essentially, she said: "Look, if I have just spent the day talking about why it is a bad idea to hit on me and how uncomfortable it makes these conventions -- and you were there listening to me -- then don't follow it up by hitting on me*** when I'm alone in an elevator with you at 4am later on."
I'm fine with that. If women never mention it, then [some] guys won't know, so now she has said it. The More You Know!
--- ***(see above)
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
It's not "she should've accepted his offer" it's "his offer and behavior aren't actually in any way threatening."
*sigh*
Screw it. I know when I've been beat. Unless we get more information about the motives and devices of this coffee dealing ne'er do well (like maybe he posts his side of the story), I'm done defending him. Maybe someone else will take up the cause.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
So ... (and I'm not setting you up, just really, honestly trying to get a feel for where you are coming from) ... Dogbreath, if your girlfriend were at a conference and leaving a bar which served coffee, and a guy ducked into the elevator with her at 4am and asked her up to his room for coffee and chat, and she asked you what his likeliest intentions were --
-- would you really say, "Oh, he probably just wanted to chat and have a cup of coffee before sending you off to your own room alone," regardless of whether you exected her to accept or decline? I mean, if she were to ask for your honest appraisal of the intent behind the invitation (in order to better understand how to deal with guys, say), what would you tell her?
--
Added: I ask because in my playbook, that falls under "hitting on." Whether one sees it as threatening or not, it is in fact just what RW had been talking about all day as unwelcome behavior.
Behavior does not have to be threatening to be unwelcomed. It may be; it may not. Regardless, if it is a purely social interaction and you know it will be unwelcome, then don't do that, eh? Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
It is actually pretty phenomenally easy to imagine that the situation could have been pretty creepy. And you could put the odds that he just wanted to have coffee in the hotel room at somewhere around, oh, I don't know, one percent?
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by CT: Regardless, if it is a purely social interaction and you know it will be unwelcome, then don't do that, eh?
DISCLAIMER:
That was a purely generic "you" and "eh." I am certain Dogbreath would not pursue unwelcome behavior; far from it.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
From reviews of the panel, she had actually been talking about getting crude e-mails and guys who disagreed with her sending rape threats and the perception that females were inherently less capable of logical thought than males. The point of being hit on by (presumably kind, respectful) men didn't come up, though obviously she thought it was implied. The reason I keep on bringing up "threatening" is because it's the word RW herself used on her blog, and many of the posters there are making the guy out to be a would be rapist, which strikes a raw nerve with me for some reason.
In the girlfriend scenario, TBH my first reaction would be "he's probably hitting on you." My second would be "maybe he has Asperger's Syndrome." As far as advice for how to handle the situation, I'd tell her to tell him "sorry, I need to get to sleep. Maybe you'd like to get coffee tomorrow afternoon... I'll invite my big, beautiful, hunkish boyfriend who I love very very much to join us. Did I mention I have a boyfriend?" If his intentions are just to get laid, he'll beg off. If he's legitimately interested in conversation, well, so much the better, right?
For some reason I can't shake the feeling the dude really did want to talk to her. I mean, he starts off by saying "don't take this the wrong way." Perhaps he's sitting somewhere in Dublin totally baffled by all of this.
I want to somewhat distance myself from this, though... I'm fairly ept, socially. I can understand exactly where this guy went wrong and don't think he went about things the best way. But I think because I've been defending him as a being a non-rapist, and friendly and polite, people have assumed I share his rather unorthodox methods.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by CT: That was a purely generic "you" and "eh." I am certain Dogbreath would not pursue unwelcome behavior; far from it.
Worry not, I eschew uncouth behavior. And also don't believe in fornicating with strangers. Or hitting on minor atheist celebrities, for that matter. Though I do have the tendency to smile at and greet and hold the door for young ladies, and occasionally tell my female friends "you look lovely today", it's merely preparation for my future career as a dirty old man. I derive no enjoyment from it.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: I want to somewhat distance myself from this, though... I'm fairly ept, socially. I can understand exactly where this guy went wrong and don't think he went about things the best way. But I think because I've been defending him as a being a non-rapist, and friendly and polite, people have assumed I share his rather unorthodox methods.
Understood.
For what it's worth, I will leave this part of the conversation thinking of you as a kindly and more sophisticated older brother trying to smooth out a little social awkwardness on behalf of his less-ept sib.
I'm glad we have all been talking about this, though, including in the broader 'net context. I know many guys find women hard to understand. I think talking about situations like this may help the understanding. It isn't necessary that we agree on interpretations presented by one another, but it may well be helpful to know what the other's likely interpretations are.
Presumably most all of us don't want to make other people uncomfortable for no good reason, even if we wouldn't ourselves be uncomfortable in the same situation. This is why my sweet husband has a wee discussion about "appropriate dinner conversation" with me before we have dinner with his family -- I am used to hanging out with providers of care for young children in diapers, and they are relatively elderly and reserved. So we talk about politics and religion! Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
I probably should not wade into this one at all but I guess I just have to make a couple comments.
1. Had I been this guy and just wanted to talk to her (not angling for sex at all) I would have asked her out for coffee at the bar or a nearby shop. Asking her to my room seems like a bad idea to me.
2. If I was hoping for sex, yeah then I would ask her to come to my room. Well actually, I think I still would have asked her to join me someplace public first. Women generally don't respond well to "in my room" propositions when they are a complete stranger. A public place is more comfortable and gives a chance to talk and get to know each other first. Then if things are going well, I might ask for something private.
3. Maybe I am having some reading comprehension problems but I can't quite figure out what point Dawkins was trying to make in his original comment. Especially since he was not talking to Watson, merely referencing her comments in his comments to someone else. I have no idea of the rest of the context of that discussion. Never the less, his comments definitely seem to be in very poor taste.
[ July 17, 2011, 03:23 PM: Message edited by: Wingracer ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It didn't take Sa'eed long at all to show his true colors. Initially I thought this might be one of his threads not designed to troll his agenda, too.
On the other hand, it took him a whole post. Imagine the kind of self-restraint that might have taken him, the sheer strain of internalizing his thoughts for that long.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Standards for social interactions are at least slightly different for just about everyone, of course. But I'm curious, at least about the subset of `rackers who might answer this question:
What would your interpretation be of the question, "Don't take this the wrong way, but would you like to come to my hotel room for coffee and discussion?" be? For the sake of the question, let's say it's not taking place in an elevator at 4am-it can be asked at anytime. The only context is that the pair don't know each other.
To me, there would be a definite sexual angle to it, whether a male or female asked it (for that matter, if they asked it of a male or a female too). At the very least, I would interpret it to mean, "I want to see if I can get in your pants." That is, 'setting up' for sexy times. It's not an explicit invitation to sex, but it is an invitation to decide whether you'd like to have sex. That's how I interpret it anyway.
Personally, I wouldn't interpret it as just an invitation to conversation. If that's what the questioner was after, in my opinion, the location of the hotel room wouldn't be necessary. Coffee shops, bookstores, bars, restaurants, even empty hallways or just standing outside the elevator offer chances at strictly conversation if that's what someone is after. This being the 21st century, there's a whole lot of avenues available for conversation, exchanged in just a few words.
To me, the addition of 'my hotel room' turns the question from something just towards conversation, to conversation+possible sex, of some degree. I base that both on what I would mean if I were to say that (though it'd be extremely unlikely, if I did ask someone to my hotel room for conversation, I'd be expressly hoping for the chance at more), and on what I know of other dudes-I don't know a guy that I can think of, nor have I heard of one, who would ask that question and only be after conversation.
Anyway, this is a rambling explanation of why I don't think it's at all unreasonable of Watson to read some sexualization into the invitation. In fact I think it's so clear, so likely, that to criticize her for doing so is pretty strange-to me it seems like a given.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I think it's entirely possible that the guy in the elevator was asking for a conversation, but that if that is indeed the case he did it very poorly by doing it in an enclosed private place, and suggesting his room.
I think RW did jump to a bit of a conclusion and was a bit harsh in how she described the situation and the guy involved.
I think RD opened his mouth very wide and then tried very hard to swallow his foot up to his knee cap.
I think that everyone involved here could have been kinder and more courteous to the other person's position, and if they had that there would not have been any kind of hubbub.
I also think that I specifically appreciate having Dogbreath and CT on this board for showing that discussion can happen in a thoughtful and courteous way even when people are starting off from a position of disagreement. Sa'eed's second and third comments make me wonder if past comments aimed it him which seemed unwarranted really were.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Sounds like given what she said in her talks, it was definitely a stupid and creepy thing to do to hit on her. Outside that context, I don't think it would have been.
Additionally, I do wonder how anyone would ever get laid in Watson's ideal world, where (apparently) you're not allowed to hit on people who obviously share your interests.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
It would also be different if this were a professional setting, rather than a conference of like-minded people who are presumably there in their spare time for a sort of intellectual recreation.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I absolutely don't buy the "he only wanted conversation" angle. Invitation-to-room pretty explicitly angles the question in a sexual direction, at least opening up the possibility. If that's what he meant, he needs to be called out, simply so he knows not to phrase it that way again.
BUT, to be honest, I can totally see myself being in Elevator Guy's position. (What follows is a little personal, possibly over-projecting my own issues)
I know what it's like to be a nerdy guy (without Asperger's or anything similar) who just has a hard time talking to girls. And the only way you can get better is with practice, and in the process of practicing you're going to say some things that make people uncomfortable from time to time.
I can imagine myself ending up in his position. I can imagine remembering the hundred times I got myself friend-zoned because I wasn't forward enough, knowing that I have to make SOME kind of change or I'm going to be single forever, trying to work up the nerve to say something to her when she was getting up from the bar, failing, and then screwing up the courage to jump into the elevator at the last second and making the awkward pass and then telling myself "well, at least you tried" after the fact.
And then being shocked when I watched her video. And while she didn't call him out by name, I'm sure his friends have figured out that it was him, and I can imagine being humiliated by that.
And that all sucks.
But what sucks more is that whenever there's a nerdy convention (skeptics, sci-fi, whatever), there's a lopsided male/female ratio, the females get hit on ridiculously. And a lot of the guys are clueless about how to effectively hit on girls, so it's not just repetitive but annoying at best and creepy at worst. So the girls continue to not come as often, and they continue to be a minority, and because they're a minority the guys continue to make jokes to emphasize the girls' other-ness, which reinforces the problem. And the guys continue to live in subcultures where they don't get as much exposure to women, so they continue to make awkward passes. Which also reinforces the problem.
Not to mention, sexism just plain still exists, and guys in general tend to be unaware of how they subconsciously use their size and environment (blocking doors, elevators, or even just positioning themselves) to steer the conversation in a way that can come across as more intimidating than they realize.
Right now the subculture is male-dominated, and if guys want it to change, the change needs to start with them. And that change begins with realizing that if you see a cute girl at the nerd convention... seriously, she probably either has a boyfriend, or deliberately has chosen not to have a boyfriend. She probably did not come here to meet guys.
The "rational" decision may not be to hit on every girl you see who shares your interests. It may be to ease off in some places so you can have a future where more girls overall share your interests.
Edit to clarify my actual position: I do not think it's wrong to hit on girls at nerd-conventions, per se. But I do think that nerd-conventions are not the place to try things that you're not already confident about.
[ July 17, 2011, 06:49 PM: Message edited by: Raymond Arnold ]
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm an only child and it was very painful and difficult to learn how to talk to girls for me...I'm very pleased my son will be raised up with his sister and not have the same problem!
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Tangential request for opinions: is it OK for a lone man to get on an elevator with a lone woman he doesn't know? I can imagine some women would be nervous about being in an enclosed, basically soundproof space with a strange man. Comments above indicate in that situation a pass is probably unwelcome, but how about just standing in the elevator without doing anything but basic elevator waiting?
Are there time of day considerations? Location of elevator considerations?
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
quote: is it OK for a lone man to get on an elevator with a lone woman he doesn't know?
Completely okay, in my book. Just as saying 'hi', or even trying to strike up a polite conversation, is also fine. As long as he doesn't do or say anything uncalled for, I don't see any problem with this situation.
Guys have to get to their floor, just like everyone else.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
When in this situation, I do one of two things, depending on small ques from the woman...
1. Ignore her completely.
2. Say "hi" or nod my head with a slight smile.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
It's good to know about this no-scamming-on-girls-in-the-elevator rule. I wasn't at all aware of it, and the reasons for it seem pretty reasonable.
quote:But what sucks more is that whenever there's a nerdy convention (skeptics, sci-fi, whatever), there's a lopsided male/female ratio, the females get hit on ridiculously. And a lot of the guys are clueless about how to effectively hit on girls, so it's not just repetitive but annoying at best and creepy at worst. So the girls continue to not come as often, and they continue to be a minority, and because they're a minority the guys continue to make jokes to emphasize the girls' other-ness, which reinforces the problem. And the guys continue to live in subcultures where they don't get as much exposure to women, so they continue to make awkward passes. Which also reinforces the problem.
I'm afraid there's no good solution to this problem, short of changing our general social mores so that women are as free to approach men as men are to approach women. It's not realistic to suppose that guys will back off much, especially since the worst creepiness offenders are probably the ones who are least likely to get the message. And it wouldn't be in their rational self-interest to back off, either. If the climate does change to make cons and such more attractive to women, that's a process that will take years -- and the guys want to get some now! Besides which, every adult geek has a couple friends who met their wives at cons. As long as it remains a possibility, people will try to capitalize on it.
If it were socially more acceptable for women to approach men, the problem could be dealt with much more easily. Whenever there's a gender imbalance in a particular social situation, going either way, it could be up to the members of the less-numerous gender to do the hitting-on. That would lead to much less annoyance and difficulty all around.
quote:Edit to clarify my actual position: I do not think it's wrong to hit on girls at nerd-conventions, per se.
In that case, it sounds like you disagree with Watson on that point.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Depends on her body language, really. I've said before, different women have different attitudes towards men - some very nervous and uncomfortable in any situation that could possibly be dangerous, others are more cavalier and totally at ease. I'm 6'2 and, thanks to job, pretty muscular. On the other hand I usually wear glasses and have a ridiculous poop eating grin and very disarming demeanor. Women are usually comfortable around me.
In all situations I'll give a warm smile and say "good morning!" or whatever time of day.
If she has her arms crossed and is tapping her foot or her eyes are wide and she looks plainly scared, I'll greet her in the most disarming manner possible, but otherwise avoid talking to her and stand on the far side of the elevator/bus stop/whatever. I do what I can to avoid making people uncomfortable, within limits. The same applies to guys - you'd be surprised by how many guys act very uncomfortable around other men. I'd say I probably have more men act uncomfortable around me than women.
If she has her arms at her sides or just looks relaxed in general, I might strike up a conversation if I feel so inclined. I really enjoy talking to and flirting with pretty young women, and they typically enjoy it as well. Again, that's just the dirty old man in me waiting to break free in 40 years.
I think that our society as a whole suffers from unnecessary anxiety, I've known a lot of women who fear men so much it has a very negative impact on their life and relationships. It's why I dislike the Schrödinger's Rapists types. I go through about 2 rape prevention classes a month (the DoD has been trying very, very hard for the past 2 years to put an end to rape in the military), and one of the things always stressed is that very few rapes are committed by strangers. Almost all rapes are committed by someone who already knows the victim, and as often as not, is a family member.
I view it as being similar to vehicles. Vehicles are inherently dangerous, and it's always good to take some precautions - drive the speed limit, wear a seat belt, make sure your car is in good condition. Likewise women should take some precautions with men: don't go down dark alleys by yourself, don't go home with a man on the first date, learn how to protect yourself or carry mace. But I think women should act with the expectation that a man is a kind and decent human being until proven otherwise. And a man shouldn't have to go to great lengths just to avoid making a woman feel uncomfortable - the woman should learn to deal with her discomfort.
The people on RW's blog or the author of Schrödinger's Rapist who claim every man should be viewed as a potential rapist until proven otherwise are sexist, much in the same way that a man who claims women should always be flattered by his attempts to hit on them are sexist. It's a viewpoint that ultimately demeans and dehumanizes the man in question.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
This is off topic, but this link in the first article of the OP is fantastic. http://vimeo.com/13704095 Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: This is off topic, but this link in the first article of the OP is fantastic. http://vimeo.com/13704095
Amen.
I think that's probably the best argument for civility in debate I've seen. I think every Hatracker should watch that video.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:The people on RW's blog or the author of Schrödinger's Rapist who claim every man should be viewed as a potential rapist until proven otherwise...
I don't think that's the point at all (at least not on Skepchick). The point is that a lot of women have personal experience getting harassed, and the more experiences they have, the more it nags at them and keeps them wary. You can say it's unfair all you want, and they may agree with you, but the more bad experiences you have the harder it is to greet guys making awkward advances with a smile. (Was it actually stated on Skepchick somewhere that all men should be treated as rapists? I thought the overwhelming point was just that men should be more aware of how they come across, and when they are making other people uncomfortable, which is perfectly fine)
quote:In that case, it sounds like you disagree with Watson on that point.
For practical purposes, I don't think so. The guy in the elevator was clearly out of his comfort zone. I think people in their comfort zone will generally have a decent idea of the social rules governing zone. (Maybe I'm being naive here)
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
quote:The people on RW's blog or the author of Schrödinger's Rapist who claim every man should be viewed as a potential rapist until proven otherwise...
I don't think that's the point at all (at least not on Skepchick.
It seems to me that it *is* the point being made on Skepchick. This post in particular, by GeekGirlsRule. (I apologize for the large quote)
quote:As women in this society (not a theoretical one, but THIS ACTUAL SOCIETY RIGHT HERE) we are raised to be on guard against sexual assault ALL the time. As women we walk with our car keys through our fingers so we can use them as weapons, try to avoid being alone with strange men, go places in pairs, check the backseats of our cars before we get in, only park in well lit places, try to pee while balancing a drink and our purse in the bathroom so no one can say we “asked to be drugged” by leaving our drink unattended, etc… etc… ad nauseum…
If we do not do any of these things and more, and even if we do and get assaulted anyway, then the victim-blaming starts (of which you have already had a small sampling with the guy who wanted to know why Rebecca was alone in the elevator with the guy in the first place). Every thing a woman does, says, wears and EVER DID BEFORE EVER IN HER LIFE will come under examination.
This is not hypothetical, this is what happens every stinking time a woman is sexually assaulted. If you’re so very logical and rational look at the evidence that surrounds you every day. Follow the media coverage of rape cases, read trial transcripts, even though defense lawyers aren’t supposed to use a victim’s sexual history against her in trials, they find ways to sneak it in and even if the judge instructs the jury to ignore it, you can’t unhear that.
ALL of that baggage and evidence is what Rebecca was operating with the night some guy who hadn’t spoken to her the entire time they and other people were hanging out, cornered her alone in an elevator and asked her back to his room.
Does this mean he WOULD have assaulted her? No.
But it also doesn’t mean that he wouldn’t have either. Sadly, rapists do not all wear handy nametags stating, “Hi, I’m Ted! I’ll be your rapist this evening!” They look just like everyone else. So, in the interest of not being assaulted and in NOT having to go through the ordeal of reporting a rape, Rebecca very rationally and logically opted to get away from that guy as soon as she could, and to TELL YOU that this behavior is not OK. So that those of you who are constantly demanding women tell you what to do to approach them can know that this is not how you do it.
I’d recommend looking up the Schroedinger’s Rapist article on KateHarding.net (http://kateharding.net/2009/10/08/guest-blogger-starling-schrodinger%E2%80%99s-rapist-or-a-guy%E2%80%99s-guide-to-approaching-strange-women-without-being-maced/).
I don't know if the Skepchick herself ever comes out and calls him an actual rapist, but she does call him "threatening." The Schrodinger's Rapist article, while useful as a guide for "how not to be creepy", is flawed in making the statement that women have the right to treat every man as a potential rapist. I believe (up to a certain reasonable point) that you should treat every person as if they were a decent individual until proven otherwise, regardless of race, sex, age, or religion.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
My problem with the Schrodinger's Rapist concept is this: Is it then okay for me, as a white man, to view every black man as Schrodinger's Mugger? Or perhaps more to the point, does it behoove black men to be considerate of me and not offended if I seem especially on guard when they're nearby and I have little other protection?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
There is a big difference between preparing yourself to be able to handle assault and to be aware of dangerous situations and treating all men as rapists who have not struck yet. The difference between preparedness and paranoia.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I'm not sure how to answer Icarus' question. It's an interesting point. But in general I agree with Stone Wolf here - there's a difference between preparedness and paranoia.
I've recently moved to the Bronx and have been pondering the line between being legitimately prepared and offensively paranoid. I have absolutely no experience living in an inner city, but I know there are definitely things you need to be aware of (which people of all colors take into account).
I do essentially profile people, but it's not based on skin color so much as age, muscle mass, stance and other cues (some of which, say, tattoos, might not actually be significant, but for some reason scare me. Am I being racist against tattoos? Yeah, probably)
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: There is a big difference between preparing yourself to be able to handle assault and to be aware of dangerous situations and treating all men as rapists who have not struck yet. The difference between preparedness and paranoia.
Is this a response to me? I'm not perceiving it as such.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
quote:In that case, it sounds like you disagree with Watson on that point.
For practical purposes, I don't think so. The guy in the elevator was clearly out of his comfort zone. I think people in their comfort zone will generally have a decent idea of the social rules governing zone. (Maybe I'm being naive here)
But her view isn't just that the guy who approached her on the elevator was being a creep -- that I agree with. Her view is that it "sexualizes" her in an undesirable way to hit on her at a conference. This is what she was presenting about at the panel before the elevator incident.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: I'm not sure how to answer Icarus' question. It's an interesting point. But in general I agree with Stone Wolf here - there's a difference between preparedness and paranoia.
I've recently moved to the Bronx and have been pondering the line between being legitimately prepared and offensively paranoid. I have absolutely no experience living in an inner city, but I know there are definitely things you need to be aware of (which people of all colors take into account).
I do essentially profile people, but it's not based on skin color so much as age, muscle mass, stance and other cues (some of which, say, tattoos, might not actually be significant, but for some reason scare me. Am I being racist against tattoos? Yeah, probably)
It seems fairly obvious to me where the line between treating a man as if he's a decent person and treating him as "potentially a rapist" is - if he touches you without your permission, doesn't take no for an answer, demands sexual favors, calls you dirty names, won't leave when you ask him, or in general acts with an intent to intimidate or coerce you, then by all means treat him as if he's a potential rapist. Until then, treat him like a decent human being.
I think the same goes for living in the inner city - I don't think race has much to do with criminal behavior anymore, though. There might be proportionally more black thugs out there than white, but I'd react the exact same way to a dirty 220 lb guy in a wife beater with lots of tattoos, black or white. I think behavior has a lot to do with that, too... is he the next aisle shopping? is he painting your church? Is he casually walking down the street not looking at anyone in particular? Is he standing in an alley entrance glaring at you with 4 of his boys hanging around him?
If he asks me "hey buddy can you spare a couple bucks?" in the store I wouldn't be bothered at all. If it's on the street, but in a polite tone with a genuine smile and open body language, I'd be a little wary, but not too bothered. If he says it in a mocking voice with his shoulders back, arms out, looking like he might do something violent, I'd start running.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
So then you reject the notion of Schrodinger's rapist--as I understand it, that it's reasonable for a woman to view a random man with trepidation until he somehow passes her personal not-a-rapist test, and, further, than men have a responsibility to be sensitive to this fear and not place themselves in situations where they might possibly cause instinctual trepidation in a woman they don't know?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: There is a big difference between preparing yourself to be able to handle assault and to be aware of dangerous situations and treating all men as rapists who have not struck yet. The difference between preparedness and paranoia.
Is this a response to me? I'm not perceiving it as such.
You are perceiving correctly...it was a response to the quote that DB put up...and the whole Schroedinger’s Rapist idea...
Your thought exercise, if designed to show that treating an entire group of people as the worst elements within is wrong...is valid in my opinion.
If you are (and I seriously doubt it) genuinely suggesting that all black people should be treated like criminals, then I disagree.
As to should men show sensitivity to the idea that women genuinely have something to fear from us, then yes, they should. But to take it so far that each and every man is a threat is too far, by far.
Broadview Security. Get it, or get murdered!
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Dogbreath...just out of curiosity...that last example...you said "I'd start running." Do you mean that as advice, or what -you- would do?
The role of a warrior is one that has always appealed to me, and you modern day warriors, you grunts, leather necks...would you run, or kick some bad guy butt?
Do you carry a blade? Or a tactical pen? Or is that just what you do for a living and when at home are all about the peace and harmony?
Just wondering.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: I thought the overwhelming point was just that men should be more aware of how they come across, and when they are making other people uncomfortable, which is perfectly fine
When we're talking about watson herself, as opposed to some comment made by someone else somewhere on skepchick or whatever, that's it. You have it.
One of the best parts of male privilege is not having to deal with the creepy weirdness that guys tend to foist on girls all the time! Sometimes innocently! Sometimes not so innocently! It's easy to be completely ignorant of it, to the extent that you can naively wonder what Watson must be going on about over such an 'innocent comment' — or, alternately, you could go full-bore deluded misogynist pseudopsych like the OP and conclude that watson has been stripped of her capacity to empathize with men by militant feminism and probably is only reacting this way due to 'envy of male desire' or whatever. (ironically, a perfect way of giving an example of yet another slice into the pie of what women have to deal with in terms of ignorant male attitudes).
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Dogbreath...just out of curiosity...that last example...you said "I'd start running." Do you mean that as advice, or what -you- would do?
The role of a warrior is one that has always appealed to me, and you modern day warriors, you grunts, leather necks...would you run, or kick some bad guy butt?
Do you carry a blade? Or a tactical pen? Or is that just what you do for a living and when at home are all about the peace and harmony?
Just wondering.
"Running" is hyperbole, I'd probably walk away and ignore them. Caution being the better part of valor, I generally avoid vigilantism when possible. Sorry to disappoint.
If you're interested in stories of me acting heroically, though, once in Waikiki about 1:30 in the morning, I was walking back to my buddy's car (he'd parked it in the military lot) when I saw a drunk guy beating up his girlfriend. (he was dressed to shabbily to be a pimp) I yelled at him and ran over and fought him. Well, "fought" makes it sound more grandiose than it was, I punched him on the side of the head, elbowed him a few times and put him in a choke hold. He passed out, and remained pretty docile after that. I stayed with her until the cops came, which was less the hero comforting the damsel in distress and more a hysterical old black woman alternating between crying and hollering.
When I was 19 I got mugged by 3 dudes outside my house, and tried to fight them. I got my ass kicked. They did end up leaving me alone, though, and with my wallet untouched. I had like $14 in it.
I have known of some guys (not very bright ones) who've attempted to go about getting in fights with lowlifes. They generally end up stabbed or shot.
No, I don't carry any weapons on me stateside. I don't walk around in my dress uniform or say moto things either, that's more of a national guard thing. I just act like a normal person.
I hope that doesn't disappoint you. I've fast roped out of helicopters, swam in full combat gear, and walked through jungles in the Philippines full of guerrillas and IEDs, and done other really nifty stuff I can't talk about, but can assure you is really cool and courageous.
[ July 18, 2011, 03:27 AM: Message edited by: Dogbreath ]
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Not disappointed, just curious. Thanks for sharing.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: [QUOTE] One of the best parts of male privilege is not having to deal with the creepy weirdness that guys tend to foist on girls all the time! Sometimes innocently! Sometimes not so innocently! It's easy to be completely ignorant of it
I assume this is directed at me, in which case I think you've sadly misunderstood, or perhaps misread my posts. I apologize for any lack of clarity in my writing. I'm well aware of the creepiness of the situation, and have said on more than one occasion that I'd have done the same thing she did in the same situation. In no way do I think the guy should've approached her like he did, whatever his motivation.
Likewise, I have no issue with RW asking men not to approach her, or saying she finds it creepy.
The two things I took issue with were: A) She's using a specific example and embarrassing a guy who did her no harm. B) Her later comments calling him threatening. I contend he was in no way threatening her.
I hope this clarifies what my actual position is.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
If the same size and strength disparity that exists between men and women also existed between whites and blacks, and if blacks were responsible for most violent crime against whites, then it would in fact be reasonable to view them as potential muggers.
I don't live in constant fear, and in general, I don't think of men as potential rapists. However, I am cognizant of the fact that most men are physically capable of overpowering me. If I am isolated or otherwise vulnerable, I am going to be cautious. When walking by myself at night, I generally like to keep my distance from other people; approaching a woman you don't know in circumstances where she would be in grave danger if you were intending to harm her is evidence (not proof, just evidence) that you may not be a decent individual.
Asking me to assume you are not dangerous is fine if we're in public with plenty of other people around. But violent criminals do take advantage of the societal expectation that women should be friendly and agreeable. I'm assuming that when you say that I should treat everyone as if they were decent people until proven otherwise, you are talking about situations where violent crime is unlikely. My guess is that you do not mean that I should not be wary until I am actually assaulted or threatened. I'm certainly not trying to accuse any of you. I just want to ask everyone, if criticizing someone for being unfriendly in response to unsolicited attention, to take care that they do not contribute to an atmosphere where people don't take appropriate precautions because they are afraid of being rude.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: I'm assuming that when you say that I should treat everyone as if they were decent people until proven otherwise, you are talking about situations where violent crime is unlikely.
Yes, definitely. If you're ever in a situation where you think violent crime *is* likely, you should leave immediately. I mean treat as in "act towards them in such a manner" not "consider them to be such." I can't emphasize how important the distinction is.
quote:My guess is that you do not mean that I should not be wary until I am actually assaulted or threatened.
There's the rub. I'm an incredibly wary person, it comes with my job. You'd be amazed how much more information you can quickly process when you've been trained to do so. I see a person and think "where are his hands?" "is he positioning himself to attack me?" "does he have a weapon under his shirt, tucked into his pants" "what are the possible escape routes" "what would be the fasted way to incapacitate him and avoid injury to myself". Etc. Heck, for a while, I'd find myself subconsciously scanning streets for possible sniper placements, good alleys for people to jump out of, possible angles of fire. I'm not nearly that dorky anymore, but I'm still possessed of a very high level of situational awareness - I think it's one of the reason I'm a good conversationalist, I've pretty astute at reading body language.
Just because I'm wary of the young black man walking towards me and I've sized him up and taken whatever precautions I need to protect my safety, it doesn't mean I should be rude or offensive to him. Or get angry at him because he obviously didn't respect my feelings enough to avoid walking in a way that made me uncomfortable. So long as he's not actively threatening me, my discomfort is my problem, not his.
It's not rude to tell a man "I feel really uncomfortable right now, and I want to leave." It's not rude to say "I'd rather not talk, thanks." It's not even rude to avoid taking the same elevator, if such situations make you uncomfortable. Everyone is different, everyone has their own comfort zones.
It definitely is rude to be angry at a well meaning man for not intuitively recognizing what your comfort zone is. I know men, many of them are dumb as bricks, and can't really pick up on a woman's subtle clues. And there are women who have very confusing body language. Berating a man who doesn't know you for not understanding you implicitly will either drive him to frustration, or make him try even *harder* to read your body language, which will probably mean him staring at you looking very confused for a while, which is even more creepy.
Thankfully, there's an easy solution to this! It's called spoken language! Simply tell the guy "sorry, I don't want to talk" or "sorry, I have to leave", and don't act angry or condescending when you say it either. I know it may be frustrating, but it's only 5 seconds of your day.
To recap: Should these awkward men understand how to act in these situations? Yes! Do they? No! You can either A) become very angry at them for not taking the time to think it through, and belittle them or B) briefly express your feelings in neutral language and carry on with whatever you're doing. Choice A often leads to frustration and despair, Choice B at worst causes no harm, at best makes the man a little wiser and less creepy.
I'm just seeing lots of comments by frustrated women on these blogs, "ugh, men are so stupid!" And perhaps that anger is justified, but anger only breeds anger, patience breeds wisdom.
[ July 18, 2011, 06:02 AM: Message edited by: Dogbreath ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: I assume this is directed at me, in which case I think you've sadly misunderstood, or perhaps misread my posts.
Huh? Oh, no, not at all.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:You can either A) become very angry at them for not taking the time to think it through, and belittle them or B) briefly express your feelings in neutral language and carry on with whatever you're doing.
See, here's the thing. Watson did B. She said, in as straightforward, neutral terminology as she could, "don't do that."
And the internet went into an uproar over that.
If men are allowed to continuously make awkward passes at women at these conferences, then women are allowed to occasionally post video blogs saying "hey, guys, please don't do that."
That's all she did in response to this particular guy. She was absolutely entitled to that. Since then, in response to a lot of incredibly misogynistic comments, I think she has shown incredible restraint.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: See, here's the thing. Watson did B. She said, in as straightforward, neutral terminology as she could, "don't do that."
And the internet went into an uproar over that.
If men are allowed to continuously make awkward passes at women at these conferences, then women are allowed to occasionally post video blogs saying "hey, guys, please don't do that."
That's all she did in response to this particular guy. She was absolutely entitled to that. Since then, in response to a lot of incredibly misogynistic comments, I think she has shown incredible restraint.
It's definitely true that she's a wronged party in all of this. But it seems to me that some of the backlash against results from what might be either a reasonable misunderstanding or a correct understanding of what she said.
When she says "don't do that," does she mean don't be creepy (as you suggest) or don't approach women for romance (as her critics construed)? Well, her main complaint about EG in the original video was that he "sexualized" her. I don't think it's crazy for her audience to conclude that "don't do that" is therefore an injunction against any guy who "sexualizes" a woman at one of these events. It does sound like she's saying, don't approach women with anything sexual in mind, period.
Now, does his dismissive response make Dawins a shitheel, or reveal his bad character? I doubt it, for a few reasons. If you're an academic, especially a scientist, the word "feminism" becomes loaded with all kinds of connotations having to do with feminist scholarship -- some of which is great, and some of which is really crazy. I've seen prestigious scholars claim that First Amendment protections for porn harm women's free speech, or that in our present culture it's impossible for sex to be consensual. There are also prestigious feminist scholars who think large swaths of known science have succeeded only because they help feed the patriarchy.
I strongly doubt Watson goes in for this stuff, since she's an avowed "skeptic." But when one hears self-identifying "feminists" saying batshit crazy stuff that attacks your own work for years in the academy, it becomes very natural (not justified, but understandable and perhaps blameless) to withhold from avowed feminists the benefit of the doubt.
I try very hard not to do this myself -- not to slide into the trap Dawkins fell into in this case -- but it is really difficult.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
Raymond, very well said. Very well said, indeed.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I should add that I think part of the problem is the format of video-blogging. People tend to ramble in a video and not put their point in the best, most diplomatic way. I suspect that's probably what happened with Watson's initial video. If she'd written it down, she probably wouldn't have created the ambiguity that led her critics to interpret her as a prude.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
If she did mean "don't approach women sexually at a Con, period", I do somewhat disagree with her, but I'd understand perfectly and still wouldn't consider her a prude.
My interpretation of it is:
"Don't make creepy awkward passes at girls, in general,
"And,
"Don't make passes at me at cons, period, because I'm sick of people making passes at me at cons. Especially don't do this when I've previously established that I don't want to have passes made at me."
[ July 18, 2011, 11:23 AM: Message edited by: Raymond Arnold ]
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
You're probably right that that's what she meant. It's the most reasonable interpretation of what she actually says in the video.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, you may very well be right, Destineer, but I'm pretty sure that some folks are going to cast her as a prude (or some other variation on female misbehavior) almost no matter *what* she said, once she said, "Please don't do that."
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
My experience as a woman is that it's a bit of a no-win situation. If you don't interpret typical come-ons as a come-on and instead ignore your instincts, then you should've known better. If you do interpret it as a come-on and clearly reject it, then you are in Bella-Bee's situation above, or in RW's.
I think the expectation is that you recognize the come-on for a come-on but pretend convincingly that you do not -- so, you act in a way that protects you but still doesn't hurt the guy's feelings. But now comes Part II!
Part II is when you are at fault for not having given clear signals. The guy -- having made the come-on (which you deftly recognized but adroitly ignored so as to spare his feelings of being rejected) -- continues to pursue you because he has no idea you got the message and rejected him, so now he figures he has to push harder to get the point across. Because you haven't rejected him! Or if you had, how on earth was he supposed to know?
It doesn't always happen this way, of course, but it does make those Murphy's Oil Soap commercials from the 80s with little old nuns cleaning the church pews under a vow of silence so darn appealling.
Being a woman of any typical attractiveness means you are eventually going to hurt someone's feelings/piss them off/both or end up in a longterm relationship with someone you cannot stand. Them's the breaks. It isn't FGM, heaven knows, but it is a quandry that means one has to get used to being disliked sometimes. That's okay. I wish it were different, but we'll all have manage to cope and find a way to muddle through it.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I once worked with a woman from Russia, who told me that in Russia, the women are the ones who seek out the men instead of the other way around.
I have no idea if she was blowing smoke up my skirt or not, but it makes me wonder how much of the "sexually aggressive male persona" is factual and how much is simply cultural.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: "Don't make passes at me at cons, period, because I'm sick of people making passes at me at cons. Especially don't do this when I've previously established that I don't want to have passes made at me."
I think it's worth pointing out that for her, being at the convention is work--she's there in a professional capacity, as a presenter. So there's also an angle of "Don't make passes at me while I'm working."
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
Stone_Wolf_, I don't know much about Russian culture. But I bet men both there and here are in a no-win situation, just as women are.
It's life. It's messy -- human life is messy! It is complicated and messy, and it is decomposing as soon as it begins, and it is fragrant and rich and organic and riotuously splendid. And it falls apart in our hands, and every plan fails to survive the first encounter, and we keep going.
I'd rather not beat anyone else up for not being able to figure it out. I'm not going to beat up Elevator Guy, or Destineer, or Dogbreath, or Rebecca Watson. Or Richard Dawkins, for that manner. I am going to say that what Elevator Guy did was an uncool move and try to help explain why. That's not out of line -- it's about the best things we can do under these messy circumstances.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Honestly, in this case, I think it's okay to (metaphorically) beat up Richard Dawkins - he should know better.
But I agree that both Elevator Guy and Rebecca were reasonable people reacting reasonably to life's complexities.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
I still reserve the right to sigh with exasperation when I see RD's jocular mug. Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Well, you may very well be right, Destineer, but I'm pretty sure that some folks are going to cast her as a prude (or some other variation on female misbehavior) almost no matter *what* she said, once she said, "Please don't do that."
Right. But wording things more clearly might have spared her this multimedia extravaganza, and instead just netted her the usual half-dozen emailed rape threats from internet psychos.
Although when I put it that way, perhaps this is the better outcome after all.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
For clarification, this is what RW said in the video:
quote:Um, just a word to wise here, guys, uh, don't do that. You know, I don't really know how else to explain how this makes me incredibly uncomfortable, but I'll just sort of lay it out that I was a single woman, you know, in a foreign country, at 4:00 am, in a hotel elevator, with you, just you, and -- don't invite me back to your hotel room right after I finish talking about how it creeps me out and makes me uncomfortable when men sexualize me in that manner.
quote:Originally posted by ambyr: I think it's worth pointing out that for her, being at the convention is work--she's there in a professional capacity, as a presenter. So there's also an angle of "Don't make passes at me while I'm working."
She seriously gets paid to be an atheist blogger/speaker? Damn, I thought my job was cushy.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Instead of a half a dozen emailed rape threats from internet psychos, I'd bet even money it's more like dozens of dozens now that the media circus is dun dunt duna nuna nunt na na na (circus music).
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: It seems fairly obvious to me where the line between treating a man as if he's a decent person and treating him as "potentially a rapist" is - if he touches you without your permission, doesn't take no for an answer, demands sexual favors, calls you dirty names, won't leave when you ask him, or in general acts with an intent to intimidate or coerce you, then by all means treat him as if he's a potential rapist. Until then, treat him like a decent human being.
I think there might be some differences in what people mean when they talk about treating someone (or some situation) as a potential rapist. Going way, way back to when I was a pre-teen and young teen babysitter and the dads of the kids I sat for often picked me up or drove me home, when I got in the car I always made sure I looked to see where the door locks and handles were, and kept my purse/backpack on the seat beside me so I didn't have to fumble around on the floor for it if I needed to exit the car quickly. As I got older the same habits carried over into dating life. I think that's the sort of thing women mean when they say they are/should be aware that every man is a potential rapist. It doesn't mean being rude or not treating the guy like a decent human being or not wanting to get to know him . . . it just means being aware of your situation and - especially with people you don't know very well - your exit strategies. Just like always having taxi money on a date (if the guy is driving). It doesn't mean you assume he's going to be a jerk, but it does mean you have a safe way home, just in case. (And in the taxi, you check where the door locks and handles are.)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Well said, Dana.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Well said, Dana.
+1
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: It's not "she should've accepted his offer" it's "his offer and behavior aren't actually in any way threatening."
This is actually pretty much not true. Generally, men are larger, stronger animals than women, and on a basic, biological level, being approached or "appreciated" by men does ping a female's hindbrain with the whiff of threat.
A man and a woman are out running (separately) and someone shouts something appreciative at them. Chances are, the man will not feel threatened. The woman most likely would, with the echoes of news reports and shallow graves in wooded areas dancing around in her subconscious. A lot of women are slightly intimidated by being alone with, or invited to be alone with, a man they don't know well.
Imagine that a man stepped into an elevator and was followed by two gay body builders who asked him to come up to their hotel room for coffee and a chat.
Now you might be closer to understanding the power imbalance of the situation, and how it could be seen to be threatening without anything "overtly" threatening being said or done.
I lift weights and have studied martial arts, etc. But I am still a smaller animal. My cat is a mean little SOB and weighs almost 17 pounds. I guarantee you he will feel threatened if a medium-sized dog walks into a closed space with him, even if the dog only wants to be friends. It's just biology.
(I'd also like to be clear that I don't mean to pick on you. I only point this out because I thought that perhaps, as a Marine and an a man of good intent, it might not have occurred to you that not being overtly threatening does not equal absence of perceived threat. And of course, IMMV.)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: My cat is a mean little SOB and weighs almost 17 pounds. I guarantee you he will feel threatened if a medium-sized dog walks into a closed space with him, even if the dog only wants to be friends.
FRIEND
FRIEND FRIEND FRIEND
FRIEND FRIEND FRIEND FRIEND FRIEND FRIEND FRIEND
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Samp appears to be stuck. Maybe someone should kick him.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
*raises his hand*
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
*gives Stone_Wolf_ a high five!*
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
Olivet, that was well-said.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by CT:
i mean, honestly, if we just drop the pretense and greet women in elevators by vocalizing the dog mentality
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
Uh, that technically may be a more direct approach. Or nose.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Samp, are you channeling the big monster from Warner Bros. (I wanna hug him, and squeeze him, and...), or rather the "OMIGOD IT'S YIU BUDDY HI HI HI!" of many (all?) dogs everywhere? Just tryin' to vocalize it right when I say it myself;)
---- Olivet hits the nail on the head for me, but that's no surprise-we've agreed on similar subjects before. It's difficult to put in terms dudes will readily get, I think, because it's such a foreign point of view for us-to have, hm, the 'potential for wariness' perhaps, ready at hand for anyone of an entire gender, and actually have good, *rational* reasons for feeling that way. Even if you haven't been victimized yourself, because chances are quite good you know someone who has, *or* you know how easily it can happen to you.
There aren't many dudes I know who wouldn't be at least a *little*...concerned with the example given, a person or persons in an enclosed space so late at night expressing clear sexual interest, with the knowledge that *if* they chose to, they could act on it.
It's always seemed strange to me, the way society asks women to just *turn off* or weaken that sense of awareness. I mean, I know why it happens, or some of the reasons, that encouragement, but it's one of the stranger twists we make.
Neither women nor men have an obligation, morally, to receive an invitation to sex gladly or even neutrally. Absent anything else (the convention, the elevator, the time), you're allowed to be emphatic. This is one subject where it is OK to hurt someone's feelings, since rejection often *does* hurt one's feelings. The onus shouldn't be on women not to hurt male feelings, but rather for guys to not have thei feelings hurt so badly when they're rejected.
*I use the phrase 'invitation to sex' because that's what 'come back to my place for coffee and conversation' generally means. That's what most people think when they hear it or say it-that 'just coffee and conversation' is not the *only* hoped for outcome. Thus it's not unreasonable that she'd view it that way.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: [QB]
quote:You can either A) become very angry at them for not taking the time to think it through, and belittle them or B) briefly express your feelings in neutral language and carry on with whatever you're doing.
See, here's the thing. Watson did B. She said, in as straightforward, neutral terminology as she could, "don't do that."
And the internet went into an uproar over that.
I admit I haven't visited many sites discussing the topic, but so far the only uproar I've seen is the anger directed at Richard Dawkins for his rather rude comment. As well as a couple misogynists like the OP being annoying. On her blog, the only comments there are either supporting her position, or very politely disagreeing with her for one reason or another.
I hope you can, if not agree with, appreciate my position, that is, having no problem with her or her desire to tell guys not to approach her, but disagreeing with some of the things she said while doing so, and especially later comments.
I think on issues like these which can hit close to home, it's easy to get pretty emotional, and it's also easy to polarize... lumping people into one of two extremes, i.e, you either agree with RW completely on the issue, or you're a misogynistic jerk, regardless of what you actually said. I feel it's important to mention, not because you're actually doing it, but because I sense the conversation starting to head that direction and I'm in a somewhat precarious position.
quote:This is actually pretty much not true. Generally, men are larger, stronger animals than women, and on a basic, biological level, being approached or "appreciated" by men does ping a female's hindbrain with the whiff of threat.
A man and a woman are out running (separately) and someone shouts something appreciative at them. Chances are, the man will not feel threatened. The woman most likely would, with the echoes of news reports and shallow graves in wooded areas dancing around in her subconscious. A lot of women are slightly intimidated by being alone with, or invited to be alone with, a man they don't know well.
Imagine that a man stepped into an elevator and was followed by two gay body builders who asked him to come up to their hotel room for coffee and a chat.
Now you might be closer to understanding the power imbalance of the situation, and how it could be seen to be threatening without anything "overtly" threatening being said or done.
I think the problem here is a choice of words.
Threatening someone is generally a felony. "He threatened the clerk with a gun", "he threatened to kill me", "he threatened to rape me." It implies a conscious decision to do perform an act that will cause a person fear for their safety and extreme emotional duress, to put a person emotionally under your control. It's illegal, and immoral.
From her description of his words and actions, he was plainly *not* threatening her. She may have felt threatened or uncomfortable just being near him, but his expressed intentions (and I'll go ahead and assume he was hoping for sex), his words, and his actions show no attempt to threaten her.
So say "he was being creepy", I have no problem with that. But don't accuse him of threatening you, of deliberately trying to cause you emotional duress, when by your own account he wasn't.
I think that was what Richard Dawkins was getting at too, though he worded it badly. He was addressing all the actual crimes committed against women in the Middle East, and then compared it to the guy in question, who neither committed any kind of crime against RW, nor deliberately threatened her in any way. I don't think the man committed a crime by asking her out.
Or, in other words, you're responsible for your own feelings. Other people ought to be courteous towards you do what they can to avoid making you uncomfortable. If they inadvertently do make you uncomfortable, though, they're not committing a crime or threatening you, the most they're guilty of is stupidity.
As far as the gay bodybuilder thing, as luck would have it, I've been hit on by a gay man before in an inclosed space (a bedroom). It felt uncomfortable, and I made my discomfort known. He backed off instantly, and left the area when I got the chance. I thought the guy was a bit weird, but otherwise it didn't bother me.
If he had been persistent and didn't back off after I said no, that would have been an entirely different issue. And I think it's something that really should be bashed over the heads of ignorant men: no means no.
Anyway, I won't be able to get online for the next week or so, so my part in this discussion has come to an end. (unless it's still going next week) I want to express my gratitude for how civil and understanding people generally are on this board, there are other message boards I've posted on where within 5 posts people would be screaming at each other calling people rapists and feminazis and such, I'm glad Hatrack isn't like that.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Threatening someone is generally a felony. "He threatened the clerk with a gun", "he threatened to kill me", "he threatened to rape me." It implies a conscious decision to do perform an act that will cause a person fear for their safety and extreme emotional duress, to put a person emotionally under your control. It's illegal, and immoral.
Okay, if that's what you interpreted "threaten" to me then I understand where you were coming from. I had no idea "threaten" had an actual legal definition.
It's not a word she used though. For easy reference:
quote:Um, just a word to wise here, guys, uh, don't do that. You know, I don't really know how else to explain how this makes me incredibly uncomfortable, but I'll just sort of lay it out that I was a single woman, you know, in a foreign country, at 4:00 am, in a hotel elevator, with you, just you, and -- don't invite me back to your hotel room right after I finish talking about how it creeps me out and makes me uncomfortable when men sexualize me in that manner.
I'm sure that in the ensuing uproar that things got said that were more controversial, but really, that initial statement seems as innocuous as it was possible to make the statement. And the ensuing uproar was a meta-discussion that ended up being about more than the initial encounter.
quote:As far as the gay bodybuilder thing, as luck would have it, I've been hit on by a gay man before in an inclosed space (a bedroom). It felt uncomfortable, and I made my discomfort known.
Imagine if that happened all the time? No, the giant gay bodybuilders would not be committing crimes. Nobody is saying that. Rebecca was not saying that. Something can be impolite and annoying and warrant an occasional complaint on the internet without being a crime.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I think the problem here is a choice of words.
Yes indeed. You're defining 'threatened' in a very precise, overt way. "I'll hit you with this bat if you don't give me your wallet!" Threat. In this case 'threatened' is very low-grade, a sort of 'I was uncomfortable to the point of wariness' perhaps.
But receiving an overt threat is not the only legitimate way to feel threatened. One *can* threaten unintentionally, unless you start out by defining that word as 'only with intent'. She felt threatened because of something he was saying or doing, but he did not (I agree) intend to threaten. Nonetheless, she was threatened by him-a pretty low grade of threatening, thankfully.
It's rather like when someone describes an event that happens and explains their certainty of their observation. If someone comes along and disagrees, they're not necessarily calling the first person a liar, they're just saying they were wrong. Elevator Guy threatened her because she (not unreasonably) felt threatened. But he was not a threatener.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
But a guy being approached sexually by another guy of approximately the same size really isn't the same thing as I was talking about.
A person can be threatened without anyone committing a felony. When I was fourteen, my family made ride share arrangements with a girl down the street who was going to be taking her two brothers to the same school I was attending, between ten and fifteen miles away. On the first day, I was in teh back seat with one brother and the other was in teh passenger seat when the elder sister stopped by her house because she had forgotten something. While she was out of the car, the boy in front turned to his brother and said, "What d'ya say we lay 'er?" Both of them started laughing.
That was a threat, but not a felony. It wasn't a threat they had any hope of carrying out in the minute and a half their sister was out of the car -- it was just something they did to 'put me in my place,' to intimidate me.
Nothing worse than that has ever happened to me, for which I am grateful, but you can't say it wasn't threatening.
The reason I used two gay body builders as an example is that, for there to be an implicit level of threat there has to be a physical possibility of being overpowered. Your gay man (even in a bedroom) did not pose the kind of physical threat even an average male would pose to an average female.
It may be unpleasant to be asked to be aware of this size/threat disparity and not corner a woman before making sexual overtures, but it is more a plea for understanding and consideration rather than man-bashing, I think.
That is the nature of privilege, though -- all teh things you *don't* have to think about. I don't often consider or appreciate all the instances in which I don't have to think about being white, having the benefits of an expensive private education, or being reasonably attractive. All these things give me an advantage in some situations, and being reminded of it is painful. But I believe it is only through the awareness of the privileged people that various "isms" can be conquered.
And you're absolutely right about Hatrack. It is a place that helped me change my views about some very heavy topics, simply because of the people here, and how willing they are to explain the logic behind their positions. (I tend to respond very negatively to emotional arguments, but respectful, rational discourse is something I enjoy more than food. So I've loved me some Hatrack off and on for YEARS.)
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
And, oddly enough, I agree with Rakeesh. Go figger. (BTW, Rakeesh - I just watched the FotR extended edition with my sons, who are reading LotR for the first time, and my goodness if I didn't start having WenchCon flashbacks part way through. I hope we can do that again for the Hobbit movie.)
*scratches Samprimary behind the ears*
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
What the women said.
I really angered a good male friend by refusing to back down on this issue. I have lots of male friends and do not spend my life cowering in the corner thinking a man is going to rape me whenever I'm alone with one. However, that doesn't mean I'm not aware of the possibility that I will be propositioned, sexualised, followed, approached and--if worst comes to worst--attacked.
Maybe because when men are with women the women don't tend to get yelled at on the street so the men aren't actually aware how often this kind of thing occurs. They're also perhaps not sure that women usually find being yelled at, whistled at or propositioned a little bit creepy. At night alone, this kicks up a notch into threatening.
So I take precautions. Part of those precautions are simply being alert. And yes, part of them are regarding people out on the street as a potential threat and paying attention to them as such. And I suggest that my friends do the same.
And if that offends you, as a man, then fine. Because I'd rather I offended you now than stopped taking the mild precautions that I do.
In Rebecca Watson's specific case, she had *just* finished saying she didn't want to be hit on. If someone did this right after I'd said 'don't', and they did it in an elevator alone, I would immediately read it as a deliberate threat. Someone who could be so idiotic to go against exactly what I've just said could be deliberately trying to make a point. And the last thing I would want, alone at 4 in the morning, is a pissed off, drunk man trying to make a point that hitting on me is-- in his mind--okay.
That is even more threatening than simply being prepositioned.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Here's how to talk to women. In a public place, come up and and say, "hi."
This doesn't mean you will get invited to have a chat or a dance or whatever you want just because you weren't creepy. A woman may still reject you, often not because you're ugly or creepy but simply because she's busy doing something else or is not in the same mode as you at the moment.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I looked up a bunch more blog posts and articles about this last night. It really is a fascinating example of how complicated even the most basic application of social norms can be.
The following comment on Watson's original video post is a relatively respectful phrasing of something a lot of her critics are focusing on:
quote:Okay folks, this is what is going on.
Rebecca Watson insists that she explicitly told guys not to sexualize her on the panel discussion with Richard Dawkins.
However the actual panel discussion which was uploaded by AronRa she never talks about being sexualized in the kind of way that she purports elevator guy is doing to her.
So this is what people are referring to when they talk about how Rebecca had already told others that she didn’t like being “hit on” at conferences. Sadly that’s not what she said at all and the so called skeptics never bothered to check their sources.
Now, this poster seems to be correct (unless I've made a mistake and haven't been able to find all the videos) that Watson never mentions a distaste for getting hit on in her panel presentation or Q&A. She only talks about gross emails she's gotten. So maybe EG thought that by approaching her respectfully in person, he was doing something she'd approve of.
That said, it's also likely that in the group discussion afterward, Watson said more about how she feels as a female community member and mentioned then how much it bothers her being hit on.
Another possibility is that Watson simply remembered her panel presentation a little differently than it actually went. Very common thing to have happen. Accusing her of willfully "distorting" anything is very likely off the mark, even if the critic above is largely correct about the facts.
Anyway, it seems likely that some very relevant parts of this controversial event have been lost to the winds of time.
I'm wasting way too much vacation time on this. For some reason it's really captured my attention (probably because women's issues in my profession are looming very large recently, and there are some definite parallels with some of the issues Watson raises).
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I find it entirely likely that her assumption (and that of her supporters) is that most people can generalize "don't sexualize me - here are some examples" to "don't sexualize me at all" without her having to be specific. "Hey, she didn't say anything about elevators! Freebie!"
I also think it entirely likely that EG did think that he was approaching her respectfully - or at least in a way she might think was respectful. He was wrong. Her original mention of it corrected this misunderstanding.
Hey. At least she didn't pepper spray him. Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Well, if you watch the panel, she really doesn't say "Don't sexualize me" or "I don't like being sexualized," either. She starts out by saying that she wants to talk about some of the issues and difficulties that women run into in the "skeptic" community. Then she basically proceeds to give examples, which include emailed rape threats and vulgar compliments. (It's pretty startling, some of the scummy stuff she mentions.)
I should say, it's not my view that EG approached her in a way I'd call "respectful." That would require at an absolute minimum engaging in some conversation before inviting her up to his room. But different people have different standards about how quickly you can cut to the chase.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I realize that this point it's preaching to the choir in this thread, but I thought this article was funny and important:
Nice. Thanks for the link.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
The guy did say, "Don't take this the wrong way." She must be the kind of person who gets offended after someone says "No offense", and accuses people of racism even when they explicitly preface their remarks with, "I'm not a racist, but..."
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
LOL, Dobbie. Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
First of all, I wanted to remark on how much I enjoyed the civility of this thread. I haven't been back to Hatrack in years, and my few experiences involved infuriating fights that wearied me, and so to come back and read such a grown-up sort of debate was very refreshing. This is the Hatrack I grew up loving.
Much of what I wanted to say has been said already by the likes of CT and Olivet. I did want to add my vote to the idea that I'm actually glad this issue blew up all over the internet. I'm glad that these kinds of things are brought to light. And even though I'm not an atheist, I'm glad that the right of women to participate without fear and intimidation is being recognized in that community.
I wanted to add another viewpoint of mine, which may be kind of out there, but about which I feel very strongly. I think this whole issue really revolves around one simple factor in the story - the fact that Elevator Guy was a stranger. I think all of this, the social mores and everything, are all locked to this issue of how men and women interact when they are strangers. I am pretty dang prudish by most interpretations (though you'd be pleased to know that my Mormon roommates think me downright bawdy) but what I feel about this issue applies to people whose personal culture includes an acceptance of pre-marital sex. I still think our culture is recklessly and dangerously accepting of sexual advances toward strangers, and the problem with this is its effect on women's dignity and humanity.
The problem with propositioning a woman at a social event or a convention or any other public situation is that the only thing you're propositioning is her image. Sure, this guy had listened to what Rebecca Watson had to say and maybe had a little crush on her brain or something, but he hadn't interacted with her, he didn't know her, and even if his intentions were only slightly tinged with amour, it's insulting to make a decision like that about a woman when you know nothing of who she actually is.
I'm not a woman who is considered particularly attractive, and haven't had to fend off many unwanted advances in my time (the ones I do have to fend off . . . those are a special breed of desperate fellow) but I do have examples of the kind of interactions that make my blood boil. It's not because of the propositions as much as it is the assumption that they had a right to appropriate my image - to take me as merely the outward image of a person while knowing nothing about who I actually am. Here are two contrasting examples that may illustrate a little better what I'm talking about:
I was teaching an English class in Japan and noticed that one of the teenaged students sitting in the front row was actually masturbating as I talked. It was extremely unnerving, insulting, and disturbing. I didn't say or do anything about it, but it bothered me for a long time. That may seem incredibly harsh, but the reason it bothered me was because I had become nothing but an image to be exploited for someone. I wasn't a human. It wasn't the dignity of a man finding me as a person attractive and wanting to be with me and share a sexual relationship. It was the utter selfishness of thinking "I'm going to look at her and use her for my own little moment of self-gratification and I don't even care who she is or what she would think." Masturbation isn't even about sex; sex is where you involve another person and try to please them. Masturbation is where you're going to get your jollies and I'm not even invited.
The second incident happened when I was teaching English at a private high school in Taiwan. I had been teaching a class of high school juniors for an entire semester. I knew them, loved them, and appreciated them. One day I was down near their homeroom classroom where I don't typically go and overheard two of the boys talking about how one of them had a crush on me. They saw me and the poor kid turned every shade of red that Asians don't typically turn and had a really hard time participating in class that day. I promise I don't endorse any sort of teacher-student relationship, nor would I ever have considered anything with a minor appropriate, but I didn't feel hurt and insulted by this. I felt compassionate. He hadn't just looked at me - he'd known me all semester (he is a rather good student and I praised him and joked with him often) and had developed, however unrealistically, a sort of attraction to me.
This is the difference - this is what women want and deserve out of love and sexual relationships. We do not deserve to be treated as images. We don't deserve to be a speaker at a scientific convention presenting our life's work and have some jackass in the back of the room making quips about our body parts or sending lurid emails. We deserve to have others interact with us as human beings, to get to know who we are, and for our romantic relationships to arise out of friendship, shared experience, and real love and appreciation of who we are as people.
I realize this makes me a bit of a radical. I realize it's not the way things happen in "the real world." I realize that in our culture, a perfectly acceptable way for both men and women to meet potential mates is to see them strutting their stuff on a drunken dance floor and "going in for the kill." But I know that it's not inescapable because I know a lot of respectful men who don't let themselves be attracted just to female images but who reserve their sexual appreciation for someone they've gotten to know and respect as an individual. I know things could be a lot different if we made changes in our culture about what is and isn't acceptable. And I really believe that no matter what our personal views on sex and morality we'd all be a lot better off and women would feel a lot safer and dignified if we expected this of ourselves.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
While I agree with much that was said, I wonder, why (beyond commenting on the article that started this discussion) did you make this a gender specific argument? It works just as well genderless. Do not men deserve the same? Doesn't being approached by a stranger for sex hurt men's humanity and dignity as well?
I suspect you would agree that this issue cuts both gender ways, and I do understand that a man is WAY more likely to hit on a women he doesn't know then the other way around. I'm not condemning you in way shape or form.
Also, I would like to point out that while masturbation (and certainly in your horrifying example) can be selfish or shallow, that I don't think it always is or that it is intrinsically.
All kinds of people fantasize about all kinds of stuff, and in or out of a relationship it is completely possible to self pleasure with a longing/remembering/missing a deep emotional connection.
I speak theoretically of course.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote:I wonder, why (beyond commenting on the article that started this discussion) did you make this a gender specific argument? It works just as well genderless. Do not men deserve the same? Doesn't being approached by a stranger for sex hurt men's humanity and dignity as well?
Yes. Which is why I really hate romance novels. But that's a whole 'nother screed.
quote:Also, I would like to point out that while masturbation (and certainly in your horrifying example) can be selfish or shallow, that I don't think it always is or that it is intrinsically.
I see your point, but I still disagree. I still think it is intrinsically. I came to the same realization about wistful fantasies once when I was longing for this boy to love me. I played out all sorts of scenarios in my brain where he called me and told me he'd always liked me, or came in the door in some future home we had together proclaiming "Honey, I'm home!" And then I'd interact with him in real life, those hopeful fantasies still in my mind, and realize that I hadn't respected his humanity because I was making him a character in my own personal drama and wasn't accepting the person he actually was. The person he actually was wasn't interested in me, and it was unfair to be giving him all sorts of mind real estate as if he were. It ruined my ability to get to know him as he really was.
It's like that episode of Deep Space Nine where all their dreams come to life and the doctor's fantasy version of Dax is walking around on the station with the real Dax. The real Dax is insulted because his fantasy of her is all stupidly in love with him and submissive, and that's not the person she actually is.
And yes, I just referenced Deep Space Nine in all seriousness.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
There is nothing wrong with referencing Deep Space Nine. In fact, there should be more DS9 references.
For another example, there's the episode of Futurama where Fry downloads a Lucy Liu bot.
edit: And welcome back to Hatrack. Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Hey thanks Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
But what about self gratification when it comes to people who are in a relationship but are physically apart from each other?
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I have no opinion on that. I don't think I'd be comfortable with it myself, but then I've lived for 30 years without, um, playing that particular sport so I don't see it as necessary as some people might.
And I think that situation is probably a rather small percentage of the entire amount of wanking that goes on in the world. I would guess that most of it is done with no regard for the person whatsoever - it's just a picture on a screen and not always a very kind or loving portrayal at that. And I think that seriously warps the way we treat each other.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
You are probably right on all points...except maybe that last one (within a relationship, that is).
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Annie: I'm not a woman who is considered particularly attractive
Having met you, the only response I can give to this assessment involves a rude noise. Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Annie: I'm not a woman who is considered particularly attractive
Having met you, the only response I can give to this assessment involves a rude noise.
No, I fully acknowledge that I am the most beautiful woman in the world. I think I discovered that really late one night when I was staying up reading forums. But I'm not considered particularly attractive, judging by responses. The fact that I'm a mouthy know-it-all probably confounds my data.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:While I agree with much that was said, I wonder, why (beyond commenting on the article that started this discussion) did you make this a gender specific argument? It works just as well genderless. Do not men deserve the same? Doesn't being approached by a stranger for sex hurt men's humanity and dignity as well?
I'm only guessing, but I think it might be because...it happens much more often to women than it does to men, so while ideally it cuts both ways, and viewing a man as a sex object is as demeaning as is viewing a woman as such...it happens much less often, so in the real world it really doesn't cut both ways. Particularly when, as in this discussion, we're talking about things such as propositioning someone in an elevator, or masturbating in public, etc. As a group, women simply don't do that as often. (In part because they have been and still are often taught that to approach sexuality as men do, or as men are encouraged to, earns a helluva lot of social stigma.)
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Annie:
quote:Also, I would like to point out that while masturbation (and certainly in your horrifying example) can be selfish or shallow, that I don't think it always is or that it is intrinsically.
I see your point, but I still disagree. I still think it is intrinsically. I came to the same realization about wistful fantasies once when I was longing for this boy to love me. I played out all sorts of scenarios in my brain where he called me and told me he'd always liked me, or came in the door in some future home we had together proclaiming "Honey, I'm home!" And then I'd interact with him in real life, those hopeful fantasies still in my mind, and realize that I hadn't respected his humanity because I was making him a character in my own personal drama and wasn't accepting the person he actually was. The person he actually was wasn't interested in me, and it was unfair to be giving him all sorts of mind real estate as if he were. It ruined my ability to get to know him as he really was.
So do you think it's wrong to masturbate, or to have wistful fantasies? Maybe sometimes a shallow experience, or a selfish experience, can be necessary or beneficial. Or just fun and not harmful, like playing a simple video game.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
You came *this* close to being a real life Yandere Annie Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I don't think fantasies are harmful to the object of the fantasies as long as you keep it to yourself. I think it can potentially be problematic if you DO end up interacting with that person and you have trouble separating the fake them from the real them.
Masturbating in front of someone is obviously wrong in all kinds of ways. But in general, I have less of a problem with porn than I do oversexualization in media in general. Porn activates a specific part of my brain that only lasts a short time and doesn't carry over into my regular thought processes. Whereas TV shows that portray men pursuing women a particular way reinforce a view of what's normal and I think has a noticeable impact on how I treat people, unless I actively work to fix it.
(Actually, on a similar note, I think masturbation is far less damaging that wistful fantasies when we're talking about a person you actually know - for me, the wistful fantasies are more likely to impact my relationship with them)
In the case of Elevator Guy... I think there's a hazy line in terms of whether he was objectifying a fantasy version of her. I'm sure he was to some degree, but he HAD just heard her speak and (presumably) was familiar with her ideas and he can be legitimately attracted to Rebecca as a person. Even if he was ALSO attracted to Rebecca-the-fantasy.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote:So do you think it's wrong to masturbate, or to have wistful fantasies? Maybe sometimes a shallow experience, or a selfish experience, can be necessary or beneficial. Or just fun and not harmful, like playing a simple video game.
I do think that sexual fantasies of any sort do more harm than good. They take the other person out of what is supposed to be a two-person interaction and get people to expect the unreal and then to confound the unreal with the real. Humans are complex creatures, and our activities are not neat and compartmentalized. Even "simple video games" impact what we think about and what we do. I'm not saying there's no place for fun, but I think we need to be very careful when we allow ourselves to be entertained by fictional representations of people.
Take, for example, an example from the women's side this time - Twilight causing problems in marriage. Are these extreme examples? Yes. But they are clear examples of what happens when we tie our romantics and sexual emotions to fictions. It ruins our interactions with reality.
quote:Porn activates a specific part of my brain that only lasts a short time and doesn't carry over into my regular thought processes.
From the way I've seen pornography affect the men in my life, it definitely carries over into their view of women and relationships. That's one of the biggest problems with it.
This recent article from Newsweek gives some stark examples. It's talking about prostitution, but the study also included visiting strip clubs, etc. in the concept of "buying sex." Pornography played a big role in the group of sex buyers versus the non-buyers. And all of this changes users' view of women.
"Overall, the attitudes and habits of sex buyers reveal them as men who dehumanize and commodify women, view them with anger and contempt, lack empathy for their suffering, and relish their own ability to inflict pain and degradation."
And further on, "'Over time, as a result of their prostitution and pornography use, sex buyers reported that their sexual preferences changed and they sought more sadomasochistic and anal sex,' the study reported.
'Prostitution can get you to think that things you may have done with a prostitute you should expect in a mutual loving relationship,' said one john who was interviewed. Such beliefs inspire anger toward other women if they don’t comply, impairing men’s ability to sustain relationships with nonprostitutes."
I think one of the most harmful concepts about pornography is that it's a fiction, harmless, and a fantasy.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Annie:
quote:So do you think it's wrong to masturbate, or to have wistful fantasies? Maybe sometimes a shallow experience, or a selfish experience, can be necessary or beneficial. Or just fun and not harmful, like playing a simple video game.
I do think that sexual fantasies of any sort do more harm than good. They take the other person out of what is supposed to be a two-person interaction and get people to expect the unreal and then to confound the unreal with the real. Humans are complex creatures, and our activities are not neat and compartmentalized. Even "simple video games" impact what we think about and what we do. I'm not saying there's no place for fun, but I think we need to be very careful when we allow ourselves to be entertained by fictional representations of people.
Take, for example, an example from the women's side this time - Twilight causing problems in marriage. Are these extreme examples? Yes. But they are clear examples of what happens when we tie our romantics and sexual emotions to fictions. It ruins our interactions with reality.
I agree that there are certain psychological risks to objectifying people. But there's a flip side as well. Inhibiting your fantasy life can impede your regular sexual function. The sex response is a very delicate thing with a lot of subconscious aspects. Men who try too hard not to fantasize or masturbate can end up having problems with erections. Women can end up with vaginismus.
There's also a physical health aspect to it as well, at least for men. Regular ejaculations promote prostate health and help prevent cancer.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
It's hard to know what is right when it comes to this issue. Too much or too little can hurt you, and if you do it in the wrong way, it can hurt your ability to relate to people of the opposite gender (or same depending on orientation).
I think the bottom line is the same for all powerful things. Be careful and kind, seek balance.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: I don't think fantasies are harmful to the object of the fantasies as long as you keep it to yourself. I think it can potentially be problematic if you DO end up interacting with that person and you have trouble separating the fake them from the real them.
I'll second this. I don't care if total strangers want to fantasize about me; I do care, very much, when they want to tell me about those fantasies. And by "care," I mean it both terrifies me (when we're alone, when we're in a confined space I can't easily escape) and makes me want to punch them.
If they feel the need to tell me about their fantasies, I have to assume it's because they want some sort of response. And that need to make me into a participant, to my mind, shows they do have severe trouble separating the real me from the fake me in their head.
Honestly, I'd much rather total strangers fantasize privately than approach me with something "neutral" like "Girl, do you know how beautiful you are?" The latter has far too often led straight into "I want to f*** you til you scream" for it not make me reflexively flinch and start looking for exits.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:"I want to f*** you til you scream"
My theoretical response: Why wait, I'll scream now. PERVERT!!! THERE IS A PERV OVER HERE!!! COME SEE THE SEXUAL DEVIANT!!!
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
quote:My theoretical response: Why wait, I'll scream now. PERVERT!!! THERE IS A PERV OVER HERE!!! COME SEE THE SEXUAL DEVIANT!!!
Aw, Stone_Wolf_, you're such a Dad. That is just such a Dad thing to say. And I mean that in the nicest possible way. Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:"I want to f*** you til you scream"
My theoretical response: Why wait, I'll scream now. PERVERT!!! THERE IS A PERV OVER HERE!!! COME SEE THE SEXUAL DEVIANT!!!
Ha ha! I actually really want to see someone use that.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:"I want to f*** you til you scream"
My theoretical response: Why wait, I'll scream now. PERVERT!!! THERE IS A PERV OVER HERE!!! COME SEE THE SEXUAL DEVIANT!!!
I believe my sister has done this. (As I said, she's something to behold.) As a frequent participant in scifi cons (and quite the hottie) she's become proficient at the public shaming of tossers like that. It's both beautiful and a little terrifying to see. Those who attend cons with her have turned it into a drinking game. O_O
I'm... not sure I'd have it in me to what she does. I usually take a chaperone if I'm going to be in a situation like that. (By chaperone, I mean going out with a hefty group of femmes. My usual group has a fairly imposing gay man who likes to play protector, too.) The wedding ring usually does pretty well, but it only keeps the reasonably moral ones away.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Good for your sister! I love it when my wife blows off inappropriate neanderthals...so funny. I always want to step in, but she does it so much more humiliatingly then I could have managed.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
" And further on, "'Over time, as a result of their prostitution and pornography use, sex buyers reported that their sexual preferences changed and they sought more sadomasochistic and anal sex,' the study reported."
...what's wrong with anal sex?
(Spoken by someone who, honestly, doesn't particularly want to put it in there, so to speak. But the point isn't my personal likes or dislikes, because not liking fish doesn't make fish bad, either. Just something I don't want to eat, personally.)
Or really, BDSM for that matter? As long as the partners like it, and you don't get some jackass whining about not getting their kinks or putting pressure on a person, there's really, quite literally, nothing wrong with any of this.
I'm going to talk about the article, now. I had some problems with it: First, as stated, the study's control group kind of sucks. They even talk, at length, about their difficulty finding anyone to actually put into the control group, and had to loosen things to a serious degree.
Doesn't that make it more likely than normal that the control group is skewed in the first place, creating a distorted view of which behaviors are normal, and which aren't?
Furthermore, their statements also suggest the massive difficulty in finding men who do not do this, by their standards.
In other words, it's conceivable, though not proven, of course, that the vast majority of men you meet, including the good ones, do do the things you view as so harmful, Annie.
Is it at all possible -and I'm not saying this is true, just bringing up the question- that while the dangers you speak of do occur, and no one denies that, that you have exaggerated the danger for the psychologically healthy individual?
In any case, let me get a little farther into the recent article: It says that the ones who go to prostitutes are eight times more likely to say they were willing to rape a woman than those who don't.
But it doesn't give an actual percentage there. Is this .1 versus .8%? 1 versus 8%? 10 versus 80%? Furthermore, how do you prove, considering how common rape is in everyday life, that it is not the alleged control group that is not atypical, instead of the ones who purchase sex?
In any case, there's also the danger of lumping those who go out and purchase prostitutes with those who look at porn. Differences do exist, and it probably isn't as cut and dried as "those who purchase sex in any form" and "those who don't." That's a problem they came across in this study, apparently. But I'm just going off what this article is saying, I don't have the actual study here, and that would be infinitely preferable, considering how unreliable news reporting of these sorts of things are.
Going on... I already talked about the anal sex thing, big whoop the guys like anal sex more, and BDSM more. I'm again, incredibly unconcerned about this. What I am concerned about, of course, is what is claim that this leads men to be angrier towards women who don't then comply. I've seen porn, but I haven't visited prostitutes, so I may fall in the less likely to have these problems category, but if true this is a significant problem.
However, that's merely a statement made by the article, and I don't see it backed up as anything other than correlation.
In any case, I can't speak to the psychology of those who visit prostitutes, because I don't do that myself. They prefer to think of them as willing, even when they aren't really? Gee, I wonder why. Cognitive dissonance is a rather common human trait. It's bad, but not unique.
(In any case, the argument that prostitution degrades without question is a quagmire. I've seen good arguments that it does, good arguments that it only does because of the current situations, and could be vastly better if steps were taken, and seen feminists disagree vehemently on the issue. I don't consider it a finished issue, though I would hazard to say that, in any case, current conditions should not be tolerated, and changes must occur.)
Most of the rest of the article wanders off away from the study being done, and goes into interesting and important stuff about the plight of prostitutes, but that's not relevant to my point, so I'll skip over that. The article is clearly biased against prostitution in all its forms. (Not saying this is a BAD bias, or wrong, just that it's a bias.)
However, going through the article, it doesn't really support your argument about fantasies being bad. It's full of supposition, the article fails to make the study sound very convincingly done (that's the fault of the article. I haven't seen the study).
Oh, and it focuses on prostitution, not porn use or fantasies, and worse conflates the two unnecessarily. Am I saying they're incorrect? No, but I wouldn't be so readily convinced by it.
Conclusion time:
Thing is, of course men who are going to purchase the time of women for sex are going to have some psychological differences, and of course pornography also has an effect. But you can't go from "people who use prostitutes are more likely to think of women as objects" to "sexual fantasies and masturbation are inherently harmful" just like that. There are steps you need to take between these statements, steps the article doesn't take, and steps you haven't taken. It's a logical leap. A rather large one, in fact.
Furthermore, what you do argue in regards to fantasies is evidence based on the outliers. Of course you will find articles about people who are messed up by something like Twilight. But just like you shouldn't take a train bombing to mean that getting onto a passenger train is inherently unsafe, you can't go from the Twilight thing to thinking that having steamy thoughts about Edward coming to your room at night is inherently going to destroy your relationship due to obsession, the real problem of that first article you sent.
That's what the news is, after all. Unusual events. Outliers. They are not the norm, and it's far too easy to forget that.
Its like Sigmound Freud basing his work on the psychology of the human mind... by using only the minds of those who are insane. It skewed him.
[ July 22, 2011, 06:54 PM: Message edited by: 0Megabyte ]
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
There's nothing inherently wrong with those things, if they are done by consenting adults, but I doubt there is any question that those sexual practices are more violent and extreme. I believe the point that was trying to be made was that the people who obtained sex without intimacy soon found that the sex itself was insufficient and they needed more radical and savage acts to keep them interested.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
My question is: when does fantasizing become harmful and what exactly qualifies and sexualizing? The first seems like it could just as easily apply to forward thinking: picturing a scenario and envisioning if you want that, or what you would do to achieve that. I've certainly done it in relationships, pictured our potential future and then in one case realized it wouldn't make me happy and broke it off; in another, decided it's what I wanted and pursued (with limited success obviously ). Clearly in this scenario it's more 'appropriate' as we were already in a relationship, but I'm sure I've done it outside of one as well: where is the line drawn and why? If the reason is it ruins personal interactions then am I free and clear if we now live in different states and don't talk? It seems like the standard has to be more universal than that.
When it comes to sexualizing the same kind of questions come up. If a man (or women, gender not really being the point but lets keep to the stereotypes ) looks at a pornographic video is he sexualizing the women in it? Seems like they've already been "reduced to a sexual object" long before he decides to follow the link. The argument of being forced to be a male-dominated society or whatever not really being relevant. Or if it is relevant, what if he did it in a way that did not finicaly help anyone out and thus did not increase demand for such videos, is he now off the hook? At least when it comes to sexualizing said women? Is picturing a woman for sexual purposes always inappropriate? Seems like the answer to that is 'no', if she is, say married to you and enjoys sex. Picturing her having sex with you doesn't seem particularly worse than picturing her cooking you dinner if you're hungry. It's not reducing her to a mere cook for you it's just your hungry and you're imagining having a feast when you come home. It's a thought focused on the self but that seems like a pretty high bar to judge people on.
I guess something that confuses me here is what the argument is against EG. Is it that what he did was threatening or what he did was demeaning? I buy the first one a lot easier than the second but I'm not sure there's really been much consensus or distinction here so I'm confused. And by 'buy' the first one I mean I agree, that seems reasonable. As with previous posters I recognize that having never been female I don't have a good grip on what is and isn't a threatening situation with men and am more than willing to believe that this could be one. It's also so far out of the life I lead to proposition a woman at 4:00am in an elevator that .... well I'm willing to believe what I'm told about it's implications.
Hobbes Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Oh, look, I found the study. Yay. Here we go...
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Hobbes, this part isn't really related to Elevator Guy.
Certainly what Elevator Guy did was in bad form, and made Watson uncomfortable, and that is sufficient right then and there for the warning "hey, don't do this to me, it makes me uncomfortable." It's also obvious he was trying to hook up with her. I hope he's read this, and realizes what he did was inappropriate.
Is what he did always inappropriate? I'm less certain, but it seems to me that while asking a question like that in a less crowded space and moment is in itself not bad, because why would you want to ask that question in a place where everyone will hear your rejection, doing so in a a place with no ready exit, or is perceived as such, is not wise, either.
In other words, really, you can't read someone's minds and you can't know what will make this particular woman uncomfortable, but you can at least make a reasonable effort to not seem threatening, through either body language or through positioning. If you're going to ask them, ask in a place where there's a clear means of exit, and though you cannot make yourself physically smaller, try to keep the difference in size in mind.
Also, if she's into you, and you're already hitting it off, you're probably fine, even if you make a mistake.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Certainly what Elevator Guy did was in bad form, and made Watson uncomfortable, and that is sufficient right then and there for the warning "hey, don't do this to me, it makes me uncomfortable." It's also obvious he was trying to hook up with her.
I agree with the first, but disagree with second.
He might have been trying to hook up, but he might not have been. That he did both poorly -is- obvious to me.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
This whole story just makes me glad I'm out of the dating scene. Man, that was miserable. I mean, I had my share of good times, but I was no stranger to the awkward experience. I certainly never invited any strangers (or friends, for that matter) back to my hotel room for sex. But I'm sure I made the odd unintentional comment that girls later told their friends about in amusement or horror.
I still remember what it felt like to try to work up the nerve to talk to a girl. Sometimes I'd find a good moment, but many times I'd spend all night trying to talk myself into it, and then bail on the idea entirely.
I remember trying to psych myself up to approach someone. I'd tell myself, "come on, the worst she can do is say no, right?" That's what I loved about the '90s. Today I'd have to say, "come on, the worst she can do is use this experience to start an Internet flame war that destroys the career of Richard Dawkins."
Somehow that doesn't seem quite as inspiring.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Heh, Dawkins had help finding up his rep-his own help that is. And it remains to be seen if this will actually 'destroy' him.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
I'm late to the party, but I just wanted to say this thread has been a great read. Also, welcome back, Annie!
ETA: And for my quick two cents on the original topic - I think Annie hit the nail on the head with what was wrong with EG's approach. They were strangers. Without a pre-established relationship between them and given the context (enclosed elevator, after her lectures of the day) it was certainly creepy. Whether he was hitting on RW or not is secondary to the fact that context matters.
As far as what Dawkins said, I think there's an argument to be made about false equivocation with regard to rights violations. That being said, RW was not equivocating her experience with the harms he related. And I certainly don't think that we should ignore less brutal violations of rights just because there are more egregious cases out there.
[ July 23, 2011, 01:51 AM: Message edited by: Vadon ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Annie: I do think that sexual fantasies of any sort do more harm than good. They take the other person out of what is supposed to be a two-person interaction and get people to expect the unreal and then to confound the unreal with the real. Humans are complex creatures, and our activities are not neat and compartmentalized.
Humans are complex creatures, hard to compartmentalize, and that's one of the reasons why I disagree with all of this. You can't say that sexual fantasies of any sort do more harm than good any more than you can say that it is 'supposed to be a two-person interaction' — it's just usually a two-person interaction. And plenty of forms of sexual fantasy, self-gratification, etc, are completely healthy.
You can dislike them personally all you like; to insist that the same model is true universally is painting with impossibly broad brushstrokes. Sex-positive feminism and The Ethical Slut would both be good venues for educating yourself on those fronts.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: You can dislike them personally all you like; to insist that the same model is true universally is painting with impossibly broad brushstrokes. Sex-positive feminism and The Ethical Slut would both be good venues for educating yourself on those fronts.
Annie is to porn as Ron Lambert is to atheism. Good luck.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:I do think that sexual fantasies of any sort do more harm than good. They take the other person out of what is supposed to be a two-person interaction and get people to expect the unreal and then to confound the unreal with the real. Humans are complex creatures, and our activities are not neat and compartmentalized.
How do fantasies stop things from being a two person interaction? Say someone fantasizes about having sex in an airplane, and they talk it over with their partner, and the partner says, "sounds like fun, maybe you can dress up as a flight attendant and I'll be a passenger". Where'd that stop being a two person interaction? Where did it stop being anything other than a healthy interplay between two people who love each other? Moving back to fantasies derived from porn, I'm having a hard time distinguishing those from any other source of ideas about sex. Presumably it's okay to discuss sex in a frank and open way with certain people in certain contexts; knowing about sex, including ways people can increase the pleasure they get from sex, is extremely important. What makes fantasies due to porn the objectionable ones but fantasies due to having learned about a new sex position that sounds like fun in another context not objectionable? Unless, of course, you think that finding out in any context about how sex can become better is a bad thing, in which case I would be very sad for you.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
My comments are all related to a larger argument I'm in the process of articulating, but I'm still looking for some sources I read years ago to give it the backing I want it to have. So forgive me for being piecemeal, but I'll try to explain what bits of it I can.
quote:And plenty of forms of sexual fantasy, self-gratification, etc, are completely healthy.
You can dislike them personally all you like; to insist that the same model is true universally is painting with impossibly broad brushstrokes. Sex-positive feminism and The Ethical Slut would both be good venues for educating yourself on those fronts.
I still disagree that they're completely healthy. I'm not going to tell you that they're going to make you go blind, but I disagree that they're healthy to a relationship.
I'm actually aware of many of the sources you suggest. I follow the blog Anti-Porn Feminists. I think the sex-positive crowd does a pretty good job of arguing why porn is anti-woman, but they're still lacking a certain element, which is why I'm trying to write the piece I'm working on.
My basic premise (and it answers some of the questions posed to me) is that there's something wrong with a type of "sex" that men enjoy and women don't. Anal sex is a perfect example. What's wrong with it? Well, how about the fact that it's painful and unpleasant for the woman?
Now is the time to insert whatever anecdotal evidence you like. Plenty of women consensually engage in acts like that, right?
Well, the crux of my argument is that for a woman, sexual satisfaction is different than it is for a man. Recent research (and this is the part I'm still trying to find the source for - I read it a few years ago) suggest that women's orgasms are a lot more related to intimacy and emotional closeness than they are to physical factors. This is why many women will engage in sexual acts that aren't pleasant to them - because to them the approval and love of their partner is a lot more important to their psychological bond than physical enjoyment.
But a relationship suffers when it's based on mutual masturbation rather than sex. This is what fantasies, pornography, and "alternative" sexual practices are all about. It's not "What can I do to make my partner happy," it's "what can I talk my partner into doing for me."
I don't want to get into a lot of personal detail here, but this all began when I was in a relationship with someone who had been addicted to pornography and was trying to overcome it. I was talking to him once after he had been engaged in something that really hurt my feelings. He couldn't comprehend why I was so upset. I told him about the book I had just been reading and how women's sexual attraction was based on trust and emotional intimacy. He didn't understand what I meant. Was I saying we were "in trouble" now because he had apologized and I felt I could trust him again and I was feeling aroused? No, I told him. I was trying to say that I felt absolutely no physical attraction to him at all when he betrayed my trust.
I know you're all giving examples of "non-traditional sex" (what I'd call mutual masturbation or maybe even masturbation with another person in the room) that sound innocuous. But is that really where it stops? Do people really just watch innocent little pornographic videos that show two people in love? Or do they watch increasingly violent and misogynistic depictions and become less and less satisfied with real, loving sex where the object is to please your partner and cement your emotional bond?
Basically, my argument is:
quote:What makes fantasies due to porn the objectionable ones but fantasies due to having learned about a new sex position that sounds like fun in another context not objectionable?
Because "fantasies" in pornography depict women as submissive, fearful, unreal creatures and they encourage an appetite to hurt, shame and humiliate. I don't know much about the extent of any of this because I have absolutely no desire to ever watch it, but I read research and objections to it and I am aware of the disturbing realities of the world of pornography. It's not about sex; it never was. Sex is a loving expression between two people. Pornography is about power, violence, and hatred.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Oh, and as an aside:
quote:Sex-positive feminism and The Ethical Slut would both be good venues for educating yourself on those fronts.
Mormons are actually extremely sex-positive. We don't think that sex was the Original Sin, we don't think that our bodies are evil and corrupt and we're pretty sure there's sex in heaven.
Just because I'm not casual-uncommitted-sex-positive, don't assume that I'm not sex-positive.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:But a relationship suffers when it's based on mutual masturbation rather than sex. This is what fantasies, pornography, and "alternative" sexual practices are all about. It's not "What can I do to make my partner happy," it's "what can I talk my partner into doing for me."
What a horrible way of looking at a relationship. Realizing something turns you on and discussing with your partner if it can be reasonably worked into your sex life isn't about "what can I talk my partner into doing for me", it's about having a healthy, mutually respectful relationship. Just as asking your partner to put down the toilet lid isn't about "what ways I can control my partner's toilet behavior". Adults have respectful give and take in all areas of their lives, including sex. What in your construction even allows either partner to suggest a new sex position?
quote:Just because I'm not casual-uncommitted-sex-positive, don't assume that I'm not sex-positive.
I'm pretty certain that's not the reason anyone might think you aren't sex positive in this thread.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by Annie: Anal sex is a perfect example. What's wrong with it? Well, how about the fact that it's painful and unpleasant for the woman?
Now is the time to insert whatever anecdotal evidence you like. Plenty of women consensually engage in acts like that, right?
Yes, plenty do, and not just with men. Sometimes with other women, just for the pleasure of it, without any thought for men or men's desires.
The world is a really wide and varied place.
quote:Or do they watch increasingly violent and misogynistic depictions and become less and less satisfied with real, loving sex where the object is to please your partner and cement your emotional bond?
After 10 years of marriage and 3 years of intimacy before that, I still have to say "no" for us.
Again, the world is a wide and varied place. I know at least 3 or 4 friends with experience similar to mine (one of whom has been married over 15 years), and I have spoken as a professional to many others. My experience is that the sort of concern you raise doesn't reflect most people's outcomes at all.
However, I fully support your thinking these issues through for yourself and advocating for your concerns. I like reading your thoughts and listening to what you have to say, Annie.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote:I'm pretty certain that's not the reason anyone might think you aren't sex positive in this thread.
Pornography and masturbation are not sex.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:Pornography and masturbation are not sex.
And you've spoken out against a lot more than pornography and masturbation.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Nothing in that study convinces me that you should masturbate or you're going to get cancer.
However, this is also a benefit to getting married and loving your wife.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13:
quote:Pornography and masturbation are not sex.
And you've spoken out against a lot more than pornography and masturbation.
Did I ever speak out against sex? I think sex is a very good thing. I think you should get married and have a lot of sex.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Nothing in that study convinces me that you should masturbate or you're going to get cancer.
However, this is also a benefit to getting married and loving your wife.
For the sake of argument: what if I'm butt ugly and can't find a wife?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:Did I ever speak out against sex? I think sex is a very good thing. I think you should get married and have a lot of sex.
You've spoken out against couples having mutually respectful discussions about what turns them on sexually. Sex is more than just copulation.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Nothing in that study convinces me that you should masturbate or you're going to get cancer.
However, this is also a benefit to getting married and loving your wife.
For the sake of argument: what if I'm butt ugly and can't find a wife?
That happens. I know quite a few people who aren't married and are still committed to living a celibate lifestyle. They manage just fine. Maybe they have a 33% higher risk of prostate cancer. (What is that risk, anyway? Still rather small, I'm guessing) But living a life without being addicted to sexual fantasies is actually very psychologically healthy.
I can say this, because I am a 30-year-old virgin who decided at one point to start living a life without sexual fantasies and I am much, much happier.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13:
quote:Did I ever speak out against sex? I think sex is a very good thing. I think you should get married and have a lot of sex.
You've spoken out against couples having mutually respectful discussions about what turns them on sexually. Sex is more than just copulation.
No I didn't. Read my comments again carefully. I explained how fantasies derived from pornography are different from wanting to try a new position.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:No I didn't. Read my comments again carefully. I explained how fantasies derived from pornography are different from wanting to try a new position.
Lots of fantasies have nothing to do with the woman being submissive, fearful, an unreal creature, shamed, or humiliated. For instance, a flight attendant and a passenger deciding to sneak into an airplane bathroom to have sex because they're attracted to each other. That's a sexual fantasy, and one you can find in pornography, but it does not meet any of your criteria.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by Annie: Maybe they have a 33% higher risk of prostate cancer. (What is that risk, anyway? Still rather small, I'm guessing)
quote:Prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States among men, and this disease is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in American males. --from eMedicine
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Also, because you've mentioned that you're religious: why would God design people so that the (according to you) psychologically healthiest sexual behavior is less physically healthy than the alternative?
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I still don't think that any of these arguments are convincing me that pornography and masturbation are good things. It's all an effort to excuse damaging things on the basis of a small number of them being innocuous and OK.
Is that really how it is? Do people really watch pornography of flight attendants and passengers who love each other a lot? Is that where people stop? Is that where you stop?
I'm trying to paint a picture of a life that doesn't include these things; a life where sex is something great that you wait for and that draws you closer to your spouse. It's actually a very good life. I can attest to that. I have family and friends who can attest to that. There are other Hatrackers here who can attest to that. When you reject the view that pornography and other sexual abberations are inevitable or part of what sex is supposed to be, you can live a happy and loving existence.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Also, because you've mentioned that you're religious: why would God design people so that the (according to you) psychologically healthiest sexual behavior is less physically healthy than the alternative?
God designed people and taught them to get married because that is the healthiest behavior. Lifelong celibacy, while it ends up being some people's lot, is not His plan for most of us.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
You've said a lot of stuff in response to me, Annie, but none of it tackles the core issue with your approach to sex, porn, masturbation, and elements of fantasy in a sex life. Your premise is to establish certain things as universal, when they're hardly universal at all. Your position on anal sex is a perfect example. You only need to find a healthy quantity of women who will tell you that you are wrong, you have no right to assert otherwise, and you are not to speak for them when you tell them that, since they are women, they don't enjoy anal sex, and it is 'painful and unpleasant for them,' full stop. That blows apart your absolutist premise on anal sex. Same issue with pornography. Same issue with fantasy elements in sexuality, which can and absolutely are part of many people's healthy sexuality, between one or multiple partners. Same issue with how you asserted that sex is supposed to be a two-person interaction (again, full stop). There exists healthy, wonderful sex with multiple partners that many people engage in that can't be fairly or rationally viewed through your lens.
Which makes me curious, Annie, when you describe yourself as 'sex positive,' (which I'm pretty positive you are not), which of these kinds of consentual sexual acts do you reject as being capable of being acceptable and healthy? Tell me which of these numbers are, in your view, not something that you can allow can be healthy.
1. Sex outside of marriage
2. Sex with multiple partners
3. Sex with a member of your own gender
4. Sex with a transgendered person, with or without sex change operation
5. Sex while watching porn
6. Sex while wearing costumes or engaging in sexual roleplay
7. Roleplay involving rape fantasy
8. Sex while watching pornography
9. Participating or otherwise making a career in pornography
10. Bondage
11. submission/dominance, and other forms of power exchange
12. Sadomasochism, including spanking
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by Annie: It's all an effort to excuse damaging things on the basis of a small number of them being innocuous and OK.
From my point of view, it isn't about making excuses but about how to make sense of the world and the best ways to live in it. I'm pretty sure that my good choices aren't going to line up exactly with anyone else's in some ways, and I'm okay with that.
But in thinking for myself about how to make good choices for me and, in a professional capacity, about how to help others make good choices for themselves, it's important to me to rely on more than just theory. I can theorize that something isn't pleasurable, but I have to let other people's reality resist my preconceptions about it.
That is, when not only one but several people tell me that something which doesn't do anything for me sexually (or even is unpleasant to me) is pleasurable to them -- and they continue to choose it, and they are perfectly healthy, stable, and happy -- then I have to accept that for some other people, at least, this may be a pleasurable thing. Maybe even a healthy thing, in the right context.
I cannot privilege my theories about the world and what is possible in it over other people's lived experiences. I just cannot do that. It's the same as with things like the incidence rate of particular types of cancer. Just assuming what I theorize to be true must actually be true isn't enough.
quote:Is that really how it is? Do people really watch pornography of flight attendants and passengers who love each other a lot? Is that where people stop? Is that where you stop?
I can tell you that I have enjoyed pornography/erotica for more than 30 years, and I do not and have not had any inclination to pursue any words or images that are not about mutually happy and healthy people.
quote:I'm trying to paint a picture of a life that doesn't include these things; a life where sex is something great that you wait for and that draws you closer to your spouse. It's actually a very good life. I can attest to that. I have family and friends who can attest to that. There are other Hatrackers here who can attest to that. When you reject the view that pornography and other sexual abberations are inevitable or part of what sex is supposed to be, you can live a happy and loving existence.
I think that's great! Great for you and great for a lot of other people.
I also think lived experiences of other people speak to the fact that other choices may well be better for them. I don't find this mutually exclusionary.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:It's all an effort to excuse damaging things on the basis of a small number of them being innocuous and OK.
Yes, *that's* what these arguments are about. I want to harm people. CT wants to harm people (I'm having a hard time saying that one with a straight face). All the people who talk about their healthy, happy, long term relationships that happen to involve masturbation, fantasies, and/or porn are out to harm people, or are at best just teetering on the precipice before a descent into "violence and hatred".
Or maybe there are ways to work through those things in healthy matters, that adults manage to navigate, especially when not culturally inculcated to view masturbation and pornography as a gateway to evil, perhaps leading people who find themselves drawn to masturbation or pornography to actually *use* them as gateways to evil.
And I find it amusing that the negatives you assign to S&M assume the guy would be the dominant and initiating one Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Sam - I don't find any of those acceptable. I was trying to redefine the term sex-positive. I am aware of its usage but totally disagree that any of those things are ultimately positive for anyone involved.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
As an aside:
Annie, you have a lot of people talking with you all at once. I am saying the things that are important to me, but I [want] explictly to let you off the hook for responding to them.
There is a lot on your plate, and even if I am responding specifically to something you wrote, I don't do so with the expectation that you are obliged to reply back. Just to be clear.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
And Fugu, I'm not implying that you're consciously trying to hurt people. I'm arguing that a lot of the damage done by these things hurts people without them realizing what they're doing. That's certainly my experience in relationships with pornography users and as the child of a pornography user. It re-wires the brain. It makes people unaware and insensitive to the needs and emotions of others. It changes the view of what people find sexually attractive. It desensitizes people to the nuances of human emotion.
One of my good friends said once "You don't have to tell me which guys use pornography. I can tell by the way they treat their wives."
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:Sam - I don't find any of those acceptable. I was trying to redefine the term sex-positive. I am aware of its usage but totally disagree that any of those things are ultimately positive for anyone involved.
quote:6. Sex while wearing costumes or engaging in sexual roleplay
You're going back to objecting to the flight attendant/passenger scenario? (Which certainly does exist and is a happy part of many people's sex lives; it's one of the more common sexual fantasy tropes, which is why I used it as an example. It does not happen to be one of mine, at least not as more than a passing humor).
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote:Originally posted by CT: As an aside:
Annie, you have a lot of people talking with you all at once. I am saying the things that are important to me, but I [want] explictly to let you off the hook for responding to them.
There is a lot on your plate, and even if I am responding specifically to something you wrote, I don't do so with the expectationt hat you are obliged to reply back. Just to be clear.
Thank you. I tend to get overwhelmed in these discussions and I'm afraid it makes it look like I can't handle the opposition to my arguments or that I'm giving up. Sometimes I just have to let some of them go.
Although I do wish sometimes that those who agreed with me (and I know they're here) would step up and say something. But I definitely don't want to drag people into long drawn-out conversations that they know from experience will never end Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13:
quote:Sam - I don't find any of those acceptable. I was trying to redefine the term sex-positive. I am aware of its usage but totally disagree that any of those things are ultimately positive for anyone involved.
quote:6. Sex while wearing costumes or engaging in sexual roleplay
You're going back to objecting to the flight attendant/passenger scenario? (Which certainly does exist and is a happy part of many people's sex lives; it's one of the more common sexual fantasy tropes, which is why I used it as an example. It does not happen to be one of mine, at least not as more than a passing humor).
OK, fine. I don't object to the costumes. But I don't think it's something worth spending a lot of time defending. I don't really know any people who object to it.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
And I don't see how you wanting to dress up in a costume justifies the existence of pornography.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by Annie: [Pornography] re-wires the brain. It makes people unaware and insensitive to the needs and emotions of others. It changes the view of what people find sexually attractive. It desensitizes people to the nuances of human emotion.
One of my good friends said once "You don't have to tell me which guys use pornography. I can tell by the way they treat their wives."
(*grin
There is no man in the world -- or woman, for that matter -- I would exchange my husband with. I have never met someone so honorable, trustworthy, and gentle with the tenderest parts of my body and psyche. He is strong, he is passionate, he is sharp as a tack, and I trust him with my soul.
He wooed me to marriage by writing me erotica. We still share this with each other, both what we find that we like and what we create ourselves, separately or together.
We now share both an office and a home. For the last 6 months or so, we've been together almost continuously. I wake first and bring him breakfast in bed, and then with sit with the cats and plan the day. At the office we work on facing desks, have lunch together, go for a walk, go back to work, and then we break at 4 for a snack and to discuss the mystery we are writing together.
Home. Dinner. Nightfall. Another long walk and discussion. Bed together.
Unfortunately, I am likely to be working in a separate office doing different things after we move soon. But he'll still be my best friend, my lover, and my husband.)
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:And Fugu, I'm not implying that you're consciously trying to hurt people. I'm arguing that a lot of the damage done by these things hurts people without them realizing what they're doing. That's certainly my experience in relationships with pornography users and as the child of a pornography user. It re-wires the brain. It makes people unaware and insensitive to the needs and emotions of others. It changes the view of what people find sexually attractive. It desensitizes people to the nuances of human emotion.
One of my good friends said once "You don't have to tell me which guys use pornography. I can tell by the way they treat their wives."
That you can even say this with a straight face shows me how much you toss your critical thinking skills out the window on this issue.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by Annie: Thank you. I tend to get overwhelmed in these discussions and I'm afraid it makes it look like I can't handle the opposition to my arguments or that I'm giving up. Sometimes I just have to let some of them go.
I know!
You and I are both passionate women, and we both feel passionately about this topic in particular. I am totally cool with sharing the room with another passionate woman, even if we are facing different directions. I am glad you are here.
quote:Although I do wish sometimes that those who agreed with me (and I know they're here) would step up and say something. But I definitely don't want to drag people into long drawn-out conversations that they know from experience will never end
Long, drawn-out conversations that never end? Here?
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13:
quote:And Fugu, I'm not implying that you're consciously trying to hurt people. I'm arguing that a lot of the damage done by these things hurts people without them realizing what they're doing. That's certainly my experience in relationships with pornography users and as the child of a pornography user. It re-wires the brain. It makes people unaware and insensitive to the needs and emotions of others. It changes the view of what people find sexually attractive. It desensitizes people to the nuances of human emotion.
One of my good friends said once "You don't have to tell me which guys use pornography. I can tell by the way they treat their wives."
That you can even say this with a straight face shows me how much you toss your critical thinking skills out the window on this issue.
That you can ignore the huge world of truly terrible things that pornography depicts and espouses shows me how much you compartmentalize this issue to justify it to yourself.
There's no scope in any of this. You're relying on the postmodern tendency to highlight the rare and the marginal and losing sight of the huge context.
If pornography is one big huge slippery slope with your dearly beloved role playing scenario at the top, what percentage of it is the approach that is violent and humiliating to women? I say stay away from the whole damn slope.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Annie: Sam - I don't find any of those acceptable.
Then just say you don't find any of them acceptable. Don't try to prop up your individual view on what people enjoy by asserting them in capriciously presumptive ways. To pick one of multiple examples, by telling other women (plenty of whom enjoy anal sex) that anal sex isn't (or 'shouldn't be,' for whatever tortured reasoning) enjoyable for them.
You are speaking of your own apprehensions and projections related to sex, nothing more. They expose a strange way that you psychologically apprehend sexual relationships, and in what ways you engage in absolutist declaration of things as inherently unhealthy. You try to prop them up as more than that. I don't know if it's essentially something you are stuck doing irrationally, or if it might be possible for others here to point out the flaws in your presentation/reasoning and create some change in your presentation, but there you go.
quote: It re-wires the brain. It makes people unaware and insensitive to the needs and emotions of others. It changes the view of what people find sexually attractive. It desensitizes people to the nuances of human emotion.
This, likewise, is all something you're going to have a hard time justifying as more than a matter of prejudice and projection on your part.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
And in addition, to the critical thinking claim: critical thinking is the ability to analyze your own thinking and to question assumptions.
I live in a society where all of these things I fight against are commonplace. When I talk about it, I get multiple vehement views to the contrary. I have had to work very hard to develop the arguments I've developed against pornography, because as much as I read religious views of why it's wrong or, on the other extreme, sex-positive feminist views of why it's wrong, none of them have encapsulated what I want to say. I have done a LOT of reflective thought on this issue. I have questioned every single assumption there is.
You can argue against every single point I make, but don't you dare paint me as blind, unquestioning and complacent. Because I am anything but.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Annie: Sam - I don't find any of those acceptable.
Then just say you don't find any of them acceptable. Don't try to prop up your individual view on what people enjoy by asserting them in capriciously presumptive ways. To pick one of multiple examples, by telling other women (plenty of whom enjoy anal sex) that anal sex isn't (or 'shouldn't be,' for whatever tortured reasoning) enjoyable for them.
You are speaking of your own apprehensions and projections related to sex, nothing more. They expose a strange way that you psychologically apprehend sexual relationships, and in what ways you engage in absolutist declaration of things as inherently unhealthy. You try to prop them up as more than that. I don't know if it's essentially something you are stuck doing irrationally, or if it might be possible for others here to point out the flaws in your presentation/reasoning and create some change in your presentation, but there you go.
quote: It re-wires the brain. It makes people unaware and insensitive to the needs and emotions of others. It changes the view of what people find sexually attractive. It desensitizes people to the nuances of human emotion.
This, likewise, is all something you're going to have a hard time justifying as more than a matter of prejudice and projection on your part.
You call it projection, I call it experience with the real world.
And I'm hardly alone. Did you read the Newsweek article I linked to? That's an awful lot of projection going on.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
With that said, I really need to leave and go to the work. I wish you all a lovely afternoon.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
Lovely afternoon to you, too.
I will go read the Newsweek article. My primary question going in is "what is the comparison group?" (That's my primary question going in for any claims-based article about physiological or psychological harms/benefits, by the way.)
If the conversation continues later and focuses on the article, I'll try to speak to that point. Meanwhile, it will be an interesting read.
Thanks.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:One of my good friends said once "You don't have to tell me which guys use pornography. I can tell by the way they treat their wives."
Outside of regions like Utah, I'm afraid a more accurate statement would be, "You don't have to tell me which guys use porn. They all do*."
*statistically speaking
It is interesting hearing your views on this. I don't think there's nothing right in what you say. I have some friends who are into stupid stuff like Captain Stabbin' and the Bang Bus, and it does lead them to what I would consider rather gross habits.
That's not to say that there's anything morally wrong with really kinky sex. I just don't find it aesthetically pleasing the way that I like the kind of sex that I'm into. It's like how I don't think Piss Jesus is a beautiful work of art. I don't think people who like Piss Jesus are morally bad in any way. But they're making a sort of aesthetic mistake.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:That you can ignore the huge world of truly terrible things that pornography depicts and espouses shows me how much you compartmentalize this issue to justify it to yourself.
There's no scope in any of this. You're relying on the postmodern tendency to highlight the rare and the marginal and losing sight of the huge context.
If pornography is one big huge slippery slope with your dearly beloved role playing scenario at the top, what percentage of it is the approach that is violent and humiliating to women? I say stay away from the whole damn slope.
Given that there's a lot of evidence that pornography isn't going away, and a decent bit of correlational evidence that villainizing pornography makes the effects on relationships more harmful, it seems the best available recourse may well be to encourage more positive engagement with the parts of pornography that don't have the characteristics you hate, not the course you're supporting
As for it being the rare and marginal, I know numerous people who view erotic and pornographic material of many types (including ones you view as inherently violent and hateful) as couples and have healthy, happy, nonviolent, nonhateful relationships. I haven't been trying to argue for things I view as 'rare and marginal' at all. You're the one taking selection biased experiences within a community that villainizes pornography and generalizing it far beyond, not to mention relying on a study that smooshes together prostitution with viewing pornography to condemn pornography, before we even get to using as evidence the assumption that anyone who treats his wife badly is viewing porn and anyone who you don't know views porn who treats his wife well must not be viewing porn because you know of some cases where they both occur.
I'm sorry if I sound frustrated. As I'm sure you know, this can be a very frustrating topic. Thank you for continuing to discuss. I hope it's overall positive.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Annie: You call it projection, I call it experience with the real world.
You could use the same thing to justify pretty much any view, no matter how nominally irrational. This is hardly indicative of thinking critically where I think you aren't. So, too, is the "I'm hardly alone" part.
To wit, I have experience with the real world as well. In terms of sexual matters and the psychology of sexuality and gender, plenty of experience, and quite a bit of education. And between the two of us, I'm not constructing facile, broad-stroke arguments based on our supposed knowledge of these affairs, such as to define anal sex as something that 'women do not enjoy.'
Even with the attempted caveat you put next to it, you're really just inviting others to point out how your position appears remarkably weaker and subjective (as well as psychologically eye-raising) than you assert it is. Which is why it's very important that you not try to sell your argument by, for instance, the act of presuming on the part of groups.. You say "You can argue against every single point I make, but don't you dare paint me as blind, unquestioning and complacent." where here you're taking multiple groups, be they gay, or viewers of porn, or women who enjoy anal sex, or people who enjoy sex outside of marriage, or people like me who enjoy multiple forms of non-traditional sexuality, and you are asserting fairly ugly things about them — far worse than to call them blind or unquestioning — and tossing out a whole assembly of pseudopsychological claims about what kind of 'harm' they are 'intending' to do or how they are otherwise 'aberrant' and aren't doing sex 'the way they're supposed to be doing' (read: "the way Annie thinks they should have to do it"). If we aren't to dare calling you those things, who are you to dare to render those judgments in the first place?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm not sure if anyone has explicitly addressed this (I'm fairly sure most viewed it as nonsense and dismissed it as unworthy of comment), but while I suppose it's *possible* Annie may turn into the Ron Lambert of pornography and sexuality discussions, I'd be very surprised since there hasn't been any evidence of that kind of style before.
Put another way, that was a pretty cheap, unwarranted shot. She may not change her mind to align with many folks around here, but I wasn't aware that mere disagreement earned that kind of judgment.
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
Annie's correct here.
And I can absolutely tell which guys are pornified. They are the ones who treat women like they owe him something. To the assertion that that's most/almost all guys, my answer: no kidding. A huge contributor to my feminism is the way so many men treat women like sex vending machines. It's gross.
Thankfully, it isn't all men. The better sort don't.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
There is a whole host of cultural elements that might cause men to treat women like 'sex vending machines' but now its all about being pornified? This kind of porn phobia is a great way to conceal and help the more complex causes of bad male attitudes towards women.
Tell me aerin, is it impossible to be someone who watches porn and still treat and think of women as respectfully as someone who doesn't? Does watching porn automatically make you think of them as 'owing' you sex?
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
I am absolutely thrilled that the men who shrilly defend porn are hostile to me. Because while that is tacky and rude, the alternative is much more disgusting.
Being rude to me and to Annie is hardly persuasive that men who love porn still treat women with respect.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
I haven't defended porn yet. Do you have an answer to my question?
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by CT: I will go read the Newsweek article. My primary question going in is "what is the comparison group?" (That's my primary question going in for any claims-based article about physiological or psychological harms/benefits, by the way.)
The article is based on a paper presented at a conference and "released exclusively to Newsweek," not published in any peer-reviewed format. There is no indication that I find on first pass as to whether it has or will be submitted to any academic journals.
The men (both groups) were selected by response to newspaper and online ads offering money ($45) for interviews, and then "matched in terms of age, ethnicity, and education level." I did not see documentation of which newspapers or online services ran the ads, though I could have skimmed over it.
About one quarter of the men initially selected for the study and identified as sex-buyers were unable to be matched to controls. The study authors acknowledge it was challenging to "[obtain] sufficient numbers of non-sex buyers who we could match by age, ethnicity and educational level to the many sex buyers who wanted to participate in the study."
This problem was addressed by changing to a more "loose" [their word] definition of non-sex buyer and by having the project coordinator (a person affiliated with HAF -- see below) "[manage] a complex database which made it possible to obtain the necessary matches for the study." I did not see any details about the formation of this database or how it was used by the project coordinator, nor did I read that the cross-matching was validated or even checked by any additional parties, though I may have missed that information in my skim.
The study was funded by the two groups below; no other funding sources were listed.
quote:1. Hunt Alternatives Fund: "Hunt Alternative Fund's Demand Abolition Project focuses on eliminating men's assumption of the right to prostitution which would thereby eliminate the institution of prostitution." (Acknowledgements)
2. Prostitution Research & Education (PRE): "a U.S. non-governmental non-profit organization which has since 1995 researched and documented the harms resulting from prostitution and trafficking and advocated for alternatives to prostitution." (Acknowledgements)
---
There are multiple challenging issues for reliability in this study.
I do not believe that this study could be accepted for publication in a reputable academic journal. That is not to say that the study authors are being disingenuous or inappropriate; I am of the impression that the study was not designed to be one submitted for academic review.
That is fine as far as it goes; much of what is printed in Newsweek is far less rigorous! But that's a low bar.
My problem with this set-up is that the setup of the study is so flawed in nature as to make it inappropriate to draw scientific conclusions from it. I dislike that it seems to be presented as if it were analyzable, when I cannot see how it would be -- and that, I think, is why it is unpublishable in the academic sense. I don't know much about the conference at which it was presented, but I would have been interested in hearing the subsequent discussion about it, including any questions posed to the presentors. Unfortunately, I don't see that information available online.
I get thorny about seeing good science presented in misleading ways in mass media. I think I may be even thornier about seeing non-science science presented in misleading ways.
[Now Newsweek is on my nongifting list, for realz this time.]
[ July 23, 2011, 04:31 PM: Message edited by: CT ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aerin: I am absolutely thrilled that the men who shrilly defend porn are hostile to me.
Now, wait a second. This is where it gets even more interesting, I wager. There's been no 'shrill' defense of porn, despite the fact that the argument presented here is essentially an open denigration of those who watch it. You basically just now equated them to being lesser men.
I mean, I'm glad you're thrilled that you view the response as 'hostile,' and hopefully you aren't surprised... Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: ... the argument presented here is essentially an open denigration of those who watch it. You basically just now equated them to being lesser men.
*delicately
A group which notably includes my husband.
In contrast, I am actually quite keen on the man, myself.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: She may not change her mind to align with many folks around here, but I wasn't aware that mere disagreement earned that kind of judgment.
I'll go on record as being pro-Annie, all the time. We may disagree, but I am all in favour of Annie herself and thrilled as can be that she is posting again! Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
"porn phobia"
I'm not afraid, and calling me irrationally afraid is wrong, insulting, and hostile. It is an attempt to discredit.
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
It's all opinion, right? I think porn is immoral on both sexual morality grounds and on treatment of women grounds. I do think men who don't engage with it are better than those who do.
act better, maybe. You are not bad, it's your behavior. Whatever the phrase. But I don't think it is a neutral, "do whatever" thing.
But I am not going to associate with your husband, so what does my opinion matter?
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aerin: But I am not going to associate with your husband, so what does my opinion matter?
Ah. Well, it's mostly that I like to share my opinion of him, especially in the context of opposing positions being presented.
He tends to do the same, such as when negative viewpoints of women in groups that encompass me are expressed.
That's pretty much it. We are each other's biggest fans. Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aerin: "porn phobia"
I'm not afraid, and calling me irrationally afraid is wrong, insulting, and hostile. It is an attempt to discredit.
Calling men who watch porn automatically 'lesser men' is also wrong, insulting, and hostile. It is also an attempt to discredit. The way it is justified with bad psychology means that at some point it becomes indicative of irrationality, as can be seen in this thread. But you still didn't answer my question.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
PS: I was serious when I stated my reason for responding re: my husband as a member of the group noted above.
In addition, though, I do think Aerin's opinions matter. I am glad to read them here, too, and I hope it is possible to continue sharing dissenting opinions in a way that doesn't silence voices from any perspective. That includes the guys posting above, as well.
(I often don't get what I hope for, but I am still going to hope for good things. This is just one of many.)
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
I'm not trying to silence any opinions, ct. I think I'm being appropriately responsive to poor forms of discrimination and bias, and presumptions like where aerin said 'being rude to me and annie is hardly persuasive that men who love porn still treat women with respect'. It presumes that I watch porn, and that I am a man who was responding with full knowledge of aerins gender as female.
So if we want respectful dialogue, aerin, let's note those presumptions and judgments.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
they grow up so fast! *sniff*
You know, I know I was also just talking about the issue of projections and presumptions, and, well, a response wherein you, mister parks, are presumed, essentially, to be a representative of Men Who Watch Porn (heretofore referred to as 'the Lessers') in the way you responded?
Neutrally, not for the sake of conflict, I'm going to say that it fits pretty surprisingly well into my own theories on the nature of the projection and presumption at work, in the framework of a mind pretty much fixatively revulsed by porn and its supposed (though not substantiated) effect on people's psychology.
That aside,
quote:
quote:1. Hunt Alternatives Fund: "Hunt Alternative Fund's Demand Abolition Project focuses on eliminating men's assumption of the right to prostitution which would thereby eliminate the institution of prostitution." (Acknowledgements)
2. Prostitution Research & Education (PRE): "a U.S. non-governmental non-profit organization which has since 1995 researched and documented the harms resulting from prostitution and trafficking and advocated for alternatives to prostitution." (Acknowledgements)
---
There are multiple challenging issues for reliability in this study.
CT - multiple challenging issues. Yikes, no kidding! But .. what are these groups proposing as an 'alternative' to prostitution? Do they just mean abolition?
Thanks for doing all that research into the article, by the by.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
Annie and Aerin: I may disagree with your stances on pornography and masturbation, but I certainly appreciate your view. In fact, I find it laudable. Your choice to focus your lives on strong intimate relationships based on emotion and compatibility of interests and belief is a healthy approach. I'm also willing to concede that there exists a risk that those who engage in masturbation or consume pornography are more likely to have an unhealthy and unrealistic perspective on their sexual partners (whether men or women). I think it's fair to say that some people have problems distinguishing between fantasy and reality. Because pornography and masturbation rely on fantasy, those who consume porn and have trouble with the distinction can definitely have an unhealthy perspective.
But my belief is that we should be responsible for our choices. As a consumer of erotica, I recognize that I need to accept the consequences of that choice. Part of that responsibility, in my mind, means that I accept the fact that people will judge me poorly. I have no problem with you thinking less of me.
But I would argue that the conception that pornography and masturbation have a causal link to unhealthy perceptions of sexual partners is misguided. The problem is people who have trouble distinguishing between fantasy and reality. If a person already has that problem, then reinforcing their misconceptions with more, possibly depraved, fantasy can be harmful. But I would contend that this problem isn't unique to consumers of erotica. I believe that those who don't consume erotica can have the same problem, holding unhealthy expectations on their partners based upon an ideal fantasy and not the reality of the person. A man doesn't have to consume erotica to mistakenly believe that woman's purpose is to serve man--whether through labor, child-rearing, or sex.
I believe in relationships based upon mutual trust, honesty, emotional connection, and compatibility of beliefs. I'm also opposed to casual sex as a personal lifestyle choice because of my beliefs in relationships. I try to keep a distinction between fantasy and reality, but I accept the consequences of consuming that fantasy.
Edit for clarity.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I will freely admit to viewing pornography.
I'm curious: Annie, Katie, you've both met my wife. What about the way I treat her does it make it obvious that I view porn?
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: they grow up so fast! *sniff*
Says the guy still playing bp in a bathrobe at 3 p.m.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Uh, guilty as charged
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: I'm not trying to silence any opinions, ct.
Fair enough. I didn't mean to single anyone out -- it was a generic and general hope.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: But .. what are these groups proposing as an 'alternative' to prostitution? Do they just mean abolition?
I think so. I'm not sure what the avowed stance (if any) on pornography is for these groups, though. This certainly could reflect my lack of interprative ability. I didn't spend very much time looking -- they may well be vocally neutral or even supportive, for all I know.
quote:Thanks for doing all that research into the article, by the by.
You are welcome! Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I'm curious: Annie, Katie, you've both met my wife. What about the way I treat her does it make it obvious that I view porn?
For one, you try to put quarters in her when you want sex Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Samp, you're not helping.
Re: The Article:
I didn't read too deeply into the article, but from what I did, it seemed like they lump pornography and prostitution into one big group. There are ways in which they are similar, but those ways do not necessarily translate into the same behavior patterns.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Thank you. I talked about how it conflated the two things on page three. I also talked about the crappy control group. Glad to see other people picked up on the same thing.
In any case:
"Anal sex is a perfect example. What's wrong with it? Well, how about the fact that it's painful and unpleasant for the woman?"
Um... I'm speechless here. The self-admitted virgin is telling me what other women feel about sex, when I have encountered, from certain women, pressure to give it to them. (I'm not naming names.) To which I responded with resistance, and to which resistance they responded with annoyance.
I mean, seriously, it's not my thing either. But I don't go around stating that all men hate it because it's icky to get that sort of stuff on your penis.
Because we know that's not how all men think. It's also demonstrably false that anal sex is only given by a woman because of a desire to please a man, due to having more difficulty with sexual pleasure.
Perhaps, in this regard, I should listen to the women I know who've actually had it, and not the virgin.
(Btw, I'm happy you're a virgin! More power to you! I am as well, though I am not as old as you. There's nothing wrong with being a virgin, and there's nothing wrong with disliking anal. However, when it comes to matters of sex, why should I believe you over the people who actually have it?)
You may dismiss it as anecdotes. But you're just baldly stating things as though they are facts, without actually stating facts to back yourself up. How do you know that that is why women do anal sex? How do you know that some women don't simply... you know, like it on their own?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: Samp, you're not helping.
Well, even though I haven't cared much beyond to make a joke about it, what do you think about the notion that viewing porn makes men observably 'pornified,' to the extent that they view women as a vending machine for sex?
I just like the imagery. The pseudopsychology behind it, not so much. But at least it offers some humor.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Clearly if someone feels that strongly against pornography, it is very smart for them to find a partner who does not use pornography.
As CT pointed out, life is a wonderful and varied experience. Blanket statements about subjective experiences don't hold well to reality.
I won't judge you for finding pornography terrible if you won't judge me for not finding pornography terrible.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Good luck.
In any case, I do agree with you, dabbler. There's nothing wrong with her not liking porn. Her personal opinion is perfectly valid, as is her dislike of bondage and desire not to have homosexual sex and all the rest.
But it is a problem when she decides her personal preferences are something to apply to all people. Unfortunately, she's done that.
But it would be nice if she does turn out to recognize the difference. I hope that ends up happening. That's what I mean when I say good luck. I'm not being snide, I'm serious.
On a semi-related note, has anyone here heard of the blog Eve Bit First? I stumbled across it yesterday while thinking about this thread, by strange coincidence, and figured if anyone had heard of it? If anyone knows what I'm talking about, I'd like to discuss more about it somewhere, because wow, that was a crazy ride, and I'm glad to be out of that person's head.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I have said what I want to say and don't want to continue in the discussion any more. Mostly because last time I discussed this with Tom, he really hurt my feelings.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
Annie, I hope you stay and post in other discussions, when you have time and inclination.
I still think of you every time I see a rooster representation. I do miss you.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vadon: Annie and Aerin: I may disagree with your stances on pornography and masturbation, but I certainly appreciate your view. In fact, I find it laudable. Your choice to focus your lives on strong intimate relationships based on emotion and compatibility of interests and belief is a healthy approach. I'm also willing to concede that there exists a risk that those who engage in masturbation or consume pornography are more likely to have an unhealthy and unrealistic perspective on their sexual partners (whether men or women). I think it's fair to say that some people have problems distinguishing between fantasy and reality. Because pornography and masturbation rely on fantasy, those who consume porn and have trouble with the distinction can definitely have an unhealthy perspective.
But my belief is that we should be responsible for our choices. As a consumer of erotica, I recognize that I need to accept the consequences of that choice. Part of that responsibility, in my mind, means that I accept the fact that people will judge me poorly. I have no problem with you thinking less of me.
But I would argue that the conception that pornography and masturbation have a causal link to unhealthy perceptions of sexual partners is misguided. The problem is people who have trouble distinguishing between fantasy and reality. If a person already has that problem, then reinforcing their misconceptions with more, possibly depraved, fantasy can be harmful. But I would contend that this problem isn't unique to consumers of erotica. I believe that those who don't consume erotica can have the same problem, holding unhealthy expectations on their partners based upon an ideal fantasy and not the reality of the person. A man doesn't have to consume erotica to mistakenly believe that woman's purpose is to serve man--whether through labor, child-rearing, or sex.
I believe in relationships based upon mutual trust, honesty, emotional connection, and compatibility of beliefs. I'm also opposed to casual sex as a personal lifestyle choice because of my beliefs in relationships. I try to keep a distinction between fantasy and reality, but I accept the consequences of consuming that fantasy.
Edit for clarity.
I'll have more to say later, but I just wanted to take a moment to say that this is a great post and I agree with every single word.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Anne: I'm sorry you feel the need to withdraw from the conversation, for while I disagree with you, I still honor you as a person for feeling the way you do.
Much of what I wanted to say was already said...possibly in a better way then I would have managed...but here is a point that didn't get really deep into. That porn is a slippery slope leading to more and worse things. I can be, just as marijuana can be gate way drug. When I was singled I looked at a lot of porn, and smoked a lot of weed. I no longer do either of those things. When I did, I liked to took at happy naked women who seem inviting and interested in sex. I despised violent or disrespectful acts, heck, I didn't even like to look at sex...because it wasn't the sex I was interested in, it was the woman. Just like weed, I never liked anything harder, I was happy with what I liked, and for the reasons I liked it. No slope at all.
I no longer look at any porn what so who ever. My wife has a strong preference about that. And I'm fine with it that way, not because she is the "owner of my penis" but because it makes her feel bad about herself and I care about her feelings.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Do erogames and ero/ecchi manga count as porn?
quote: 6. Sex while wearing costumes or engaging in sexual roleplay
Leave my catears alone!
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Blayne, you're not helping.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I'm sad that Annie is leaving this discussion.
I believe that others have touched on the points I want to make but I think they bear some emphasis.
Before that, though, let me say that I think Annie and Aerin have expressed some valid opinions and identified some truly harmful effects of porn viewing. I'm even willing to say this: porn is harmful.
However, I would also say that processed food is harmful. Or that UV rays are harmful.
The problem is the generalization.
I really appreciate those who have pointed out that people are often different from each other in ways that don't come down to better or worse. These differences exist even in such powerful - and let's be honest, potentially dangerous too - matters like sexuality. And wow, what an imprecise label "sexuality" is. I don't know how better to encapsulate all the elements of society and the psyche that I'm referring to, though.
I think the things I want to talk about are the following. 1. Men who buy sex, and why they distort the discussion. 2. The problem with treating all pornography the same. 3. The feedback loop of cultural horror of porn.
So, 1. While I don't think it's universal or inevitable, paying for sex correlates strongly, I think, with a few different tendencies:
- Inability or perceived inability to get sex without paying for it. This is very self explanatory.
- Shame about sexual desires. To explain why I think this: when one is ashamed of ones behavior, one tries to hide it from others. However, when that behavior definitionally includes another person, completely hiding it from others is not possible. A partial solution to this is to make the encounter as anonymous as possible. Another factor is that someone who accepts payment for sex is pretty much the least likely person to openly judge someone for their sexual desires.
- Impulse control problems.
The latter two items are almost always inherent in the pattern of behavior known as "sexual addiction." Part of that pattern of behavior, as with other addictions, is the eventual need to escalate the use of the drug (analogue). In this case the drug is some form of sexual behavior.
All this adds up to an important fact: if you look at buyers of sex, you are biasing your selection toward sexual addiction. People with that problem do indeed escalate from things like porn viewing to other, often riskier behaviors. Those behaviors can be quite harmful. It's also quite likely for someone who fits this description to be less aroused/interested by 'regular' sex than the average Joe.
As many thousands of people have learned the hard way, compulsive sexual behavior can be harmful. I think there is nothing wrong about recognizing this, and examining why it occurs and how to prevent it.
But it's also important to realize that pornography does not create this problem. Not alone, anyway. Family dysfunction, mood disorders, and even (I believe) early lessons about the acceptability of sexual feelings contribute to the problem.
I think there are many parallels to compulsive eating. Food (like sexual behavior) is a necessary part of life. Food (like sex) can be a source of pleasure as well as shame. And people can develop a pathological relationship to it. People sometimes make themselves miserable and even send themselves to an early grave because of overeating, and this hurts their families.
But I wouldn't say that food is the problem, even though certain processed foods and insidious cultural messages about food probably do more harm than good.
This leads me to (2).
Not all porn is alike. When you consider only people with compulsive behavior problems, you might often find the pattern that you can start soft and then go to the harder stuff, and then the weird stuff, and then the violent stuff, and then, perhaps, the stuff that would get you arrested. That's the nature of an escalating need for ever-stronger arousal. But when you broaden your lens, you will find varied tastes that do not follow this pattern of escalation.
"Porn" may include people in a committed relationship turning a camera on while they have sex. Loving, mutually fun and satisfying, intimate sex. With a camera on. Then they might share that with someone else (or anyone else) for reasons that might include amusement or curiosity, as well as being aroused by the idea. It often involves people who are getting paid, of course. And then it also includes, sometimes, violent or exploitative acts. It can include rape on tape. It's a fairly wide spectrum, in fact.
When I say that I can agree that porn is harmful, it's because it's a broad category.
The participants in its production are all different, and some of them may benefit, while others may be harmed. This is not completely different from any other broad category of human activity. It is SOMEWHAT different, in that sexual acts are likely to stir powerful emotions, and sometimes those emotions are exploited, or ignored in a way that hurts. Sometimes the actors are playing out traumas from their early life in a way that worsens the damage. Sometimes people get physically hurt/abused. But not always. It's not fair to judge all such activity by the worst of it.
Then the viewers. Some of them are on a bad path of compulsive behavior and end up harming themselves by viewing it. Others don't. MOST viewers don't.
Some kinds of porn are abhorrent to pretty much everybody. Other kinds are kind of distasteful to the majority of porn viewers but that's about it. The category includes a huge variety of acts, business models (or the lack thereof), explicitness (or lack of it), etc.
It's important to remember that not every porn viewer is at all likely to end up pursuing material at the worst end of the category.
So (3).
Unfortunately - and it really does bother me on multiple levels - being horrified by porn - as in the whole category - probably increases the overall harm that porn does.
Some of those levels of being bothered: - Porn can do real harm in some situations. It's not wrong to be saddened by this, and to recognize the harm being done, and try to stop it. It's a wonderful motivation. Trying to stop that harm is a good thing. So it makes me sad that doing so (in certain common ways) may actually hurt instead of help. It isn't just.
- The lessons that attend cultural horror of porn attach shame to the act of viewing it, and instruct the viewer that they are starting down a road to depravity. We've seen that argument in this thread, and it's common elsewhere. Much was made of Ted Bundy's confession that he started with porn, but it's not even REMOTELY fair to teach an adolescent that he's in danger of becoming a mass rapist/murderer because he indulges in looking at a Playboy magazine. It isn't true, for one thing. Porn doesn't create psychopaths. But even the less strong version: porn will lead you into sexual depravity. This is only true when it becomes a part of a compulsive pattern of behavior. But when you convince someone that viewing (soft or relatively innocuous) porn is tantamount to any degree of deviant behavior, they might believe it. This might actually erode their inclination to restrain their behavior once they slip.
But I should try to explain my assertion rather than my botherment.
One thing to keep in mind is that one form of family dysfunction that might contribute to sexual compulsion is the lesson that sexual behavior is deeply shameful. Since people largely can't help having sexual desire, and finding some pleasure in it, attaching a sense of shame to that can, apparently, contribute to a person eventually relating to sexual behavior as a drug. The shame intensifies the experience. It contributes to obsession. (One way in which it might do this is causing a person to 'resist' temptation for a long time - and that extended period of arousal where they are fighting off the urge to do anything about it may compound the chemical reward they experience from the whole thing.)
Strong reactions to porn, sometimes, teach that lesson. It might not be intended, but it happens.
Another aspect is family stability. While I cannot say that someone, who got married to someone with the tacit or explicit understanding that porn was absolutely unacceptable, is unjustified in breaking off the relationship if that trust is betrayed, I also recognize that many people tolerate or even approve of porn use by their partner. So it is not - at least not outside certain cultural contexts - inevitable that porn should cause a marriage or committed relationship to falter. And (as eloquently stated by CT) I have to trust those who protest their happiness in relationships that happen to involve porn use. Their evaluation of their own happiness is the most important (which is also why I can't argue with people who feel betrayed by porn use).
However, what I can do is turn a critical eye to the culture that set up that person to feel that way. Does it admit nuance, or does it take an absolutist stance? If the latter, I feel it guides people into unnecessarily harsh reactions, or unreasonably strict rules for themselves. I think any hard-and-fast rule about "this is the way people should be" is likely to run afoul at some point. At the present, in the modern Western world, "porn use is always harmful and any porn user should be ashamed" is both a common view and one that is wrong, and contributes to the harm by being wrong.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I forgot my wrap up thought:
I think it would be significantly better to examine how and why porn is harmful, which necessarily requires recognizing when it is NOT harmful, and address the harm only. And remember that too-strong condemnation - unfairly to everyone - may contribute to pathological sexual behavior.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I mostly agree with scifibum, and the areas in which I'm not sure I agree aren't really disagreement so much as "I have no opinion here because I don't know the actual facts involved."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
We're also not even just talking about porn. Remember my list. The "this is the way people should be" goes far beyond that, and into a wide gamut, leaving 'appropriate' and 'healthy' sex bound into an extremely narrow approximation of what is allowed.
The pattern in what gets rejected as unhealthy and unallowable turns porn into a fairly mundane, middle of the pack 'aberration' in a long list of things which has been guided into that aforementioned absolutist stance. There are people who go so far as to insist that not even positions besides missionary are a healthy expression of sexuality. There's a wide range of justifications made for it (whether doggy style is 'demeaning to the woman' or woman on top is 'not the intended position for the female').
The same critical review of the weakness of that claims made to straightjacket 'healthy sex' to one position alone apply as vigorously here, whether we're talking about whether it's porn that's unhealthy, or daring to have sex when you're gay, or being transgendered or cisgendered and still having a sex life, or having sex outside of marriage, or having anal sex in any circumstances whether or not it's enjoyed by both parties. I have no problem labeling an irrational view an irrational view.
So let's look at porn as the villain, and the men who got labeled Lessers.
quote:Myth #3: Viewing pornography changes the way men view women.
There have been a lot of claims made around this myth, most of them unsubstantiated. For the most part this is because of poor research design in questionnaire-based and market 'research' studies, and inappropriate interpretation of results by the media in academic studies. However, no matter how poor and flimsy the results, it's an assumption that gets a lot of attention. And time and again, journalists reporting on these studies fail to ask the most basic questions about the integrity of the data.
quote:The overall flavour of McKee's work can be summed up this: In seeking to understand how negative attitudes towards women are generated in society we should start by asking what issues might be most important, rather than beginning from the assumption that pornography is the major cause of such attitudes.
Another example is Simon Lajeunesse, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Montreal who studies the impact of pornography on the sexuality of men, and how it shapes their perception of women.
In a prospective study Lajeunesse found most of the men questioned sought out porn by the age of 10, when they become sexually curious. He also found they quickly discarded what they didn't like and things they find offensive. As adults, they looked for content that was compatible with their sex preferences.
Lajeunesse‘s subjects reported that they supported gender equality, but also that they felt victimized by criticism of pornography. "Pornography hasn't changed their perception of women or their relationship which they all want as harmonious and fulfilling as possible,” says Lajeunesse. “Those who could not live out their fantasy in real life with their partner simply set aside the fantasy. The fantasy is broken in the real world and men don't want their partner to look like a porn star."
There's a similar message in a 2000 publication by Malamuth et al. [pdf] The paper considers whether there is a causal link between adults who view pornography and sexual aggression. What the Malamuth study found, though was interesting. While some people who viewed pornography had violent beliefs towards women, the conclusion did not claim pornography was the cause: “We suggest that the way relatively aggressive men interpret and react to the same pornography may differ from that of nonaggressive men.” In other words, the pump is already primed in some people. But for nonaggressive men, the same imagery did not incite negative thoughts.
In other words, there is not a direct correlation between porn and negative beliefs in most men.
On Newsnight, I mentioned the point Lajeunesse makes so well that while a certain kind of erotica - say, your stereotype Barbie-style look that was so popular in American porn of the 80s - may appeal to men at certain ages, that's hardly what they expect from women. Most men, by the time they're old enough to be dating women, soon figure out that what's in Playboy is not actually what real women are like. And for the most part they prefer real women. So why does that stereotyped image persist? Perhaps for the same reason that women are sold a fantasy of a domesticable bad boy who will sweep them off their feet so they can live happily ever after. It's a long-established, two-dimensional shorthand (and if you don't like it, for heaven's sake, stop going to Jennifer Aniston films already). Just because unrealistic expectations of dating and mating are peddled on every flat surface around us to both sexes doesn't automatically mean that the majority of people actually think those fantasies are true.
(And as Lajeunesse comments, “If pornography had the impact that many claim it has, you would just have to show heterosexual films to a homosexual to change his sexual orientation.")
In another study, an economist found the introduction of internet access in US states corresponded with a decrease in rape (and no effect on other violent crimes). A 10 percent increase in online access corresponded with a 7.3 percent decrease in reported rapes. Areas that adopted the Internet quickly saw the biggest declines. And the effects remain even when taking into account differences in alcohol use, law enforcement, income, employment, and population density.
quote:Overall, the takeaway points are these:
- It's difficult to tease out the effects of society as a whole and its influence on how men see women, from any effect porn may have. Until now, few studies have tried to address this in their design and analysis,
- Asking if someone is concerned about an issue is not the same thing as there being perceptible effects from that issue,
- As I mentioned on Newsnight, women are not the only people whose images are manipulated by commercialised culture, and
- Data regarding rape and violent crime in general do not show correlations with increased availability of erotic entertainment.
I'm also going to single this out and bold it.
quote:In seeking to understand how negative attitudes towards women are generated in society we should start by asking what issues might be most important, rather than beginning from the assumption that pornography is the major cause of such attitudes.
The only things we've really picked out about the social effects of porn on society are not negative. Specifically, it's been shown that the increased availability of porn tends to reduce rape. Neither legalizing porn nor having a burgeoning societal acceptance and consumption of porn has ever come with the endemic and provably porn-caused increases in various problematic relations between the sexes that would allow you to make even a quarter of the frankly stunning and derogatory assessments of porn's effects, or the assured derogatory state of the men (in particular) that view it. The same statements come coupled with an easily borne suspicion that there's an extreme willingness to project bias and cherrypick supporting arguments and sources in favor of this crusade.
The same thing has been done in a bit of an emblematic fervor towards video games. Like porn, it was a Scourge! A bad thing with bad effects. Evil filth! In the same way we could be sure that porn made men look at women like vending machines that owed them sex, moral crusaders the country over were certain that violent video games would make kids look at their schools like shooting galleries. In the same ways that porn invariably leads people down a slope of objectifying women in harmful ways, playing video games was a slope that would drive people to aggression and an increased probability of acting out violently.
The evidence for these overwhelmingly assured statements never came. The pronouncements of the video game scourge hardly cared to be bothered by the shakiness of the evidence, or the complete lack of thereof.
Eventually, you reach a point where continuing to stick it out in favor of the ideal is, as I said, a personal projection. An irrational bias. We've had that established here. Annie's assertions are wrong, and it deserves to be said. Partly because, as scifibum noted, the puritanical crusade of shame foisted upon porn seems more readily capable of creating negative attitudes and dysfunction towards sex and sexuality ... than the porn itself. The ultimate irony, and among the best reasons to fight against those puritanical attitudes in the first place and dispel a lot of the unfair stigmatization of porn use whenever and wherever it comes up.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Completely agree with this as well.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Eventually, you reach a point where continuing to stick it out in favor of the ideal is, as I said, a personal projection. An irrational bias. We've had that established here. Annie's assertions are wrong, and it deserves to be said. Partly because, as scifibum noted, the puritanical crusade of shame foisted upon porn seems more readily capable of creating negative attitudes and dysfunction towards sex and sexuality ... than the porn itself. The ultimate irony, and among the best reasons to fight against those puritanical attitudes in the first place and dispel a lot of the unfair stigmatization of porn use whenever and wherever it comes up.
That's where you lose me. You demand that we fight against the puritanical attitudes which have unfairly stigmatized porn use. I recognize that erotica is not for everyone, and while I might not agree with the reasons as to why they reject pornography I don't feel compelled to fight with people over it. Are you suggesting that the harms associated with depriving a person of pornography can only be solved by the consumption of pornography? The standards presented here by Annie and Aerin, in my mind, aren't a form of sexual repression. It's not that sex and sexuality are immoral, it's that objectifying a person into naught more than a sex toy is wrong. And I concede that porn does objectify sex as a product. My objection to this argument against the consumption of erotica is that this doesn't have a causal link to people objectifying their partners--as the studies you linked show.
So my question is why do we have to fight against the perspectives of others on this issue? I would hope that while folks like Annie and Aerin don't agree with my position, they won't actively campaign against me just because we have a disagreement. My stance doesn't harm them, just as I believe their stance doesn't harm me nor anyone else (in a way that can't be easily solved). To be a pretentious codpiece, I'll quote JFK as I think he put it best, "Tolerance implies no lack of commitment to one's own beliefs, rather it condemns the oppression or persecution of others."
I disagree with Annie and Aerin. There's no way they'll convince me that erotica has a causal connection to objectification of others outside the realm of porn. Just as I will never convince them that porn doesn't do this. Their stance is that relationships should be built on emotional connection, mutual trust, honesty, and compatibility. That's healthy. And just because I'm not compatible with them, it doesn't mean I'm going to decry them as unhealthy until we all think the same way.
[ July 24, 2011, 04:24 AM: Message edited by: Vadon ]
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Vadon: While I agree with your call to tolerance, I also see the point that Samp is trying to make. Annie and Aerin are claiming that everyone who views porn, or enjoys non "standard sex" is harmed by it". That it degrades your humanity. It sure can have that effect on people with other issues, but it is akin to saying that anyone who eats chocolate will get an eating disorder.
It is this shaming and damning which causes the real damage.
I'm pretty sure if Annie and Aerin's message was "be careful when it comes to sex and porn and fantasy because they are powerful and can be misused and cause problems" that no one would bat an eye lash.
But their message at it's heart is one of condemnation. Read your JFK quote again and apply it to Annie and Aerin's message.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:So my question is why do we have to fight against the perspectives of others on this issue?
Nobody has to respond to misinformation if they don't want to. I just find it greatly preferable. Especially when that misinformation comes coupled with degrading others and rendering judgment upon them. And since I do see benefit in trying to foster a world which is much more equipped to abandon counterproductive mores and intolerant, ill-informed views on sex and sexuality, I would desire wherever it is relevant to tackle any attempt to perpetuate irrational attitudes to any of these aspects. It matters little about whether it's solely about the porn, or if we're including the whole bundle — anal sex, spanking, roleplay, power exchange, bondage, transgendered/cisgendered, whatever.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
Wolf, your point is well taken. And I will agree that Annie and Aerin's message is, at its nature, condemning. Particularly when it was said that all one has to do to tell which men look at porn is to look at how they treat their wives. It is a character attack, and by that nature intolerant. I should readjust my position given this point.
That being said, I still don't think that just because their stance inherently condemns those who consume erotica that we should be obligated to condemn them. I say this because I don't think that I have been damaged by them thinking less of me.
To clarify through levity. I watch My Little Pony, prefer showtunes to metal, rarely drink, don't smoke, and take Batman over all other superheroes any day. I'm condemned or thought less of by my friends, family, and others all the time over certain aspects of my life or the choices I make. Whether they question my masculinity for liking My Little Pony and showtunes, think me a prude for not liking drinking or smoking, or think I'm a fool for being a Batman fan the truth is, I'm not going to please everybody. And that's okay with me. Someone thinking less of me, or damning me doesn't actually affect me. I feel no need to respond with a damning or shaming in return.
I guess in short, intolerance doesn't justify intolerance. I'm okay with someone disliking me for the choices I make or the beliefs I hold, I can't please everyone. I'm not okay with being told I need to "fix" someone else's beliefs just because they're wrong.
ETA: To Samp, thank you for the clarification. I understand where you're coming from, even though this is a subject I don't personally believe needs such attention I have certainly fought hard to correct harmful misinformed positions in other situations.
Actually, as I recall, I debated against Stone_Wolf here on the death penalty. I guess I'm just a bit more selective on my priorities.
[ July 24, 2011, 05:40 AM: Message edited by: Vadon ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: I watch My Little Pony, prefer showtunes to metal, rarely drink, don't smoke, and take Batman over all other superheroes any day.
I want to call you a deviant but I don't know for sure yet if I wouldn't pick batman over other superheroes.
quote:ETA: To Samp, thank you for the clarification. I understand where you're coming from, even though this is a subject I don't personally believe needs such attention I have certainly fought hard to correct harmful misinformed positions in other situations.
Yeah, I guess it's worth noting that the issue of porn in particular exists in a world already well beyond the issue of whether porn wins or loses. It wins, it'll continue to be ubiquitous. For better or for worth, we learn to live with. (which is another important part of managing knowledge on porn and psychology: if we're swatting at large, fictional effects of porn, we're ill-equipped to clearly identify and manage the actual dysfunctional porn use that individuals can fall into, which is pretty important!). You'd sooner manage to do away with prostitution, and that one's going the route of legalization also.
The Pornopocalypse in the Czech republic was probably the last real test or stand for pornography before it became an essentially uncontainable thing — pornography went from being prohibited under a strict ban on ANY sexually explicit materials to being completely decriminalized in 1989. The political groups most opposed to pornography predicted a deleterious social effect, got the opposite (a drastic reduction in sex crimes which persisted across 18 years of study). Eyes were on that one, for sure.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
My only real issue with porn and porn watching is in young adults and children.
Your first exposure to sexual ideas, and what's okay and what's not and more importantly - what you think everyone else is doing - can be quite influential. There is also probably more likelihood of young people watching whatever their friends have found on the internet, no matter how weird or violent.
And a lot of boys will grow up thinking that's what sex is - that's what they will, or should be doing, and a lot of girls will think that's what they will or should be providing - and it takes away a little bit of choice in the situation.
I remember seeing a doctor on TV show a room full of teenage school boys who watched porn a nice, normal, non-labiaplasty vagina with a normal amount of hair on it. And they just screamed 'Ew! Disgusting!' - that's not normal at all. And a lot of these boy either were having or would soon have sex. What were they going to expect from their fifteen-year-old girlfriends?
But there's nothing anyone can really do about it.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Vadon...While I agree with the idea that intolerance doesn't justify intolerance, I don't think Samp (or myself) are being intolerant. We are disagreeing and explaining our views and pointing out that the belief which is disputed is harmful. Unlike Annie and Aerin, I don't think that condemnation is a part of it.
But it brings up an interesting question. Where is the line between polite and useful disagreement and intolerance?
Oh yes, and Bella: I do think it is harmful for young people to see hardcore porn. While some of the issues you are describing can still be present with still nude pictures of the opposite gender, I have a lot less problem with young folk seeking out examples of nudity then sex acts.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee: But there's nothing anyone can really do about it.
I don't think we're that powerless, even though there's a lot of issues at work.
Here's Cindy Gallop on the subject in her TED talk, "Make Love, Not Porn"
quote:Those of you who saw my previous lecture at TED University know that I date younger men. Predominantly men in their twenties. When I date younger men, I have sex with younger men. And when I have sex with younger men, I encounter, very directly and personally, the real ramifications of the creeping ubiquity of hardcore pornography in our culture.
In an era where hardcore porn is more freely and widely available via the Internet than ever before, and where kids are therefore accessing it at an earlier and earlier age than ever before, there is now an entire generation growing up that believes that what you see in hardcore porn is the way that you have sex.
And this is exacerbated by the fact that we live in a culture of Puritanism and double standards, where people believe that a teen abstinence campaign will actually work, where parents are too embarrassed to talk to their children about sex, and where schools and colleges are vilified if they try and make up the educational gap. And so hardcore porn has become, by default, the sex education of today.
quote:This is not about ‘this is good’ or ‘this is bad.’ Because sex is an area of human experience that embraces the widest possible range of activities. Secondly, Make Love Not Porn is not anti-porn. I’m a big fan of hardcore porn; I watch it regularly myself. But hardcore porn as an industry is predominantly funded by men, managed by men, driven by men, directed by men and targeted at men. And so hardcore porn tends to have one worldview. Hardcore porn goes, ‘This is the way sex is.’ And I just want to say, ‘Not necessarily.’
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Vadon...While I agree with the idea that intolerance doesn't justify intolerance, I don't think Samp (or myself) are being intolerant. We are disagreeing and explaining our views and pointing out that the belief which is disputed is harmful. Unlike Annie and Aerin, I don't think that condemnation is a part of it.
Edited Post for Clarity.
I forgot to quote the question I'm answering, but to answer your question on where the line is.
I believe that Annie and Aerin's view that porn will cause people to objectify others is wrong. I further believe that using this view to condemn those who watch pornography is--by the definition JFK was giving--intolerant. We can disagree with this position without being intolerant, of course. My problem is that there seems to be an attempt to do more than objecting to the false premises of their argument. Instead we're throwing in the position that those who hold the view that pornography is immoral are actually harming others due to the harm to sexual health and an increased risk in prostate cancer. I believe that is it disingenuous to associate this harm with what Annie and Aerin have said. I don't think they're encouraging sexual repression. I believe that they are sex-positive under differing circumstances, granting that their definition of sex-positive differs from its traditional use.
So in short, saying that Annie and Aerin are wrong in their belief that pornography naturally forces objectification in others is fine. I have an issue with taking their position and tying the harms to it, because I don't believe that the consumption of pornography is the only solution to the harms outlined. I think that's where we cross the line because tying false harms to beliefs is intolerant of those beliefs.
[ July 24, 2011, 04:06 PM: Message edited by: Vadon ]
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
quote:Those of you who saw my previous lecture at TED University know that I date younger men. Predominantly men in their twenties. When I date younger men, I have sex with younger men. And when I have sex with younger men, I encounter, very directly and personally, the real ramifications of the creeping ubiquity of hardcore pornography in our culture.
In an era where hardcore porn is more freely and widely available via the Internet than ever before, and where kids are therefore accessing it at an earlier and earlier age than ever before, there is now an entire generation growing up that believes that what you see in hardcore porn is the way that you have sex.
In other words, "I've noticed that the 20-year-olds I date today (who are turned on by 50-year-olds) are noticeably kinkier than the 20-year-olds I dated 10 years ago (who were turned on by 40-year-olds). I blame pornography!"
Or in other, other words, "I hate it when I'm having sex with someone young enough to be my child (which is the only way that I can become aroused), and they turn out to have strange sexual fetishes. Conclusion: Internet porn tainted my boy-meat!"
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Just so everyone knows, sex positive has more than just a 'traditional definition.' It's a distinct movement and a culture.
For clarity, this is sex-positive:
quote: Sex positivity is "an attitude towards human sexuality that regards all consensual sexual activities as fundamentally healthy and pleasurable, and encourages sexual pleasure and experimentation. The sex-positive movement is a social and philosophical movement that advocates these attitudes. The sex-positive movement advocates sex education and safer sex as part of its campaign." The movement makes no moral distinctions among types of consensual sexual activities, regarding these choices as matters of personal preference.
When you're "sex-positive," it means being sex positive. Not "monogamous sex only while married only between two partners only in the 'right' hole only without any elements of kinky fetish, bondage, s/m, D/s, or otherwise 'unacceptable' elements of sex and without birth control and strictly with the ultimate goal of procreation-positive."
To put it more simply, if your moral views on sex concern themselves with which types of consensual sexual acts people 'should' be having versus which ones are morally unacceptable, you're not sex-positive.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
quote:In other words, "I've noticed that the 20-year-olds I date today (who are turned on by 50-year-olds) are noticeably kinkier than the 20-year-olds I dated 10 years ago (who were turned on by 40-year-olds). I blame pornography!"
Or in other, other words, "I hate it when I'm having sex with someone young enough to be my child (which is the only way that I can become aroused), and they turn out to have strange sexual fetishes. Conclusion: Internet porn tainted my boy-meat!"
I don't actually think that's an accurate conclusion from a reading of the quote from her, Speed. Without watching the TED lecture, it sounds like she's saying that hardcore porn actually narrows the knowledge of what sex is. Not that it's too kinky for her.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Speed: In other words, "I've noticed that the 20-year-olds I date today (who are turned on by 50-year-olds) are noticeably kinkier than the 20-year-olds I dated 10 years ago (who were turned on by 40-year-olds). I blame pornography!"
Or in other, other words, "I hate it when I'm having sex with someone young enough to be my child (which is the only way that I can become aroused), and they turn out to have strange sexual fetishes. Conclusion: Internet porn tainted my boy-meat!"
I'm not going to really stand behind her interpretation wholly, but there are elements of mainstream porn which infect a lot of people's attitudes towards sex, and not infrequently this does lead to one or both partners feeling compelled to fill a role taught to them by porn's various money-shot style tropes.
It's not nearly as negatively prevalent than some would assume — most kids do just fine working out what they like between themselves and their early partners, and many will report, even, that the variety of available, ahem, 'material,' made them less apprehensive and more comfortable with sex in general, but there's always going to be those who are trying to "perform" and the end result is not functional for both parties' enjoyment.
A motion to make sure young people understand pretty clearly and deliberately that you shouldn't be patterning your expectations for yourself (nor your partner) on what you got into the habit of seeing on pornhub or redtube when you were 14. Even less specifically, understanding the importance of frank and open discussion about sex and sexuality, both from parents and from educators. All good ideas, in my opinion.
Besides, she's not talking about this in terms of what's impeding what SHE expects of her lovers. She's worried that it's diminishing the range of things that younger people interpret sex as. Which is a very important observation and concern.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
quote:Originally posted by dabbler: I don't actually think that's an accurate conclusion from a reading of the quote from her, Speed. Without watching the TED lecture, it sounds like she's saying that hardcore porn actually narrows the knowledge of what sex is. Not that it's too kinky for her.
Disclaimer: I mainly posted my response because I thought her quote was funny, rather than to poke holes in the logic.
Nevertheless, if her point is that her partners have a narrow understanding of sex, maybe it has more to do with them having 30 fewer years experience than she does, and less to do with the porno. Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I thought Speed's post was funny...but I tend to disagree with the point he wasn't trying to make.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
She obviously never picked up Heinleins works ^_^
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Interesting discussion. Annie, while I disagree that you can generalize at all from your personal experiences, I am sorry that you had such a bad experience with that particular guy. If celibacy is working for you, that is great. It is important to know what are priorities in life and in relationships.
Most of what I would have liked to have written was already covered by CT, but I do have one small addition. It is not important that Annie respond, if she has moved on from the conversation.
In one of Annie's posts she writes:
quote:Well, the crux of my argument is that for a woman, sexual satisfaction is different than it is for a man. Recent research (and this is the part I'm still trying to find the source for - I read it a few years ago) suggest that women's orgasms are a lot more related to intimacy and emotional closeness than they are to physical factors. This is why many women will engage in sexual acts that aren't pleasant to them - because to them the approval and love of their partner is a lot more important to their psychological bond than physical enjoyment.
But a relationship suffers when it's based on mutual masturbation rather than sex. This is what fantasies, pornography, and "alternative" sexual practices are all about. It's not "What can I do to make my partner happy," it's "what can I talk my partner into doing for me.
To me those two paragraphs are contradictory. "What I can I do to make my partner happy" is, in my experience, inextricably linked to "what feels good to me" for both me and the majority of my partners. I know this is not always the case - I am a fortunate woman. What they do to please me and my response to that causes physical pleasure for them and what I do to cause physical pleasure for them triggers a physical response in me. It is an "upward spiral", I guess. Physical acts that, in a vacuum, might be neutral or even awkward or uncomfortable can be, in the context of lovemaking, quite pleasurable. Not every act for every one, of course, and partners should communicate what works, but more than one might suspect.
This is, I think, a key to physical intimacy.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I have the same 'upward spiral.' My primary concern is the enjoyment of who I am with. Without it, I'm not having fun. It's why my own (as described) 'alternative' sexual practices are absolutely "What can I do to make my partner happy." And it's the same with them. And that's why it works, and why my own sex life is such an overwhelmingly positive experience.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
By your definition Samp...I'm sex positive...but more accurately, I'm a Libertarian, which is more like "I don't give a crap what you do as long as you don't harm anyone, and you shouldn't care what I do either, as long as I don't harm anyone either."
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
quote:To me those two paragraphs are contradictory. "What I can I do to make my partner happy" is, in my experience, inextricably linked to "what feels good to me" for both me and the majority of my partners.
Yes, this. But also--part of why my partners are my partners, as opposed to well-loved platonic friends, is because at least some of the same practices make us mutually happy. Why would I want to put myself in a situation where I had to constantly talk my partner into doing things when there's plenty of people out there who share my interests? To put it on the most basic level, I'm not going to pursue a straight woman and try to convince her to experiment with bixseuality; it would just be painful and frustrating for both of us. And why bother, when there are plenty of lesbians and bi women out there?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Of course. Picking the right partner(s) is important. My point is not that every one will like every act but that the "response to the response" part of the sexual equation was missing from the descriptions of sexual negotiations. For me, good sex isn't, "I will do this for you" or "you will do this for me" but "I will do this for you which is for me..." and vice versa.
Does that make sense?
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Of course. Picking the right partner(s) is important. My point is not that every one will like every act but that the "response to the response" part of the sexual equation was missing from the descriptions of sexual negotiations. For me, good sex isn't, "I will do this for you" or "you will do this for me" but "I will do this for you which is for me..." and vice versa.
Does that make sense?
Oh, yes, I agree with you entirely and didn't mean to imply otherwise. The second part of my comment was responding more to Annie's remark about "alternate" sexual practices being about "what can I talk my partner into doing for me," which seemed to me to be ignoring the fact that if someone is into something, there's almost certainly someone else out there thrilled by the exact same thing for whom no convincing will be required.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I think that is why there are often such surprising levels of disconnect when people discuss sex here (and I assume most places where such discussions take place). That is, because people and their experiences are so diverse and varied wrt sex and sexual practices and with very little broad discussion in our culture about what people actually do, sex discussion devolves into "I have found it to be true that x" and "In my experience, your experience is deviant and sad." Then comes, "In my experience, your experience if full of Y."
Porn bothers me, generally, for two reasons. One, in the mass-produced "porn industry" porn I've seen, I generally do not believe the women are enjoying themselves. Just in what I've seen, mind, they look posed and stoned and seem to be pretending to enjoy acts that appear to be deliberately avoiding their erogenous zones. It makes sense that this sort of porn might lead the young and impressionable into some wrong ideas about how to please real people. To sum up, industrial porn a) doesn't look like fun to me and b) is arguably rife with exploitation. Also, the men tend to be ugly, except in gay porn. (I have less of a problem with gay porn, actually, because it's a little easier to tell whether the participants are enjoying themselves.)
The second issue I have with industrial porn is that, like, they do the same three things in every video, with slight and uninteresting variations. It's boring. Significantly more boring than having actual sex with my Beloved, who is generally present, interested and knows how to please me. So, what is the point in watching?
Now when friends recommend a video or a director, I find that *that* porn is entirely different and altogether more enjoyable. I've found some female porn directors who have made stuff I found appealing, for example. Things that pretty much erased my previous objections to "porn."
So. All "porn" is not created equal, to me. I'm also a fairly live-and-let-live kind of person. It amuses me when I see people in sex discussions take the tack, "My kink is awesome and life-affirming, but yours is just weird and can't possibly be healthy."
For example, while I am uncomfortable with the idea that some people like to be hurt (cut, burned or otherwise made bloody) and don't think I could be in a relationship with someone who wanted to hurt me or to be hurt, I accept that it might well be possible for a healthy sex life to include such things. I've written (and sold) erotica catering to tastes I don't share, partly because I found it challenging to write in a sexy way about things I don't find at all sexy.
Which is a long-winded way of saying that the world is a wide, wild place, with room in it for a lot of things to be fun and healthy. Most sexual behaviors are only deviant, healthy or fun, when our thinking makes it so.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: Which is a long-winded way of saying that the world is a wide, wild place, with room in it for a lot of things to be fun and healthy. Most sexual behaviors are only deviant, healthy or fun, when our thinking makes it so.
This. Very much this.
Also...where might curious minds find this erotica that you have written? Is it publicly available?
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Well, one thing is, for sure. I made it publicly available when the anthology released the rights back to me. But that one is a gay BDSM abduction/captivity story. I really didn't know what I was doing, being pretty far out of that particular loop myself, but it must have hit the target because it was one of two stories in the anthology mentioned favorably in reviews. If you want to read it, PM me on Facebook or Sake and I'll send you a link. (But it's totally fine not to.) I'll do some digging and see if I have anything else out and about on the WWW.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yay! I find that I "enjoy" reading about people doing things that I don't enjoy in practice. I think that ties in to the whole "aroused by response" thing as well. I will PM.
You write so well in your posts, I can't help but imagine that your fiction writing is pretty nifty as well.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:But that one is a gay BDSM abduction/captivity story.
The training of O(livet)
quote: To sum up, industrial porn a) doesn't look like fun to me and b) is arguably rife with exploitation.
It's usually not fun. Not terrible, unless there's strict deadlines or you're working with scumbag operations, but .. it's definitely work. I've watched it get made and both performers need lots of downtime and hydration and at least some reliance on porn angles to make sure everything's, uh, on display in realtime. Porn also went through this sort of peak stonedface, and then people's tastes (or, at least, their consumption) changed, because videos where the actors are obviously not having fun don't do it for them anymore.
One particular pornstar, who I will refer to by stage name — Lily Thai — said that her success has come pretty largely because she doesn't just look good, she legitimately enjoys her work, and she can, uh, authentically demonstrate that on stage. You don't have to do that many takes when the reactions you're normally supposed to be imitating aren't imitations, and the end product is better for all involved, and people seek it out once they're tired of inauthenticity. That's a trend I kind of want to encourage, wherever possible.
I have another friend who departed from our lovely state and ended up living in Australia with her french boyfriend! And she got a job being a spokesperson and assistant for a branch of the porn company Feck, which runs, among other things, ifeelmyself. If you're knowledgeable about female porn directors and actually, legitimately positive directions in porn, you've probably heard about it, but when she started talking about how her job is run and what direction they're trying to take visual eroticism, I thought ... man, given that exploration of porn is pretty much guaranteed for kids living anywhere on the grid, I'd sure hope their first explorations are, well, of that. Not the skeevy grindfests they'd more likely find.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
You work in adult entertainment Samp?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
No, I just got an opportunity to see the sausage get made, as it were.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
That is a disturbing turn of phrase.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
*blush* Thankee, Kate.
[Edited because I didn't like having the rest of the post at the top of a page. Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
That reminds me of a radio interview I once heard with a mainstream film director (I cant remember the name right now) who had started out in pornography.
During the brief segment of the interview in which he commented on that part of his career, he made a statement to the effect that if film could transmit smell along with sight and sound, no one would ever watch a porno again.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
Just think if he were to talk about politics.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Indeed it is, Stone Wolf, indeed it is!
It also explains part of the reason I'm not fond of a lot of porn... it really DOES look like they aren't enjoying themselves, because they aren't, and seeing the face of a bored or stoned looking woman is not what I would ever want to look at, in real life, or on video.
Which naturally means that I dislike a loooooot of porn.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
This is actually why I almost exclusively prefer eromanga.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm not sure that "real women can't convincingly fake enjoyment of a situation reliably enough for me, so I prefer drawings" is really something to brag about, Blayne. Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Chris Bridges just tweeted this picture, and it made me think of this thread for some reason:
Blayne, I may be tolerant of sexual things and all, but your comments on this thread make me feel gross inside. Your cavalier attitude is making me uncomfortable.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
While I don't feel the TOS is being directly violated, I would very much prefer that if requests are being made for pornography, such as on the previous page, that that be done privately by PM or Email, not as a public post on the thread.
It's along the same vein as my not being comfortable with say copyrighted music being exchanged.
The discussion about good/bad pornography thus far is fine.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It's along the same vein as my not being comfortable with say copyrighted music being exchanged.
I'm pretty sure that asking the author of erotica to provide a copy of one of her stories is both legal and ethical, however. How is that in the same vein as asking for a copyrighted piece of music?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I think it's legitimate to prefer not to set precedent that Hatrack is an okay place to exchange pornography on. Whether it's legal and ethical as compared to copyright infringement isn't really relevant.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I doubt that our host would appreciate HR being used to facilitate the distribution of pornography any more than he'd appreciate it being used to facilitate the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted works.
Actually, from what he's written in the past, he'd probably mind the copyrighted works a lot less.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Didn't seem to be written in the users' agreement, however. Nevertheless, (since I already have Olivet's gems in my hot little hands) no problem.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: Blayne, I may be tolerant of sexual things and all, but your comments on this thread make me feel gross inside. Your cavalier attitude is making me uncomfortable.
Ah so that's where you arbitrarily draw the line then, hurray for hypocrisy.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Megabyter...I glanced over the last couple of pages and didn't find any comments from Blayne that were offense, at least to me...
Out of curiosity, what specifically about his posts made you uncomfortable?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I doubt that our host would appreciate HR being used to facilitate the distribution of pornography any more than he'd appreciate it being used to facilitate the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted works.
As I understood it, the argument against quoting more than five lines of a song or poem and/or linking to copyrighted works has always been the potential exposure to liability, not the dissemination of things of which OSC doesn't approve.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Just so everyone knows, sex positive has more than just a 'traditional definition.' It's a distinct movement and a culture.
For clarity, this is sex-positive:
quote: Sex positivity is "an attitude towards human sexuality that regards all consensual sexual activities as fundamentally healthy and pleasurable, and encourages sexual pleasure and experimentation. The sex-positive movement is a social and philosophical movement that advocates these attitudes. The sex-positive movement advocates sex education and safer sex as part of its campaign." The movement makes no moral distinctions among types of consensual sexual activities, regarding these choices as matters of personal preference.
When you're "sex-positive," it means being sex positive. Not "monogamous sex only while married only between two partners only in the 'right' hole only without any elements of kinky fetish, bondage, s/m, D/s, or otherwise 'unacceptable' elements of sex and without birth control and strictly with the ultimate goal of procreation-positive."
To put it more simply, if your moral views on sex concern themselves with which types of consensual sexual acts people 'should' be having versus which ones are morally unacceptable, you're not sex-positive.
Question about 'sex-positivism': what if someone disapproves of certain sex acts, but not on moral grounds?
This gets back to my last post in this thread. There's a sense in which I do disapprove of something like BDSM, even though I don't consider it morally bad by any stretch of the imagination. Rather, I think it's ugly (parhaps tacky is a better word). In the same way that I think Jeff Koons creates art that isn't beautiful, or that AC/DC's music isn't beautiful music, I think that kinky sex is lacking in beauty.
Can someone who disapproves of kinky sex for purely aesthetic reasons count as sex-positive?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Desti: Is your dislike only a choice for yourself? Or do you not want anyone to engage in BDSM because you think it lack beauty?
Because if it is the former, then I say you are indeed "sex positive", where if it is the latter, then you are probably not.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
*grin* At least I knew better than to post a link here.
It is probably worth mentioning that the email address in my profile here is old and extinct. That is deliberate. I have avoided being too closely linked with this site because of some unwanted attention (from a person with questionable motives) in the past. Someone who periodically still hunts for me around the internet.
So, while Boots knows how to get in touch with me (as do several posters and former posters here) private messages to me, if you only know me through this site, might be problematic.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
BDSM is not really my thing, but I have seen some stunningly beautiful BDSM photos.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Destineer - I must say that I agree with you,that most BDSM visuals out there are aesthetically lacking. However, a friend of mine (who has a long publishing history of scfi and fantasy short stories as well as erotica) shared a site started by a sex-positive activist (incidentally, a male) called Male Submission Art. I know better than to link to the site from here, though 95% of the images are work safe. In any case, it changed my mind about the apparent *necessity* of power exchange scenarios being ugly. It also bucks the trend of disregarding or devaluing male beauty.
When I was younger, I thought male nudes were generally off-putting, but now I think it was because the eyes composing the images I saw didn't appreciate the unique beauty of the male form. Also, as a culture, we are less likely to be comfortable with images that focus on males as objects of desire.
Beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, but it can also be be in the eye of the photographer. Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Desti: Is your dislike only a choice for yourself? Or do you not want anyone to engage in BDSM because you think it lack beauty?
Because if it is the former, then I say you are indeed "sex positive", where if it is the latter, then you are probably not.
Interesting question, SW. I'm definitely happy that people who like varieties of sex that I don't like do engage in them anyway. If that's what they like, I don't want them to stop on my account. At the same time, I think their sensibilities would in a sense be "better" if they agreed with me.
It's kind of like how I wish more people enjoyed Firefly, and I wish fewer people enjoyed CSI Miami. I'm not sure aesthetic values are objective in the same way moral values are, but I think people who have what I consider bad taste are making a mistake in some sense.
To be clear, this isn't how I feel about everyone who likes different varieties of sex than I do. I don't think straight women, or gay men, all have "bad taste" in sex, for example, even though I myself prefer sex with women.
Olivet, I will check out your non-link. Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Ugh. If you actually go there, you should know that he ran out of the pretty stuff fairly quickly, so the best visuals are older. The most recent ones generally contain long essays on sex positive topics (which are also nice). While great portions of it are not to my taste (I have little understanding of some of the sex-positive vocabulary i.e. alternative pronouns, for example, or what people mean when they say say "cis-gendered") it has been informative to read.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Well, for what it's worth, I'm pretty sure that Firefly being a superior show to CSI Miami isn't a matter of taste, but a simple fact. Much as a t-bone stake is superior to a pile of pig excrement.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Yea, what the heck does "cis-gendered" mean anyway?
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:It's along the same vein as my not being comfortable with say copyrighted music being exchanged.
I'm pretty sure that asking the author of erotica to provide a copy of one of her stories is both legal and ethical, however. How is that in the same vein as asking for a copyrighted piece of music?
It is both legal and ethical so far as the two individuals are concerned. What I'd rather not happen is for Hatrack to become a place where pornography is exchanged on even an infrequent basis. It's very easy to get the material directly from the author if that is the case. I doubt Mr. Card would be pleased though if say a thread were created where those seeking pornography could regularly post requests and have those requests met, as legal as that would be.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Yea, what the heck does "cis-gendered" mean anyway?
The inverse of transgender; having your physical organs/assigned-at-birth gender match your own gender identity. It dates to the 1990s and mostly gets used by academics and the LGBT community. For the rest of the world, it's a "fish have no word for water" sort of thing. If you assume everyone is cisgendered, you don't need a word for it. Once you realize that assumption isn't valid (and especially once you start spending time in subcommunities where it's often untrue), the need for a word becomes somewhat obvious.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
(In response to JanitorBlade)For the record, that seems perfectly reasonable to me. One of the things I always appreciated about Hatrack was that it was a safe place to discuss things and be social without people getting risque or obnoxiously flirtatious, which happens to women regularly on other websites. (Although I did end up in a HR writing group with a fellow who wrote rape/skinning and other sexual scenes I wasn't comfortable with, back in the day.)
Percentage-wise the creep factor at Hatrack is statistically insignificant, and a big part of that is our host's discomfort with things of a prurient nature. While I draw a personal distinction between written erotica and "pornography" I can understand and appreciate the desire not to go down that slippery slope.
I would not feel comfortable having this discussion on a Hatrack that trafficked in pornography.
[ July 26, 2011, 02:38 PM: Message edited by: Olivet ]
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
quote:Originally posted by ambyr:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Yea, what the heck does "cis-gendered" mean anyway?
The inverse of transgender; having your physical organs/assigned-at-birth gender match your own gender identity. It dates to the 1990s and mostly gets used by academics and the LGBT community. For the rest of the world, it's a "fish have no word for water" sort of thing. If you assume everyone is cisgendered, you don't need a word for it. Once you realize that assumption isn't valid (and especially once you start spending time in subcommunities where it's often untrue), the need for a word becomes somewhat obvious.
Thanks ambyr! That makes perfect sense in the context of the sex-positive blogs I've been reading. Sometimes discussion of a topic this complex does require a special vocabulary for the sake of clarity as well as understanding the nature of our assumptions.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Yea, thanks ambyr!
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
That is, they are words used to describe molecules that are identical in constituent parts (comparable to 2 people of the same sex) but in which the orientation of the atoms is different (comparable to sexual [indentification], I suppose).
It's a reworking of terms from a nonsexual context that sort of strips away some of the connotations of the language most commonly used in these discussions. "Normal" doesn't just mean "of the norm" anymore -- in our language culture, it carries connotations of "acceptable," "standard," and "appropriate." In conversations within the communities ambyr references, it is more precise and accurate to use terminology that doesn't necessarily also reference those additional connotations.
Of course, "cis" and "trans" are Latin prefixes that predate modern chemistry, but I think it's a useful way to understand the words.
[ July 26, 2011, 04:45 PM: Message edited by: CT ]
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Stone_Wolf: Well, everyone has personal things that make one feel uncomfortable. It isn't that Blayne is being offensive, nor did I tell him specifically to stop. But the attitude given by several of his posts... I could be reading them wrong, but they personally make me uncomfortable for completely personal reasons. Kind of like, drive-by skeeviness that reminds me of leering friends talking about gross things, without much actual contribution to the discussion.
Blayne: Did I say it's because of the hentai? No. I've looked at some hentai myself, to be honest. You only assumed that was what I meant, and that interpretation was convenient for you because it makes me the villain.
What bothers me is the attitude in your posts, which reminds me of people I spent way too much time with in the past.
While it's implied, I never so much said "stop" as "you are making me uncomfortable." It's a personal thing. Perhaps, if you wish to continue talking about how great your own personal kinks are, do so in a slightly more mature manner than like most of the others here are, and I'd feel a little less weirded out.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: This gets back to my last post in this thread. There's a sense in which I do disapprove of something like BDSM, even though I don't consider it morally bad by any stretch of the imagination. Rather, I think it's ugly (parhaps tacky is a better word). In the same way that I think Jeff Koons creates art that isn't beautiful, or that AC/DC's music isn't beautiful music, I think that kinky sex is lacking in beauty
For what it's worth, I'm happy to answer questions about the BDSM scene or offer my own particular take (which may or may not match anyone else's) on how it can be loving and beautiful. But I don't feel like I can do it on the boards without at the least making some members uncomfortable and at the most violating the terms of service. (Which is not a complaint; I like Hatrack's culture, and there are plenty of other Internet hangouts where I can let it all hang out, so to speak.) If anyone wants to talk about it, there's a valid AIM in my profile, and it works for e-mail at yahoo.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
0Mega: As a loud mouth clout myself...I can empathize with Blayne that at times just sharing a personal opinion makes people feel...uncomfortable...*shrug*
Correct me if I'm wrong Blayne, but I think his point was that by preferring more fantastical sexual fantasy source material, he avoids people looking bored, or hostile or drugged and not enjoying themselves...and was actually agreeing with you, that those types of situations are unfavorable.
Maybe I'm just sticking my nose where it doesn't belong...
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Yeah, he was agreeing with me. If he'd said it the way you had, oddly enough, I wouldn't have felt quite so weirded out.
I dunno, I suppose it's the way I've perceived his attitude on the matter, not his specific point. I'm happy to drop it, it was just a visceral reaction after all.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
That is pretty much my opinion yes, and I can regularly see girls wearing cat ears.
Whats unfathomable is what you mean by "attitude"? As best I can describe it, cavalier might be accurate, but I would have no idea what is wrong with being cavalier which is just another way of saying "casual without much thought about what others think".
And the correct term is eromanga.
Maybe its the implication that I may or may not find 2D women to be generally more attractive then "real" women, well to an [explainable] extant that's true, but mostly because I read what I find endearing and attractive while real life tends to have a more realistically probabilistic sampling of those traits. So if I read 9/10 manga each one hypothetically features cat ears while only 1/10,000 women I see ever puts on cat ears hence the skew (Unless I go to a convention).
Samething with lesbians, if I see two average and not particularly attractive looking girls just sitting there I wouldn't even notice them; then if they started kissing well then I'ld suddenly look up. Once or twice, my work is important after all.
Though I gave them fair warning, "If you start doing that here I _WILL_ stare." Since it was the school grounds and the clubroom/office.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You're, like, the walking incarnation of the Male Gaze. Albeit a nerdy version. Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: At the same time, I think their sensibilities would in a sense be "better" if they agreed with me.
I don't really want to talk about it outside of a private format like email, but I wish to register my disagreement. Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I think the Firefly analogy is flawed, because it is arguably a superior product, at least by some empirical criteria. (My son's creative writing teacher had them watch... Out of Gas? I forget the episode title, but it was the one that starts with Mal lying on the floor bleeding, all alone on the ship, and goes back and forth on the timeline. It was an example of a spiral narrative structure, which, the instructor explained, is a total beeyotch to do well. I sort of see it as the TV writer's equivalent of tying a cherry stem in a knot with your tongue.)
I propose the Raspberry Analogy as an alternative. See, I LOVE the taste of raspberries. Fresh raspberries, raspberry compote, raspberry syrup -- yum! While my dear husband, bless his heart, hates the taste of raspberries with a passion. He calls it "the flavor of the devil" and won't consume anything with raspberries or that purports to taste like raspberries.
I think that makes him just a tiny bit insane.
But, you know, one can live without raspberries. I'm not sure if I'd want to, mind you, but it isn't necessary for healthful living. He likes sweet flavors, but not tart flavors. I love tart flavors, quite passionately. Neither of us is empirically wrong -- it's a matter of taste.
WRT sex, I think that most of us are born with at least a basic capacity to experience sexual pleasure in a variety of ways, with a variety of people, objects or animals. Everything else is a matter of taste.
Some tastes are culturally dictated, and some are not. Different people have different moral contexts with which to interpret their own tastes and those of others. I mostly focus on behaving conscientiously in my own life, and try not to concern myself overmuch with the sex everyone else may or may not be having. I'm happy with that arrangement. Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Spoken like a Libertarian.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I'm pretty sure I'm not a Libertarian. Well, maybe on social issues, if what I just said sounds Libertarian.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
As a party we will never go very far...it's really hard to organize rugged individualists into any cohesive...well, anything.
At the heart of it is the idea of liberty. And your live and let live view fits right in.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Hee.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
Wow this topic has completely derailed.
Anyway, I'm just coming into this, so I'll just say that Richard Dawkings seems to be famous only for how offensive he is, so it doesn't surprise me that he went after someone for something that most people would have just ignored or accepted. The guy hates everyone who dissagrees with him and doesn't know how to accept different opinions. There's a word for that: Narcissism.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:so I'll just say that Richard Dawkings seems to be famous only for how offensive he is
If you've actually read anything by Dawkins that wasn't written by his detractors, you'd realize that wasn't the case.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The guy hates everyone who dissagrees with him and doesn't know how to accept different opinions.
I'd like to say that I'm surprised to hear you say that. Instead, I am merely disappointed. Can you explain why you believe this to be the case, Jeff?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I *do* somewhat feel that Dawkins is fairly bad at arguing in person so to speak, I've seen internet posters substantiate his points better. He needs a class in debating.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
quote:so I'll just say that Richard Dawkings seems to be famous only for how offensive he is
If you've actually read anything by Dawkins that wasn't written by his detractors, you'd realize that wasn't the case.
You don't have to read his works to know what he's famous for.
As someone who hasn't read anything by him, but has heard a lot about him, being obnoxious and encouraging other people to be obnoxious do seem to be a lot of what he's famous for.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:As someone who hasn't read anything by him, but has heard a lot about him, being obnoxious and encouraging other people to be obnoxious do seem to be a lot of what he's famous for.
It's not difficult to imagine that biased presentation is going to play a large part of that conceptualization of him, especially what with how much people who have invested a lot of their lives into organized religion will want to dislike him fundamentally.
And I say this as someone who doesn't like dawkins.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm hard-pressed to think of much Dawkins has done that falls under the rubric of "obnoxious," personally.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:It's not difficult to imagine that biased presentation is going to play a large part of that conceptualization of him, especially what with how much people who have invested a lot of their lives into organized religion will want to dislike him fundamentally.
That's not it. Practically everything I've heard about him has been from atheists. You'll have to change your theory to "biased reception".
quote:I'm hard-pressed to think of much Dawkins has done that falls under the rubric of "obnoxious," personally.
Remember that conversation where you kept insisting that it's not obnoxious for you and Dawkins to call everybody who believes in a god delusional?
It is.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Well, Dawkins is a British atheist and remains vocal even in the US, hence the perception that he's an uppity atheist.
The perception that he's being obnoxious has little to do with what he's actually done, something that a comparison with PZ Myers who actually *does* stuff to mess with religious people should make clear.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Remember that conversation where you kept insisting that it's not obnoxious for you and Dawkins to call everybody who believes in a god delusional?
Just curious, but would you think the same of someone said that those that believe in Leprechauns are delusional?
How about horoscopes?
Scientology?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I don't personally think that having the opinion that someone else's belief is delusional is obnoxious...but when you tell them...yea, that's obnoxious, be it a belief in Jesus Christ, Muhammad, Buddha, leprechauns, horoscopes, Scientology or that the U.S. government pays space aliens a bribe in gold to keep them out of our skies.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
For the record, I do think Dawkins IS somewhat obnoxious (I'm one of those atheists you may have heard that from) but he's still written plenty of good books about evolution, which is what I think he was originally famous for.
As for the "delusional" thing specifically - I'm honestly a bit torn. I think I'm mostly with Stone_Wolf. But the fact is, if I think God doesn't exist, I pretty much have to also think that people think God does exist are delusional, or at least mistaken about a whole lot of things. (If you think God exists because of the cosmological argument, you're mistaken. If you think you've felt the presence of God, you're delusional)
Any extensive conversation I have with a theist about their beliefs is going to have to acknowledge that eventually. I don't actually attach much negative stigma to the word "delusional" in those contexts - I think plenty of people are delusional about a lot of things. If the word itself upsets people I can phrase it in other ways, but there's only so many ways you can tell someone who believes they have felt the presence of God "I do not believe you have in fact felt the presence of God."
It's only necessary to address that issue in specific types of conversations though.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:...but there's only so many ways you can tell someone who believes they have felt the presence of God "I do not believe you have in fact felt the presence of God."
There you go. Use that. It clearly states your opinion without going into obnoxiousness.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
In general, I do stick to that.
But "percieving something that is in fact not real" is pretty much the dictionary definition of the word delusional, and is what most people use it to mean. (Yes, it has also has a specific clinical meaning, but that's not how most people I know use it)
I understand why others find it obnoxious, but I'd like them to at least accept that when I say the word, I mean exactly the same thing as when I say "you are percieving something that isn't real." I think most people are delusional on occasion.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Sure RA, but "delusional" is also a very broad term which doesn't just stop at "I do not believe this thing you do" it is a label which carries with it a disqualifier...saying: you are crazy.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I believe that God exists and that he "talks" to each one of us. I could easily argue that those who don't realize this are delusional. I don't see what good that would do, though.
quote:I understand why others find it obnoxious, but I'd like them to at least accept that when I say the word, I mean exactly the same thing as when I say "you are percieving something that isn't real."
If that's really all that you mean, you'll communicate it much more effectively if you just say that, instead of using a word that carries so much connotational baggage with it.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I think what you need is a really good way to say "I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but..." before you tell someone something you know they're going to take the wrong way. In the meantime, however, you're stuck with coming off as obnoxious when you call someone delusional.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
As I said, I usually avoid using the word, unless I'm in a meta-discussion about the word.
quote:I believe that God exists and that he "talks" to each one of us. I could easily argue that those who don't realize this are delusional. I don't see what good that would do, though.
If you turn out to be right, I will in fact turn out to have been delusional. I'm fine with that. And I consider that an understood subtext of your telling me that.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Speaking as someone who doesn't subscribe to any one particular vision of "God" (I think that trying to force our understanding onto God is one of the sure ways to limit our ability to grasp a higher power) that one of the best ways to communicate this particular thought is to make sure to qualify the information as your opinion and make it about the belief not the belief holder. For example:
In my opinion, the absolute belief in God is a delusion.
Instead of: Anyone who has an absolute belief in God is delusional.
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
It always seems to me that people who insist on calling theist delusional are either: 1) doing it on purpose to insult and then trying to claim it is neutral, or 2) fundamentally ignorant about human nature. People believe things they can't prove ALL THE TIME. It is a CONSTANT behavior. Anyone who thinks they don't doesn't even know what they take on faith, and doesn't know much about how human brains work.
This is a good thing. It's a big, complicated world, and we'd be too crippled to even feed ourselves if we didn't have some mental shortcuts to handle all the information and allow us to make decisions with mental comfort. This isn't to say that I think a belief in God is a mental shortcut; I don't. But even if it were, then using mental shortcuts wouldn't make someone delusional.
Unless you are prepared every single human being delusional, including yourself, then calling those who beleive in God delusional is a deliberate insult. (Which all evidence proclaims to me that it is. As in, those who insist on calling theists delusional are very comfortable flat out insulting people as well. I very rarely see people noted for their politeness, charity and insight doing it.)
Once you're calling the vast majority of humanity mentally ill, then you need to reexamine either your dictionary or your motives.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Unless you are prepared every single human being delusional, including yourself, then calling those who beleive in God delusional is a deliberate insult.
While I understand they have that context, the dictionary definitions I'm seeing don't reference mental illness. They just say things like:
quote: de·lu·sion [dih-loo-zhuhn] Show IPA
–noun 1. an act or instance of deluding.
2. the state of being deluded.
3. a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur.
Yes, I believe most humans are delusional about something or another. As I said, I don't attach much negative stigma to it. You should try not be delusional in the same way you should try not to be forgetful.
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
Connotation is different from the denotation.
"Delusional" is not a neutral term. That's fine if you think it is - then it is appropriate for talking to yourself. When you are talking to other Americans, it is an insult.
There are three definitions, two obviously insulting. It comes from "delude", which is obviously insulting.
Any insisting that "delusional" is a neutral term is obviously trying to delude his audience.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
From the same page...a little further down:
quote:Medical Dictionary
de·lu·sion definition Pronunciation: /di-ˈl{uuml}-zhən/ Function: n 1 a : the act of deluding : the state of being deluded b : an abnormal mental state characterized by the occurrence of psychotic delusions 2 : a false belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that persists despite the facts and occurs in some psychotic states compare HALLUCINATION 1 , ILLUSION 2a ,
Either way, it is a very common association that the word delusional indicates a mental deficiency, and if you are trying to avoid offending people, then simply don't use that word, regardless of your own personal word associations.
I mean, -if- you are trying to be considerate of other's feelings, then taking a word's common associations into account seems appropriate.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
One thing that "protects" theists from being crazy is the vagueness of the claim. If I believe in leprachauns, I have a very specific image in mind, as well as properties for the creature. Whereas God is more nebulous. He is a being currently undetected by us who is more advanced and we believe his intentions to be good. Proving or disproving this is pretty impossible, which is why it doesn't seem as delusional to me. The more specific you get, the lower the probability of it being true.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
But leprechauns are shrouded by magic...
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Disproving God is the same difficulty as disproving Leprechauns. It is impossible to do either. You don't get a pass because your belief is "nebulous". That's of course setting aside that nearly all theists believe some very specific things about God.
That said, I don't remember ever referring to a theist as delusional here. Not because I think its obnoxious (I don't have a strong opinion there), but because it is counter-productive.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
It being counter-productive or not depends largely on what you're trying to accomplish. Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
So, if your trying to alienate believers, using the word delusional is the ticket!
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: But leprechauns are shrouded by magic...
Pfft. Nonsense. They're shrouded by technology sufficiently advanced as to be indistinguishable, to us, from magic. Jeez.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
On the other hand, I'm connected to the internet through magic sufficiently advanced as to be indistinguishable, to you, from technology.
Posted by shadowland (Member # 12366) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aerin: It comes from "delude", which is obviously insulting.
I'm not sure that it's obviously insulting.
This definition is: To deceive the mind or judgment of.
Being that all humans are at times delusional, the mere act of acknowledging that to be the case doesn't seem particularly insulting. So I wonder what specifically makes this more insulting than, say, telling someone that you think they are mistaken about the facts. Would saying, "I think there is a significant possibility that you are deluding yourself on this matter" be less insulting?
I view this whole 'delusional' as insulting issue as being similar to telling someone they are ignorant. Yes, people tend to not like being told that they are ignorant, but it can be a perfectly true statement, and it doesn't necessarily need to be intended or perceived as an insult.
And when it comes to discussing things with people that you don't know very well, it can be very difficult to know what connotative value people are going to associate with different words. No matter what you say, there is probably going to be someone somewhere that could take offense. While it is good to try to be considerate of other people's perceptions, sometimes semantic accuracy can be of more importance.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: On the other hand, I'm connected to the internet through magic sufficiently advanced as to be indistinguishable, to you, from technology.
Wait, you're The Doctor?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
You make a good point about the likelihood insulting people no matter what is said...it is likely, but semantic accuracy and being aware of which words have a common and understandable insulting connotation, and making effort not to offend are not mutually exclusive.
I don't think my example of:
"In my opinion, the absolute belief in God is a delusion.
Instead of: Anyone who has an absolute belief in God is delusional."
...is less "semantically accurate", but it -is- decidedly less rude.
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
quote:Being that all humans are at times delusional,
No. This is wrong.
It isn't that all humans are delusional - it is that all humans - including you, right now - use mental shortcuts to make sense of the world. There are so many prejudgments and assumptions going on right now in your head that it would make it spin to know them, which is precisely why they occur.
This is NORMAL. It's healthy. It's necessary.
It doesn't mean all humans are delusional. The only delusion is to imagine that a human being can someone turn himself inhuman and no longer be subject to such things. "Delusional" is still an indication of either naive gullibility or else mental instability, and it's still an insult.
Try it out with other insults - it doesn't work any better there.
"You're dishonest. But that's not an insult because I think all humans are dishonest. Except, of course, me, because I'm using your dishonesty to distinguish yourself from me and put you on a lower plane. This is okay, because I'm being honest. See? I'm better!"
Posted by shadowland (Member # 12366) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I don't think my example of:
"In my opinion, the absolute belief in God is a delusion.
Instead of: Anyone who has an absolute belief in God is delusional."
...is less "semantically accurate", but it -is- decidedly less rude.
Well, those statements do mean two different things.
But I still wonder why the former statement is supposed to be less rude. Is it because it has the IMO qualifier at the beginning? Is it because the latter statement includes a more obvious generalization? Is it because the former is stated as a possibility while the latter is stated as an absolute fact? Does it matter who the person is that is making the statement to you?
I think both the speaker and the listener have a share in how language is perceived. The speaker should try to be considerate of known values of the listener, and the listener should be willing to take into account the possibility of having misinterpreted the intentions of the speaker.
Posted by shadowland (Member # 12366) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aerin: It doesn't mean all humans are delusional. ... Try it out with other insults - it doesn't work any better there.
There is a difference between saying 'all humans are delusional' and 'all humans are at times delusional.'
And yes, it does work with other things. 'All humans are wrong' vs. 'all humans are at times wrong.' Or 'all humans are eating' vs. 'all humans at times eat.' You can plug in pretty much any word, and there will be a difference in the two statements.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jake:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: On the other hand, I'm connected to the internet through magic sufficiently advanced as to be indistinguishable, to you, from technology.
Wait, you're The Doctor?
I have a beard now. Beards are cool.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:It isn't that all humans are delusional - it is that all humans - including you, right now - use mental shortcuts to make sense of the world. There are so many prejudgments and assumptions going on right now in your head that it would make it spin to know them, which is precisely why they occur.
I don't really doubt this, but I'd like to hear more of your thoughts on the subject. Is this an established consensus in a scientific field (psychology, cognitive science, etc)?
Are there any specific examples you can point to for an individual, as an outside observer? I think mostly I hear similar statements in a context of those quizzes that indicate that "you are racist, even if you don't think you are". Also the various cognitive biases might be related to what you are speaking of here.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by shadowland: Well, those statements do mean two different things.
True, but the differences are subtle, and someone who believes the first statement might not believe the second, but probably not vice versa. The first is more likely while the second is just looser language and ruder.
quote:But I still wonder why the former statement is supposed to be less rude. Is it because it has the IMO qualifier at the beginning? Is it because the latter statement includes a more obvious generalization? Is it because the former is stated as a possibility while the latter is stated as an absolute fact? Does it matter who the person is that is making the statement to you?
Yes, the qualifier...opinions are generally accepted to be a person's right to have, where as facts are held to a different standard. Yes...lack of generalizations. Also a big difference is one statement is aimed at the belief itself, where as they other is aimed at the belief holder.
quote:I think both the speaker and the listener have a share in how language is perceived. The speaker should try to be considerate of known values of the listener, and the listener should be willing to take into account the possibility of having misinterpreted the intentions of the speaker.
Agreed.
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Beards are cool.
My chin agrees with you.
quote:Originally posted by Aerin:
quote:Being that all humans are at times delusional,
No. This is wrong.
Since we are currently talking about how to state your opinion and not offend your audience, I'd also like to point that imperially saying someone you disagree with is wrong is also likely to cause friction.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
A simple example is the literal blind spot that each of us has in each eye.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:A simple example is the literal blind spot that each of us has in each eye.
Sure, but I know its there and while its fun to play with illusions that expose it, my head is hardly "spinning".
Is it just the cumulation of lots of little things like this that she was referring to?
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by Aerin:
quote:Being that all humans are at times delusional,
No. This is wrong.
Since we are currently talking about how to state your opinion and not offend your audience, I'd also like to point that imperially saying someone you disagree with is wrong is also likely to cause friction.
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Yes, the qualifier...opinions are generally accepted to be a person's right to have, where as facts are held to a different standard. Yes...lack of generalizations. Also a big difference is one statement is aimed at the belief itself, where as they other is aimed at the belief holder.
Yeah, so really it's not so much the word 'delusion' itself, it is the way in which it is used that is the source of offense.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Well...for what it's worth, I think the word delusional is WAY more offensive then the word delusion.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
It makes sense that describing the person is often more offensive than describing a single belief.
Delusional has a lot of negative connotations. Aerin's probably right that it's not the best word to use for someone who holds beliefs that you consider wrong (even drastically wrong), if you want to have a polite conversation about it.
Then again "you are drastically wrong about [cherished belief]" is kind of troublesome, too. The topic of religion IS famously incompatible with polite conversation.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Dawkins' own book, The God Delusion, deals quite explicitly with this question. He points out that it is perceived as rude to acknowledge that the belief in contact with the Divine is almost certainly either delusion or misinterpretation of other experiences. He then goes on to explain that in an ideal world, people would be entitled to their delusions, and explains that he is not hostile to religion in and of itself. He observes that we live in an era in which people who cling to religious modes of thinking -- and he includes some who do not believe in God in this group, by the way -- are making disastrous choices and openly asserting those religious epistemologies as the rationale for those decisions, and suggests that we as a society need to loudly, publicly, and socially disapprove of decisions -- especially policy decisions -- reached on "faith."
And I submit that he puts that argument forward in a non-obnoxious way.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Why add drastically? I mean this whole meta-conversation is about a having a polite discussion of religion between one who believes in it and one who does not. Everyone can leave the room after it's over and get with others of like-opinion to discuss how small-minded, pretentious or outright dumb the opposition is if that's what they want to do. If the discussion is to serve a purpose why label it at all? If you're trying to understand, or even just highlight a point you don't think is correct say exactly that. In fact, why even add you don't think it's correct? You both know each other's opinions you're trying to get to the 'why' not the 'what'. If you think someone is being a total moron what is the point in saying that other than to feel better yourself? If you want to change their mind, or understand why they don't think it's moronic then just talk about the cause of their belief. Why do we have to explain what we think of the belief first? Polite or not?
Also, saying that a word applies to everyone doesn't remove the connotation but it removes the purpose of the word. If you say someone is delusional but defend it that everyone is delusional then why did you single out this person? You just said the word actually doesn't define anyone because it's all inclusive, yet applied to to a specific person. The only reason to do that if the denotation makes no sense is for the connotation.
Hobbes Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: If you say someone is delusional but defend it that everyone is delusional then why did you single out this person?
I think the implication is, "Everyone -- or almost everyone -- is delusional about something. You are delusional about this specific thing, but it is within your power to stop."
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
In the actual conversation where this sort of phrasing came up, I didn't actually use the phrase myself (that I recall), but the conversation ended with my friend saying "I'm sorry, I get why your arguments make sense, but I just can't believe God is real, because if he is that means I'm crazy, and I just can't believe that."
I think it's extremely important for people to understand that they probably ARE crazy about some things, and to not attach negative stigma to that, precisely so that it's easier to change your mind about beliefs that turn out to be wrong.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:You are delusional about this specific thing, but it is within your power to stop.
I assume, Tom, that this falls within what you consider non-obnoxious?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:I think the implication is, "Everyone -- or almost everyone -- is delusional about something. You are delusional about this specific thing, but it is within your power to stop."
In which case the argument that it's not obnoxious since everyone is delusional loses its power. It is also not a healthy way to have a discussion. It's a good way to have an intervention but if you equate belonging to a religion to having a heroin problem you lose your credibility when it comes to not understanding why those you have these discussions with find it offensive or obnoxious.
Hobbes Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I think shadowland nailed it...saying that everyone has things they are delusional about is just about the same level of obnoxiousness as saying, everyone has something they are ignorant about.
While it may be imperially true, it's also perty durn rude.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Dawkins did have some pretty compelling points about the privilege that religious beliefs enjoy when it comes to public policy and debate. e.g. it's considered impolite to challenge you* about your religious beliefs about an impending apocalypse, even if there's a good reason to think those beliefs might influence your vote on some really important stuff.
*Not you, that other guy.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: if you equate belonging to a religion to having a heroin problem you lose your credibility
Why? For many people, it's roughly analogous to having a heroin problem.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Not a lot of people ruin their bodies, family ties, spend all their money to the point of have to resort to petty theft and end up prematurely dead for their religions.
How is this comparison valid?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I don't think I can actually answer that question without seeming obnoxious. Is that all right?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
As a nonreligious person...I'm not qualified to give you a pass.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Why? For many people, it's roughly analogous to having a heroin problem.
I have trouble believing you are incapable of seeing how it is obnoxious to tell people their religion is equivalent to a heroin addiction.
Hobbes Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Is it obnoxious to accuse someone with a heroin addiction of being a heroin addict?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I don't have trouble believing you'd think you'd be right to do so Tom, I have trouble believing that you would be unable to tell it would annoy or outright offend people. Would you, honestly, be surprised when someone got annoyed at you after you told them that their belief in Christ was the same as a cocaine addiction?
Hobbes Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Ah. I've been mentally making a distinction between "obnoxious" and "offensive." Are we defining "obnoxious" as "telling someone a hard truth when we feel it's necessary/beneficial?"
If you feel that it's the manner in which the truth is told that's the problem, let me ask: what would be the polite way to ask you to be less religious, for your sake and for the sake of the people around you?
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I don't think I can actually answer that question without seeming obnoxious. Is that all right?
Well I'd like to hear it.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Are we defining "obnoxious" as "telling someone a hard truth when we feel it's necessary/beneficial?"
Well I'm certainly not.
quote:If you feel that it's the manner in which the truth is told that's the problem, let me ask: what would be the polite way to ask you to be less religious, for your sake and for the sake of the people around you?
The biggest problem in this hypothetical is your hypothetical self feeling the need to go around and tell people the truth rather than discuss what they believe and why. If you want to change peoples minds the first one is neither effective nor is it likely to be done without being obnoxious. The second one will allow at least some measure of success. As someone who tried to "talk people into" religious beliefs for two years I have had some experience. Either someone did not know what they believed (they were searching) or the only way to reach them was to discuss what they believed and why with them.
Hobbes Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
But you were prosthelatizing. Secular humanism relies on the notion that rational people, given the freedom of thought and access to information required to understand the natural world outside a religious context will naturally draw the same approximate philosophical conclusions. Meaning that a lot of the work of someone actually interested in teaching secular humanism must be time spent freeing the learner from religious guilt and circular reasoning, or at least creAting an environment in which these learned habits are not adaptive.
The reason it isn't a religion is that it requires no actual teaching on it's own. It emerges from liberal and thorough education, unless a person is otherwise inveigled.
So really, secular humanism, or whatever you want to call it, requires very little entertaining of someone else's belief structure, outside of it providing an opportunity for instruction on weak and poorly founded reasoning. The striking aspect of this is that secular humanists emerge from every belief structure the world has, and in large numbers.
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
If it helps, Tom, I am quite satisfied that for you the effect upon the hearer is not only an acceptable side effect but the majority of the appeal.
[ July 29, 2011, 10:14 AM: Message edited by: Aerin ]
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier:
quote:It isn't that all humans are delusional - it is that all humans - including you, right now - use mental shortcuts to make sense of the world. There are so many prejudgments and assumptions going on right now in your head that it would make it spin to know them, which is precisely why they occur.
I don't really doubt this, but I'd like to hear more of your thoughts on the subject. Is this an established consensus in a scientific field (psychology, cognitive science, etc)?
Are there any specific examples you can point to for an individual, as an outside observer? I think mostly I hear similar statements in a context of those quizzes that indicate that "you are racist, even if you don't think you are". Also the various cognitive biases might be related to what you are speaking of here.
Yes, I believe it is. I'm not a professional, but it seems to be well established that people have assumptions, biases, and tendencies that they don't know about, and it is these assumptions, biases, tendencies, and mental shortcuts that allow people to function.
The racist example is a good one, because I think that is true. It isn't that all people are racist, but that everyone - all people - bring their experiences and their knowledge to bear on future social interactions, and that inevitably means you treat people in the manner that you think will bring about the most optimum outcome, and sometimes that means opening up earlier than you would otherwise and sometimes it means not trusting.
It is, of course, good to fight that and establish principles within yourself (such as: everyone gets a chance before I make a decision), but you can't change that much of activities involved in human interaction are like breathing - under your control, but usually you don't think about it.
These activities rely on guess and estimations and beliefs about the world, and a whole slew of them are flat out made up.
I find it utterly absurd when people claim that they have managed to short circuit their brains to avoid all those mental shortcuts necessary for functioning. It isn't that I think that's bad to do - it's that it is impossible.
Maybe that's why so many religions urge charity - refraining from jumping to the worst conclusion and giving people room to be less than perfect in one's estimation also gives oneself permission to be less than perfect. Which one, of course, absolutely is.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If it helps, Tom, I am quite satisfied that for you the effect upon the hearer is not only an acceptable side effect but the majority of the appeal.
Katie, I do hope that you someday become sensible to the often-delicious irony woven through nearly every one of your sanctimonious pronouncements nowadays. It's possible that you already are, and the personality you wear on here is a really elaborate piece of performance art, but I think it's more likely that you've simply lost perspective. That makes me sad.
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
Tom, you just called a huge swath of humanity the equivelent of meth addicts and act like you're the better person for it. My opinion of you has been gathered from your actions.
I have no respect at all for any of your opinions and I think the majority of the time you're lying anyway.
In other words, don't worry yourself about me. There's nothing there for you.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:you just called a huge swath of humanity the equivelent of meth addicts
I believe the drug Hobbes chose for his analogy was heroin.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:you just called a huge swath of humanity the equivelent of meth addicts
I believe the drug Hobbes chose for his analogy was heroin.
Tom, is that really the pertinent point of contention?
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
Sure, that matters.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*grin* Karl Marx thought so. Religion is not, after all, the amphetamine of the people.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
For me, atheists who insist that theists are delusional are about on par obnoxious-wise with theists who insist that anyone who doesn't believe as they do is going to hell. All of them pushy and certain and smug about things they can't really know.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:If you feel that it's the manner in which the truth is told that's the problem, let me ask: what would be the polite way to ask you to be less religious, for your sake and for the sake of the people around you?
I don't know. Don't antagonize them? Show at least some token respect for their intelligence and ability to choose? Don’t be patronizing? There are a few of us on here with experience in proselyting; we had to learn the same thing about approaching people and ultimately asking them to be more religious. Perhaps you’d like some pointers? Asking them to be less religious is essentially the same thing. In either approach, you’re asking them to change their minds and lifestyles, overcoming a bunch of inertia in the process. Opening with your frank opinion of their beliefs is not how to do it, and new missionaries learn that fairly quickly.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: For me, atheists who insist that theists are delusional are about on par obnoxious-wise with theists who insist that anyone who doesn't believe as they do is going to hell. All of them pushy and certain and smug about things they can't really know.
Both might be pushy and smug.
But one is just saying that he thinks you're wrong. The other is saying the he thinks you're wrong, and you deserve to be punished for it.
So, not quite on par, at least in my book.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Who was it? KoM? Who wanted to round us all up in re-education camps?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:All of them pushy and certain and smug about things they can't really know.
The smugness is not contingent on their having beliefs like "you're going to hell."
I have approximately the same respect for the belief "Nonbelievers going to hell" and for the belief "There is a vague God who cares about you and is good and works in ways we can't fully understand."
My respect for the *person* depends on how they approached me and why. I have respect for someone earnestly trying to save me from going to hell, to approximately the same degree I have respect for political activists who happen to be going about their activism all wrong and have wildly naive views (even if I agree with their general goals).
(I know people who believe I'm going to hell, also believe that I'm a good person, and reconcile this with the belief that hell is an absence of God's love, which I only will have to deal with because I'm actively rejecting it.)
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:The other is saying the he thinks you're wrong, and you deserve to be punished for it.
No. The other is saying that they think that you're wrong, and that there will be consequences for it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Asking them to be less religious is essentially the same thing.
I actually fundamentally disagree on this point. I would not be attempting to teach someone to believe something; I would be attempting to teach them how to think critically.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Asking them to be less religious is essentially the same thing.
I actually fundamentally disagree on this point. I would not be attempting to teach someone to believe something; I would be attempting to teach them how to think critically.
Which is an admirable skill to have. But very first, you have to convince them to let go of how they were believing and accept a new way. That's where most of the toes get stepped on.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:The other is saying the he thinks you're wrong, and you deserve to be punished for it.
No. The other is saying that they think that you're wrong, and that there will be consequences for it.
Don't split hairs.
Those 'consequences' are that you deserve to be punished for not believing. Punished forever.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Who was it? KoM? Who wanted to round us all up in re-education camps?
I believed we were speaking in generalities. If you'd like to start listing off people that don't adhere to generalities, I can start compiling right now. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I find the scorn from one group about equal to the scorn in the other.
Hmmm...I guess maybe that isn't quite true. I find the scorn from atheists more irritating and less personally hurtful because I don't feel responsible for them.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:The other is saying the he thinks you're wrong, and you deserve to be punished for it.
No. The other is saying that they think that you're wrong, and that there will be consequences for it.
Well, some of them are saying that. But I know more than a few who take a perverse pleasure in the hellfire and damnation the nonbeliever will receive, especially if they've specifically rejected a given religion.
Of course there are also those for whom, "You're wrong about God," also pretty clearly means, "You're a mouth-breathing loon who shouldn't be trusted with anything until you recant. Also, I'm ever so much smarter than you."
I will say both ends are pretty obnoxious, but one end *does* take some spiteful, triumphant satisfaction in the everlasting damnation angle, whereas the other doesn't.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But very first, you have to convince them to let go of how they were believing and accept a new way.
I don't think you can talk someone into sensibly re-evaluating their beliefs in the same way you can talk someone into uncritically accepting your own beliefs.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Well, some of them are saying that. But I know more than a few who take a perverse pleasure in the hellfire and damnation the nonbeliever will receive, especially if they've specifically rejected a given religion.
We were going off of what Boots said, which is this:
quote:For me, atheists who insist that theists are delusional are about on par obnoxious-wise with theists who insist that anyone who doesn't believe as they do is going to hell.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Tom, there are few really big similarities between your side and there's.
No matter of logical argument/call to faith will shake either of you from thinking you are right and the other side is wrong.
Neither of you knows for certain or ever can know while alive.
Both of you feel obligated to try and change the other person's mind, for their own good.
In the end it isn't about being right, because you can't know, but instead it's about what brings comfort and happiness. Isn't it a better way to just live and let live?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:No matter of logical argument/call to faith will shake either of you from thinking you are right and the other side is wrong.
Neither of you knows for certain or ever can know while alive.
I disagree with both these points, actually.
quote:instead it's about what brings comfort and happiness
And yet you tried just a little while ago to argue that a comparison to heroin addiction was silly (on the grounds that religions don't cost people money, isolate them from their friends and family, and occasionally kill them, even).
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
So, there is a call to faith that would change your mind and make you a true believer?
Or a logical argument which would break someone's faith and turn them into a "rational atheist"?
And you have proof that God doesn't exist, and further that He doesn't exist as they say he does?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Heroin doesn't give comfort and happiness...it gives you a chemical high which your brain can't achieve from real life at that strength and requires more and more to the point of your spiritual, emotional and eventual physical death.
Ask a heroin addict if they are happy or comforted...they might say yes while high, but I doubt highly that that will be they reply without the needle in their arm.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:So, there is a call to faith that would change your mind and make you a true believer?
No, but there are certainly logical arguments that would.
quote:Or a logical argument which would break someone's faith and turn them into a "rational atheist"?
I've actually seen this happen, so yes.
quote:And you have proof that God doesn't exist, and further that He doesn't exist as they say he does?
Certainly. In fact, the second stipulation is part of what makes it possible, since proof that there is no god of any conceivable kind or definition is fairly hard to produce. Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:But very first, you have to convince them to let go of how they were believing and accept a new way.
I don't think you can talk someone into sensibly re-evaluating their beliefs in the same way you can talk someone into uncritically accepting your own beliefs.
Either way, what you want them to do is think more like you do, right? Regardless of the type of changes they're expected to do in their thinking, there are certain conclusions you are guiding (or nudging) them toward. Your expectation, from what I gather, is that some sensible thinking will lead them to reconsider their belief in divinity, and over time give it up. Merely thinking critically isn't enough. Would you consider their thinking appropriately sensible or sound if they went on to reaffirm their belief in God? In the end, your goal is to save them from what you consider wrong and destructive thinking. That's not fundamentally different from what a religious proselytizer is doing, and the approach is therefore similar.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Ask a heroin addict if they are happy or comforted...they might say yes while high, but I doubt highly that that will be they reply without the needle in their arm.
*suspicious look* Are you deliberately sneakily advocating on behalf of this analogy, or do you just not realize that you are?
--------
quote:Merely thinking critically isn't enough. Would you consider their thinking appropriately sensible or sound if they went on to reaffirm their belief in God?
If they had good reasons for it? Absolutely. Note: "I prefer not to believe that I have been deluded" or "I prefer to believe this because it makes the world seem like a nicer place" are not, IMO, good reasons, but I'm willing to leave it there as long as they're aware that these are their reasons.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Ask a heroin addict if they are happy or comforted...they might say yes while high, but I doubt highly that that will be they reply without the needle in their arm.
*suspicious look* Are you deliberately sneakily advocating on behalf of this analogy, or do you just not realize that you are?
*L* That is pretty awesome.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
In general, logical arguments don't breed believers...in this case "belief" is not simply a strongly held opinion, but something based on faith.
I submit that if a logical argument swayed a believer then their faith was not rock solid to being with, says the non-religous guy.
You do have proof? Tom is going to be on the cover of ever major newspaper and magazine in the world! Let's see it!
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
But you don't seem to accept that people who believe in God are capable of having that belief and still thinking clearly. That's where this whole argument over the world delusional comes from. To cease from delusional thinking, a necessary step is to stop believing in God. I personally don't recall you allowing for religious belief in a right-thinking person.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Ask a heroin addict if they are happy or comforted...they might say yes while high, but I doubt highly that that will be they reply without the needle in their arm.
*suspicious look* Are you deliberately sneakily advocating on behalf of this analogy, or do you just not realize that you are?
You don't watch a lot of the show Intervention do you? Most of a heroin addict's time is spent begging, lying or stealing, and suffering between hits, they are miserable the majority of the time and often say how much they hate their life.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I personally don't recall you allowing for religious belief in a right-thinking person.
I think it's fairly difficult to be a believer in the divine and remain intellectually rigorous, yes. There are a few scenarios in which I think it's possible, most of which involve delusion.
--------
quote:Most of a heroin addict's time is spent begging, lying or stealing, and suffering between hits...
One of the nice things about religion as an opiate of choice is that even when you can't afford a "hit," you can generally still get one.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: But you don't seem to accept that people who believe in God are capable of having that belief and still thinking clearly.
At the risk of misinterpreting Tom, I think he means that those people aren't capable of thinking clearly about that belief. Not about everything.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
But the point of convincing someone to start thinking critically ala Tom is to have them begin to move away from religious belief. If they kept their beliefs, they wouldn't be thinking appropriately critically.
I was making the point that this is quite the same as convincing someone to adopt religious beliefs and could be handled in much the same way.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: One of the nice things about religion as an opiate of choice is that even when you can't afford a "hit," you can generally still get one.
Oh yea, gathering in nice cloths to hear an elder of your community teach about how Jesus wants people to be kind and love each other and then to join with like minded people in singing about how much you love God and want to be a better person and then gathering over some coffee and danish to talk about how your kids are doing is just like mixing up a dangerous drug and boiling it on a dirty bent spoon and then using a hopefully clean needle to mainline said dangerous drug into your vein, although you probably have to use your neck or hand or feet as you have likely collapsed the main veins in the crook of your elbow and then your eyes roll up in your head as your body goes slack and you fall to the floor of a filthy public bathroom not far from where you falated a stranger for the money for your fix.
Exactly the same. Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Or to put it more succinctly, religion can help people to be better morally and spiritually through interaction in a community of people dedicated to goodness and charity and comparing it to a dangerous and amoral drug is insulting.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But the point of convincing someone to start thinking critically ala Tom is to have them begin to move away from religious belief.
No. The point of convincing someone to start thinking critically is to make them capable of engaging reality more directly. Religious belief is fine as long as it accurately models reality (i.e. as long as it does not use religious epistemology.)
----------
SW, I'm not sure what your last reply is meant to be a response to. Are you arguing that because certain methods of taking opiates are very dangerous, and not every Christian church engages in, say, snake-handling, the analogy is invalid? Would you consider smoking hashish to be a better comparison than shooting up smack, by that logic?
I know you're new here, and probably haven't seen me actually defend the occasional merits of religious belief. But it's worth pointing out that the observation "religious belief helps someone be a better person" is true regardless of the actual religion being examined. This strongly suggests that the actual driver is not the religious belief, but the framework around it. It's arguing that God must exist -- and that it's rude to even suggest otherwise -- because cathedrals are pretty.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I take back my lack of permission...
Everyone! Don't be mad at Tom, he is going to be obnoxious! He warned us...so don't jump down his throat please!
Okay Tom...let's hear it...how is a heroin addict like a religious person?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think I've already sufficiently covered that, don't you?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm not that new (I had another account and it goes way back)...but that's hardly the point.
Saying that heroin use and religion are not a fair analogy are not the same as saying that it's rude to suggest that God doesn't exist because cathedrals are pretty.
I would defend your belief that there is no God as vehemently as I defend their belief that there is.
There is a difference between your private opinion that a belief in god is delusional/their belief that not believing sends you to hell...and either of you telling the other that in no uncertain terms. You can both believe whatever you like...but when it comes to public declarations...there are some niceties that should be followed or else there might be fistfights. And my point is that either side insisting they have the one and only truth publicly is rude. That's all.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
L'enfer, c'est les autres. *shrug*
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
But since religious belief is a delusion, how can it ever accurately model reality? You're locked into your own view of this just like everyone else. The acceptable outcome of learning to think critically must include letting go of delusions like religion.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I heard a very good preacher tell a story...
Hell is a banquet table, covered in every variety of delicious, perfectly prepared food. Around that huge table sit all of humanity, and they are hungry, oh so hungry. But they can not eat, all the utensils are three feet long and no one can reach their own mouth. So they sit and hate the food, and each other and starve.
Heaven is a banquet table, covered in every variety of delicious, perfectly prepared food. Around that huge table sit all of humanity, and they are hungry, oh so hungry. And everyone takes their three foot utensils and feeds each other and no one goes hungry and everyone is filled with fellowship and happiness.
So, as you say, hell maybe people, but so is heaven.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
And if you don't mind...please make the comparison for "heroin user = believer"...I don't think the bits and pieces that got through were sufficient to understand your point.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I read the same thing in Readers' Digest. I was impressed. I was eleven.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Boots...is the "I was eleven" part mean you've known this story for a long time, or that it is only impressive to children?
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
These discussions are so weird because often the religious people objecting to being called deluded understand that (conveniently) members of any other religion are deluded. They just have the right one.
A lot of it comes down to how people can and do convince themselves and become irrationally assured that the observable plausibility of their religion is way way more than it actually is. Mormonism gives a good example, too ...
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: These discussions are so weird because often the religious people objecting to being called deluded understand that (conveniently) members of any other religion are deluded. They just have the right one.
Has anyone on this thread given you reason to think they believe this, or are you just projecting?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: These discussions are so weird because often the religious people objecting to being called deluded understand that (conveniently) members of any other religion are deluded. They just have the right one.
A lot of it comes down to how people can and do convince themselves and become irrationally assured that the observable plausibility of their religion is way way more than it actually is. Mormonism gives a good example, too ...
I'll go even further than that. There are lots of things I think are true that I imagine most of my co-religionists don't. In fact, I imagine I'm the only wholly non-deluded person in the world. Furthermore, I'd put pretty good odds down that your particular set of beliefs about what is true are unique as well. And given that everyone disagrees with you, I'd say you're pretty deluded (but then, so am I, objectively).
Which is why labeling people we disagree with as "deluded" strikes me as both silly and counter-productive.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Boots...is the "I was eleven" part mean you've known this story for a long time, or that it is only impressive to children?
It means it is an old story that most people have already heard by the time they are adults. Old (with rare exceptions) eventually resembles trite. So, both, I guess.
Honestly, you may as well quote "Footprints".
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I had not heard it, and I thought it was clever.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
"The times when you saw only one set of footprints are the times we were both hopping on one foot."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: I had not heard it, and I thought it was clever.
Clearly you have led a sheltered life. Or un-sheltered without access to Readers' Digest. Thirty years from now, you will roll your eyes at it, too.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
The advantage that the long-handled spoons story will always have over the footprints poem is that the image/metaphor actually communicates its point, instead of needing God to show up as a character in the story and tell the reader the point.
That and the fact that it's not printed on a gazillion "inspirational" gift items.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
Being incapable of feeding myself and relying on other people to do so (with utensils that are gigantic relative to me, no less) sounds more like infancy than heaven.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I'm currently on a bit of a "trite humanist things are currently okay" kick.
quote:Being incapable of feeding myself and relying on other people to do so (with utensils that are gigantic relative to me, no less) sounds more like infancy than heaven.
The key difference is that when you're an infant, other people are not relying on you to feed them.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
The idea behind the old trite story is one that is valid to this conversation. It's how we treat the people around us that makes this place a heaven or hell.
Tolerance and understanding too may be old and trite. But no mater what your personal beliefs are, being respectful and kind in your approach to other's beliefs helps make this world a better place instead of a worse one.
I don't think that is eye roll worthy.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aerin: I have no respect at all for any of your opinions and I think the majority of the time you're lying anyway.
Lol, wait a second. Why is he supposedly lying all the time?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: And if you don't mind...please make the comparison for "heroin user = believer"...I don't think the bits and pieces that got through were sufficient to understand your point.
The core of the analogy is that one of religion's purposes is making people feel better (and feeling better could include happiness or less sorrowful or better able to cope with life or even some kind of ecstatic experience). Since many religions profess to help people feel better, this seems pretty easy to grasp. People use opiates (and other kinds of drugs) to feel better (which could include euphoric, less in pain, calmer, able to cope, amused, etc).
Your objections don't really address the core of the analogy. There is probably no way to draw an accurate analogy between each feature of each religion and a corresponding feature of drug use, so pointing out the worst features of heroin addiction kind of misses the point.
One could, however, pretty easily make the case that using drugs in order to feel better can lead to some undesirable side effects: you listed some. And then go on to say that embracing an irrational (for the sake of argument, here) epistemology in order to feel better also has some undesirable side effects, like having less time for NFL.
Don't get hung up on the details such as whether church members are likely to debase themselves for a fix. The analogy isn't comprehensive.
I am not really trying to defend the analogy so much as help you understand why you haven't really addressed it.
Is "feeling better" one of religion's purposes? If so, are there fundamental differences in how that works compared to recreational drug use? What about if you assume the point of view that exclusively religious beliefs are pretty much all incorrect? Are those differences still fundamental?
(I think they probably are quite different, even though I take the view that exclusively religious beliefs are pretty much all incorrect. But it's not just because religious people don't tend to resemble rock-bottom drug addicts in various details. Some additional reasons are: if religions make people feel better there can be emotional and social factors that operate differently from drugs; sometimes there is no "feel better" effect from religion but people do it anyway.)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yeah, there's a reason why that damned "opiate of the masses" quote has such staying power. Moreso once we started getting into the psychology and even the neurology of religion.
We're all quite predictable creatures, frequently in ways we take great pains not to admit to ourselves.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: I'm currently on a bit of a "trite humanist things are currently okay" kick.
quote:Being incapable of feeding myself and relying on other people to do so (with utensils that are gigantic relative to me, no less) sounds more like infancy than heaven.
The key difference is that when you're an infant, other people are not relying on you to feed them.
With my level of dexterity, I'm guessing that they'll end up wearing most of the food I'm supposed to be spooning into their mouths. I'm afraid this heaven business isn't going to work out at all.
Could we all just pinky swear that we'll feed each other instead of ourselves if we're allowed sandwiches?
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jake: Being incapable of feeding myself and relying on other people to do so (with utensils that are gigantic relative to me, no less) sounds more like infancy than heaven.
Why did no one think to grab the fork near the tines, instead of the far end?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Or eat with their hands. Really, the illustration fails on many levels. (And I've never heard it before, and I read Reader's Digest. )
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Hey Sean, you want food? Lets make a deal. You feed me, and I feed you, but you see, I think you want this more than I want it, so you have got to feed me twice as much as I feed you, and you have to go first. That's the deal. Take it or starve cause I can find someone else hungry enough to take it.
Why do I sound like a member of the House of Representatives?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: The idea behind the old trite story is one that is valid to this conversation. It's how we treat the people around us that makes this place a heaven or hell.
Tolerance and understanding too may be old and trite. But no mater what your personal beliefs are, being respectful and kind in your approach to other's beliefs helps make this world a better place instead of a worse one.
I don't think that is eye roll worthy.
It isn't the idea that is causing the ocular spinning, it is more a sense of (and I admit this is peculiar to me and me in my more cranky phase), "Thanks so much for explaining things to us, Stone_Wolf, because it isn't like you just got here and we have been here for a thousand years and done this already."
Which totally isn't your fault - every one is new when they are new - but it does kinda make me want to slap you a little.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm glad my message of tolerance, understanding, respect and kindness is getting through to you boots. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sean Monahan:
quote:Originally posted by Jake: Being incapable of feeding myself and relying on other people to do so (with utensils that are gigantic relative to me, no less) sounds more like infancy than heaven.
Why did no one think to grab the fork near the tines, instead of the far end?
In the story, they are permanently attached to your hands. So good luck using your hands for anything else.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I'm glad my message of tolerance, understanding, respect and kindness is getting through to you boots.
Or a lot.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
So cranky! I guess that's just part of getting older. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Seriously? You think that is helping?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Helping or all in good fun?
Or should I be taking your wishes to strike me seriously?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Clearly, I can't slap you. Nor would I if I could. However seriously you want to take the fact that I find you irritating enough to want to*, is up to you.
*Not all the time, just when you are in the "bestowing your valuable wisdom upon the poor people of Hatrack, whatever did they do without me" mode.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: So cranky! I guess that's just part of getting older.
My, aren't you the charmer!
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Aerin: I have no respect at all for any of your opinions and I think the majority of the time you're lying anyway.
Lol, wait a second. Why is he supposedly lying all the time?
He is lying about his opinions to keep his true opinions secret for fear that, were they to become known, his true identity would come out. Tom is actually the pope.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
boots: I'll try and keep that in mind. Is there anything specific you might impart upon me to help alleviate your irritation factor to the point that you don't want to slap me?
Samp: I certainly do have my moments, don't I?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Sean Monahan:
quote:Originally posted by Jake: Being incapable of feeding myself and relying on other people to do so (with utensils that are gigantic relative to me, no less) sounds more like infancy than heaven.
Why did no one think to grab the fork near the tines, instead of the far end?
In the story, they are permanently attached to your hands. So good luck using your hands for anything else.
Could we bend the spoons? Sounds like they'd be plenty long enough to loop back around. Then we could just feed ourselves, which would be a lot less convoluted.
Also, I want the food to be brought to the table by hypoallergenic ponies. On roller skates (the old fashioned kind that use a key. Only the keys are all three feet long, and surgically attached to the ponies' gaskins).
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
What's a gaskin?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Assuming the hands (more precisely, I probably mean fingers) are blocked, it could be difficult to bend them.
Could just smash your face into the food and eat that way though, as undignified as it looks, it would still be better than starving.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: In the story, they are permanently attached to your hands. So good luck using your hands for anything else.
Oh, dear, that's going to make a lot of very important things very difficult.
We are still eating, mind. So ... hmmm. I suppose I would come to deal with that level of intimacy with my friends, but I would rather not come to that level of intimacy with their forks. With which they feed me.
This is not good.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
"Lately I have come to believe that the principal difference between heaven and hell is the company you keep there." The quote has a 12 volume narrative to back it up, but that's harder to print on a coffee cup.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Aerin: I have no respect at all for any of your opinions and I think the majority of the time you're lying anyway.
Lol, wait a second. Why is he supposedly lying all the time?
He is lying about his opinions to keep his true opinions secret for fear that, were they to become known, his true identity would come out. Tom is actually the pope.
But it's a serious question, though! The notion isn't unique, and I want to know how it's anything other than a reactionary defensive mechanism to tom's methodology.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
SW, based on the anecdote you chose in response, I don't think you understand Sartre's meaning. The point of "Hell is other people" is NOT "people suck and are unpleasant."
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Then what is the point Tom?
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: "Lately I have come to believe that the principal difference between heaven and hell is the company you keep there." The quote has a 12 volume narrative to back it up, but that's harder to print on a coffee cup.
The summary does it good justice.
All kidding aside, I think a morbid literalism makes metaphor hard for me, and by extension religious considerations more difficult, too. I don't know what to do about this, other than to continue to do the best I can with what is in front of me and -- this is important -- to keep the most splendid people I can find as my friends.
I don't know if I hope for osmosis, or a rough stone being smoothed out by its mates, or what have you. (They are metaphors! Augh! I wilt.) But it will just have to do for now.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The point of the saying is this: our worldview is perfectly secure until we meet another person.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Granted it's been over 20 years since I was in the play, but I would have said it (edit: "it" meaning the context of the statement as it fits into Tom's summary, not the play) focused more on self-image than world-view. Although the characters were all self-absorbed enough that for them it probably amounted to the same thing.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I think a morbid literalism makes metaphor hard for me, and by extension religious considerations more difficult, too
You're speaking my language, baby!
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:I think a morbid literalism makes metaphor hard for me, and by extension religious considerations more difficult, too
You're speaking my language, baby!
A very literal language, eh?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: What's a gaskin?
I hate to have to be the one to break this to you, Stone_Wolf, but you don't have a chance of getting into Rollerskate Pony Heaven if you're going to remain that ignorant of equine anatomy.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jake: Being incapable of feeding myself and relying on other people to do so (with utensils that are gigantic relative to me, no less) sounds more like infancy than heaven.
I happened to read/hear that one when I was ten or eleven and in charm school/etiquette boot camp. The only thing I felt was frustration that people didn't just eat with their danged hands. It seemed a counter-evolutionary form of profound stupidity.
And I was a most devout believer at the time.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: The point of the saying is this: our worldview is perfectly secure until we meet another person.
So, having your worldview called into question by other people is hell?
So...in this scenario Tom is calling people's worldview into questions, so Tom is hell?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: I hate to have to be the one to break this to you, Stone_Wolf, but you don't have a chance of getting into Rollerskate Pony Heaven if you're going to remain that ignorant of equine anatomy.
Can I get into regular human heaven please? I think rollerskate pony heaven might actually be one of my hells, not that I mind rollerskates or ponies, for eternity? How many times can you watch small horses on wheels collide before it looses it's appeal?
Posted by shadowland (Member # 12366) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: So, having your worldview called into question by other people is hell?
Think about Tom's quote in relation to the specific comment he was responding to.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: These discussions are so weird because often the religious people objecting to being called deluded understand that (conveniently) members of any other religion are deluded. They just have the right one.
Has anyone on this thread given you reason to think they believe this, or are you just projecting?
Plenty of people here without doubt believe that. Besides that 'these discussions' are not limited to this thead, or this Mormon-heavy community.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by shadowland:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: So, having your worldview called into question by other people is hell?
Think about Tom's quote in relation to the specific comment he was responding to.
Me asking him what the point was...doesn't shed any light for me. I would ask again...but I doubt it would help.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: I hate to have to be the one to break this to you, Stone_Wolf, but you don't have a chance of getting into Rollerskate Pony Heaven if you're going to remain that ignorant of equine anatomy.
Can I get into regular human heaven please? I think rollerskate pony heaven might actually be one of my hells, not that I mind rollerskates or ponies, for eternity? How many times can you watch small horses on wheels collide before it looses it's appeal?
Sorry man. Rollerskate Pony Heaven is the only game in town. You don't want to go there, you end up in Rollerskate Pony Hell. Trust me. You do not want to end up there.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Man, as often as I recommend people read Sartre, I'm going to get a reputation as some kind of Sartre fanboy -- even though I disagree with him almost as often as I agree. *laugh*
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: ]Sorry man. Rollerskate Pony Heaven is the only game in town. You don't want to go there, you end up in Rollerskate Pony Hell. Trust me. You do not want to end up there.
How about I just keep living for now.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
That's just another name for Rollerskate Pony Purgatory.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
gas·kin (gskn) n. 1. The part of the hind leg of a horse or related animal between the stifle and the hock.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
quote: between the stifle and the hock.
If you don't know what a gaskin is, are you going to know what a stifle is?
That's like going 'Oh, a murglepugh - of course. You can find it between the umpledinger and the brizleflot.'
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Stifle...the verbal order for silence.
Hock...to put up something valuable at a pawn shop.
Umpledinger...a sexual position involving an inverted twist.
Brizleflot...the sound that a bear turd makes as it plops to the ground.
Murglepugh...someone who's face is so ugly that it is physically painful to gaze upon them.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Asking them to be less religious is essentially the same thing.
I actually fundamentally disagree on this point. I would not be attempting to teach someone to believe something; I would be attempting to teach them how to think critically.
Which is an admirable skill to have. But very first, you have to convince them to let go of how they were believing and accept a new way. That's where most of the toes get stepped on.
No, you dont start by insisting that a religious person abandon their beliefs. That would be the thinking of a religious person. You start by engaging the person in a critical view of their surroundings and assumptions. Effective education allows the religious believer to dismiss his beliefs on his own, unless he feels the need to cling to them for some deeper purpose. Look at OSC, for example. He preserved his religious beliefs through his education by turning his critical view of the world on the academic establishment itself. All the while, framing the secular humanist, in varying degrees, as the hero in nearly all of his fiction. The weird thing about his writing is how hateful he is of religious zealotry, whether it is dressed up as academic snobbishness, or not.
Hmm. There's an interesting paper in there somewhere.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:The other is saying the he thinks you're wrong, and you deserve to be punished for it.
No. The other is saying that they think that you're wrong, and that there will be consequences for it.
In point of fact, both groups are saying this. The consequences are different, but I submit that both groups would consider them dramatically important. One considers them world-changing, the other considers them eternal. Neither is small potatoes.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Agreed.
Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
I feel that OSC's "Secular Humanist Revival Meeting" might be pertinent to this discussion:
Ah, those tapes make me so sad.
Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
Why?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I don't really understand it.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Huh.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
This may be stirring a hornet's nest, but would someone please explain the argument? I admit I didn't listen to the whole thing, but perhaps because I'm unfamiliar with the discussion in America, I didn't quite catch on.
EDIT: I read above and I think I understand.
[ July 30, 2011, 07:20 AM: Message edited by: Teshi ]
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Ah, those tapes make me so sad.
I totally disagree, I think they're representative of OSC at his prime. Back when he actually believed in separation of church and state, and disagreed with legislating morality. I realize you probably dislike them because he purports the U.S.'s identity as a secular state is, in the long run, beneficial for religious people as well as atheists. But as an atheist, can't you at least see that a "live and let live" policy is at least better than having a state sponsored religion?
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
It's possible they make Tom sad because it reminds him of how great OSC used to be. (I didn't listen to the mp3s)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Strider's got the right of it, I'm afraid.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
It's so weird to hear the merciless mockery of Creation Science in that production and then remember that OSC completely missed that ID was a rebranding of the same stuff, to the point where he defended ID.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Heh, that (the audio) for people who say people don't change.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Zotto!: I feel that OSC's "Secular Humanist Revival Meeting" might be pertinent to this discussion:
It's so amazing that this is by a guy who is now on the board of one of america's most loathsome (and actually, legitimately, one of the dumbest) anti-gay special interest organizations, and has put so much sound and fury into a legacy which seems like a hateful Man on the Moon farce of the person in those recordings.
Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
Sigh. I thought as much. The old "Card has fallen from his 80's grace" thing as usual.
Though I'm sure he's changed some of his views in the intervening years, there is simply no contradiction between Card's stance in that routine and his later writing. He has never defended ID as such, he was merely alarmed at the scientific danger posed when social forces seemed to discourage the questioning of axioms of evolutionary theory back between '06 and '08. For instance:
quote:Let me make it clear from the start that I believe Intelligent Design is wrong and potentially dangerous - and shouldn't be taught in science classes as if it were a scientific theory, because it is not.
quote:The problem with ID Theory is that they make an unwarranted intellectual leap. Just because the Darwinian model is inadequate or even contradicted by the evidence does not mean, imply, or even hint that the best alternative explanation of the evidence is that it was designed by an intelligent creator.
Even when you coyly insist that you don't necessarily refer to God, Darwinism and ID are not the only two conceivable choices, and the assumption of Intelligent Design is counterproductive and antiscientific.
quote:Yes, there are problems with the Darwinian model. But those problems are questions. "Intelligent design" is an answer, and you have no evidence at all for that.
...
Intelligent design uses the evil "must" word: Well, if random mutation plus natural selection can't account for the existence of this complex system, then it must have been brought into existence by some intelligent designer
Why? Why must that be the only alternative?
Just because the Darwinian model seems to be inadequate at the molecular level does not imply in any way that the only other explanation is purposive causation.
There might be several or even many other hypotheses. To believe in Intelligent Design is still a leap of faith.
quote:I was underinformed about one key point, which explains some of the hostility. I did not know that the phrase "intelligent design," which I think is a huge leap of faith anyway, has been adopted by the same old lying pinheads who created "creation science."
CS was and always has been dishonest about what actual science is, and it deliberately misrepresents evidence. I have been informed since writing my essay that the same old CS trash has been repackaged using "intelligent design" as a catchphrase. So the legitimate questions originally raised by the earliest IDers have been swamped by the deceptions of the Creation Science people.
This is an example of intellectual rigor. He proposed that even when it gives temporary ammunition to those we disagree with, science has to behave like science. It's not a defense of ID, it's a defense of going where the evidence leads. Perfectly compatible with the Revival Meeting, which explicitly states that we should expect current ideas to be refined in the future.
His intro to Future on Ice has a good bit explaining where he was coming from with the routine and what he hoped it accomplished:
[ July 30, 2011, 07:10 PM: Message edited by: Zotto! ]
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Well, I stand corrected. I didn't know (or had forgotten) he had acknowledged the close link between Intelligent Design and Creation Science. Thanks for posting that.
Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
Welks! Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Thanks for that, Zotto. Unfortunately it doesn't change the stuff Samp linked to, which, legitimately or not, is likely to send him down in history as a hate-monger.
I say this only because my experience of the world has shown me that nuance of argument does not often survive to be what people remember. Reasons behind his stance and distinctions between the sin and the sinner and whatnot will almost certainly be forgotten. Given that nearly 70% of the under 30 set are pro SSM, that giant ball of public opinion is already rolling downhill.
I believe that he will not be remembered as a man of reason, but as a kooky hatemonger. That belief causes me physical pain. (Not constantly, mind. When I think about it, I feel the wrongness of that sort of historical footnote, even though I largely disagree with his conclusions.)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: I say this only because my experience of the world has shown me that nuance of argument does not often survive to be what people remember.
He's said things which ensure that there's not a lot of difference in interpretation even with nuance.
The grimy details of his essays on gays and gay marriage don't leave much to the imagination of history's perception of him.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Zotto!: I feel that OSC's "Secular Humanist Revival Meeting" might be pertinent to this discussion:
It's so amazing that this is by a guy who is now on the board of one of america's most loathsome (and actually, legitimately, one of the dumbest) anti-gay special interest organizations, and has put so much sound and fury into a legacy which seems like a hateful Man on the Moon farce of the person in those recordings.
But don't you see? OSC can do all of these things for years and years, and all he has to do to diffuse criticism is to claim that he is not bigoted. That is all that is required.
Also he's a democrat. Because he says he is.
Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
Card has given reasoned, anthropologically-sound, sociologically-aware critiques of the attempt to treat gay marriage as indistinguishable in kind and purpose from heterosexual marriage. He has also criticized particular actions of judges which, he believes, are just as dangerous, in the long run, to those who support their goals.
That some people do not agree with his reasoning (personally, I lean a bit more liberal than he on that issue, but then, I'm 25, so apparently that's just my zeitgeist speaking) hardly makes him a "hate-monger", and the constant attempt to portray "the grimy details" of his side of the argument as if anyone who propounds them is an irredeemable bigot who would incite a pogrom or oppose miscegenation is simply unjustified.
The only evidence I ever see given that Card has somehow forgotten or abandoned the skepticism and rationality of the time folks like Tom continually point to as his heyday is the fact that he does not reach the same conclusions as those who bemoan his "fall". Yet in 2010, for instance, he said:
quote:"We [do not] benefit from "educating" our children in a one-party school system. Freedom cannot survive in a society that allows only people of one ideological stripe to determine what and how our children will be taught.
So a conservative takeover of the schools and universities would find me attacking them as vigorously as I am now fighting Leftist control of education. There is no room in a republic for a monopoly of thought."
He might come to different conclusions than some, when he asserts that there is currently a Leftist monopoly on education. He might be looking at different evidence, analyzing that evidence through a different chain of reasoning. What there is no evidence for is the idea that his worldview is reached without nuanced thinking.
While I'm sympathetic to your concerns, Olivet, I think Card is historian enough to realize that the biased portrayals recorded in history books are not the standard by which one should judge one's actions in life.
Anyone who reads Songmaster or Speaker for the Dead or Enchantment or Pathfinder will see that Card is so obviously not a "hate-monger" that the attempts to slander his reputation based on his politics should be dismissed as the partisan nonsense they are.
I think that while they might not be as publicly noticeable, the effects that books like those will have in the minds of readers will cause more good in the unnoticed flow of unrecorded history than the temporary wrangling over his essays which is based more on volume than reason.
But this is all, of course, wildly tangential. My purpose in posting was to refute the idea that religious believers are, by definition, deluded, which is as obviously false a claim as can be made. The most cursory glance at human history shows that many of the most intelligent people ever born were extremely devout.
There is no basis for concluding, in the charmingly patronizing words above, that religious people, by definition, have not "engag[ed] ... in a critical view of their surroundings and assumptions," or refused to partake of "effective education" in a desperate "need to cling to [religious views] for some deeper purpose."
If Card has "preserved his religious beliefs through his education," he's done so because, after examining his faith skeptically, he thinks it is true! There is no need to posit some perceived cognitive dissonance, which is more a function of an observer's inability to reconcile certain viewpoints existing in the same man.
If anything, the LDS religion - which propounds a doctrine of physical apotheosis which collapses the distance traditionally interposed between God and us Lowly Calvinism Creatures Predestined To Wormhood - is "humanism" par excellence.
When Card is critical of religious zealotry, it's certainly not in conflict with his religion; as one of many, many examples I could give, LDS President Stephen L. Richards once said:
quote:"I fear dictatorial dogmatism, rigidity of procedure and intolerance ... Fanaticism and bigotry have been the deadly enemies of true religion in the long past. They have made it forbidding, shut it up in cold grey walls of monastery and nunnery, out of sunlight and fragrance of the growing world.
They have garbed it in black and then in white, when in truth it is neither black nor white, any more than life is black or white, for religion is life abundant, glowing life, with all its shades, colors and hues, as the children of men reflect in the patterns of their lives the radiance of the Holy Spirit in varying degrees."
We're all ignorant primates genetically programmed to suspect that it's the other guy who's stupid. But in a society supposedly based on logic, can't we get off this kick of thinking that any one group has a monopoly on rationality?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Zotto!: he was merely alarmed at the scientific danger posed when social forces seemed to discourage the questioning of axioms of evolutionary theory back between '06 and '08
This is "merely" the perpetuation of a false narrative pressed by creationists to undermine the public perception of the scientific establishment, with the hope of legislating the teaching of religious doctrine.
Were ID movements actually "questioning" axioms of evolutionary theory, this would not be under discussion. That was not what was happening. What was happening was an organized attempt to violate the separation of church and state by convincing the public that science is a matter of opinion and that a scientific theory is equivalent to a religious belief.
That OSC bought into and perpetuated this wholly false and pernicious narrative, and even called the actions of the scientific and academic establishment dangerous to science is inexcusable, in light of his previous works.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Zotto!: If Card has "preserved his religious beliefs through his education," he's done so because, after examining his faith skeptically, he thinks it is true! There is no need to posit some perceived cognitive dissonance, which is more a function of an observer's inability to reconcile certain viewpoints existing in the same man.
You have exactly as much authority to make claims about why he acts the way he does, and about the quality of his beliefs, as I do. That is either none, which you grant me, or as much as a reasonable analysis of his works allows, which you grant yourself. You don't get it both ways. Either I get to make reasonable conclusions, and so do you, or neither of us do.
Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
I think my quotes show pretty conclusively that Card never "bought into" ID's central claim of an intervention of purposive causation in the first place. He called it "wrong", "potentially dangerous", "antiscientific", and something which should not be taught in science classes. I don't know how else he could have expressed disapproval of the movement.
Yes, he disagrees with some claims by those who, he believes, venerate Darwin's explanations to the degree that it interferes with legitimate questions. This does not mean he supports ID. It certainly isn't an "inexcusable" viewpoint just because you disagree with his reading of history.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Card has given reasoned, anthropologically-sound, sociologically-aware critiques of the attempt to treat gay marriage as indistinguishable in kind and purpose from heterosexual marriage.
Most of his available critiques in this area aren't actually anthropologically sound and advance the premise that allowing gay marriage would, in one way or another, bring about the downfall of our civilization.
If he has "anthropologically-sound" critiques, you'd better relay them here.
quote:That some people do not agree with his reasoning (personally, I lean a bit more liberal than he on that issue, but then, I'm 25, so apparently that's just my zeitgeist speaking) hardly makes him a "hate-monger", and the constant attempt to portray "the grimy details" of his side of the argument as if anyone who propounds them is an irredeemable bigot who would incite a pogrom or oppose miscegenation is simply unjustified.
*cough*
um, what?
Also to note: I don't want to "portray" said details. They speak well enough for themselves, verbatim. I may want to share them, so that people understand in Card, they're dealing with a person who literally wants it to remain illegal for homosexuals to have sex with each other, and make a call that true defenders of (real, heterosexual) marriage should consider any government that allows homosexuals to marry as an enemy that they should act to destroy and overthrow.
I agree with you that Card has not advocated ID. The rest of this, not so much.
Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
(Edit: this was addressed to Orincoro.) I was disagreeing with your interpretation because I didn't think there was a need to posit some of the things you did. I didn't say you weren't allowed to make reasonable conclusions. Sheesh.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote: Yes, he disagrees with some claims by those who, he believes, venerate Darwin's explanations to the degree that it interferes with legitimate questions. This does not mean he supports ID. It certainly isn't an "inexcusable" viewpoint just because you disagree with his reading of history.
I didn't say it was an inexcusable viewpoint. Please be more attentive to what I am saying.
It is inexcusable in light of his previous works, is what I said. This means, in case it was not clear, that it is a lapse in a system of though established through his previous work, which is inexcusable as a simple eccentricity that had not been previously expressed. Meaning: it is a substantial *change* in thinking.
You need to understand, I'm using this language very carefully, and I don't feel you're reading it with equal care.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Zotto!: (Edit: this was addressed to Orincoro.) I was disagreeing with your interpretation because I didn't think there was a need to posit some of the things you did. I didn't say you weren't allowed to make reasonable conclusions. Sheesh.
Yes, this precisely what you implied. You are perhaps embarrassed to realize that you did- more, you are embarrassed to have me point this out to you, correctly. But that is what happened, in my view.
Telling me there's no need of my opinions, while you posit your own along much the same basis? Yeah. That sounds a lot like you telling me I'm not allowed to have an opinion because I'm not Mormon.
Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
(Edit: this was to your previous post.) I am reading carefully, actually, but your statement appeared ambiguous. I apologize for misunderstanding. However, I disagree that it is a substantial change in thinking, for the lengthy reasons I've given above, which are about the best I can do to show you what I'm trying to get at.
(Edit in response to your last post: if I implied that, it certainly wasn't intentional, dude. I'm not "embarrassed" for something I didn't realize I even did. I'm honestly still not seeing it, actually, but if I came off as dismissive merely because you're not a Mormon, I do apologize.)
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I know what you're trying to get at. I think you fall into the author trap of granting credibility where it not necessarily due. It is the same man. That does not lead me to give the benefit of the doubt that the man's views have not changed. You might as well credit Einstein with having *always* supported General Relativity over Special Relativity, even though he advocated the latter for many years, and the two theories are diametrically opposed.
Look, this happens quite a lot with authors and other creative people. They can be crushed under the weight of all their early accomplishments, and spend years and decades undermining it all in the pursuit of equally revolutionary and world-changing revelations. Newton spent the latter part of his life pursuing alchemy. Stravinsky spent his last ten years composing 12 tone music, and Bobby Fischer because a fascist. Happens all the time.
Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
I am aware. I disagree in this case, and am disinclined to expend more energy on this if that big post above wasn't as flawlessly persuasive as I'd hoped.
(More importantly, I am hungry, so adieu for now, beautiful Hatrack.)
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Heya Tom D...I'd like to invite you to attempt to turn me into an atheist. I'm not religious, so it should be easier...my views on god are more theories and not strongly held beliefs, so it should again be easier to convert me theoretically then someone in a community of like minded theologians.
I have to admit I am curious as to your idea that if I saw things clearly enough, I would abandon my belief that there is a higher power of some kind.
I'm basically a pantheist, or someone who believes that God is everything and everything is God.
If you don't wanna do it, that's okay...I just though you might enjoy trying.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Stone_Wolf, a good first step would be reflecting on the scientific usage of the word "theory" and the common every day usage which you used in your post. It's tangentially related, in that conflating the two uses leads to mistrust and a distorted perception of science, and that could lead to not allowing certain scientific facts to influence your belief system.
I have a follow up question to your post. If god is everything and everything is god, does removing god from the universe change anything about the universe? I think you need to be clear about what exactly you believe if you want Tom, or whoever, to be able to discuss things effectively.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Orincoro, you post as if you disagree with me, but your point seems to be the same: no need to comment on the truth or falsehood of anyone's beliefs when discussing religion with them, even if your goal is to radically change them. Certainly no need to insult them or their beliefs. Your opinion appears to be that you don't need to even discuss what the person believes to be successful. Which is fine I guess though I disagree that it would be very effective. For instance the above example in which the first response is to discuss their beliefs (presumably in attempt to understand how they understand their world).
I guess the theory is that if you can teach them to think "correctly" in general terms they will eventually abandon their religious beliefs, is that right? I suppose it may work in some cases but I find it unlikely that it would particularly effective to discuss the basis of a person's reality without talking about their religious beliefs (or lack there-of). All that being said, it's once again irrelevant to the point. Even if you're right, there's clearly no point in telling someone they're deluded, or that they have the equivalent of a drug problem or even just that they're wrong.
Hobbes Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Of course there's a point to telling someone they're wrong. But you have to have some degree of credibility with them if you expect to actually be believed. It just so happens that religious teachings insulate against the established credibility of rationalist teachers with taboos related to the devil, temptation and sin, and other anti-intellectual prejudices. Religious institutions and teachings are adaptive- they have been honed over thousands of years to survive serious challenges by instilling a fear of an aversion to intellectual curiosity in certain key areas of thinking. That's a natural result of the calcification of any system of thought, including my own. Yet I am capable of admitting this. The "you don't have all the answers" ploy has always amused me, because it's based on a religious presupposition that there exists a possible state in which all the answers are available.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Stone_Wolf, just out of interest, does your deity modify the universe (itself, I suppose) to create some meaning/achieve some goal or is it mostly passive? The goal could involve sentient beings (e.g. humans and aliens) or not.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Strider: (I owe you a reply for your explanation of Tom's heroine comparison, thanks for going into detail) I use the word "theory" as my best guess/current thinking based on available evidence on a topic which I can not prove, but will modify slightly/quite a bit, or completely abandon as new evidence/ideas are gathered. Isn't that how science uses the word?
Does removing god from the universe change the universe...my belief is basically that every single molecule of the universe is god, taken as a whole, so if you removed god, you would be reverting to a pre big bang situation, nothing happening with no where for it to happen with no when for it to happen.
Teshi: My thinking is that Everything (my version of "God") is sentient on a level which is nearly incomprehensible to us, as if one of my liver cells would try to comprehend me. I do think that Everything does make decisions, but I see it more as a system builder then as a prayer answerer. As to your second question (good question) I imagine that if I were Everything, I would be lonely and unable by myself to learn anything. I would want to divide out small pieces of my sentience and make them separate from my Everything cognizance to go and experience things and learn and be entertainment. So when we die, we rejoin Everything, and loose our individualness, but also bring the lessons of our life to the "collective". If that makes any sense.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Interesting. So what is included in this intelligence-gathering mission? Everything? Everything biological? Or everything animal? Or everything sentient? If there is a line, where is it drawn?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
More good questions...given that part of my belief is that my understanding is too limited to grasp Everything...I'm not sure I can answer. I bet Everything has some purpose, but what that purpose is is hard to nail down.
As a general answer, I'd say that all data is relevant if the question is broad enough, or to put it another way, yes, everything is an intelligence-gathering mission.
But more then that is also a decision, that something is better then nothing, and that more and more detailed, nuanced, varied something is better then the same homogenized something. I think God/Everything is fascinated and interested in...well...everything.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Asking them to be less religious is essentially the same thing.
I actually fundamentally disagree on this point. I would not be attempting to teach someone to believe something; I would be attempting to teach them how to think critically.
Which is an admirable skill to have. But very first, you have to convince them to let go of how they were believing and accept a new way. That's where most of the toes get stepped on.
No, you dont start by insisting that a religious person abandon their beliefs. That would be the thinking of a religious person. You start by engaging the person in a critical view of their surroundings and assumptions. Effective education allows the religious believer to dismiss his beliefs on his own, unless he feels the need to cling to them for some deeper purpose.
That is a convincing way of convincing someone to let go of their religious beliefs. You are certainly convinced that religious people are in error; that's the kind of zeal you need to passionately engage those people in critical thinking. Start with finding the common ground and go from there. It's very effective. Missionaries use it all the time. My argument, as I recall, was that effectively convincing someone to be more religious and convincing someone to be less religious follows essentially the same process.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:But more then that is also a decision, that something is better then nothing, and that more and more detailed, nuanced, varied something is better then the same homogenized something. I think God/Everything is fascinated and interested in...well...everything.
So, perhaps something you get from your beliefs is a sense that your experience is useful to something bigger than yourself.
What brought you to these particular beliefs-- do you know?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
The belief that Everything is sentient started when I thought about what is matter...basically it's a pattern, with energy flowing through it. The more complicated the pattern, the more energy it can hold within it, the intricate and complicated the thing, and once the vessel can hold enough, it can be alive. For example, a mineral is a pretty simple pattern, with not a lot of energy in it, where as dirt which is chock-full of micro organisms is very complicated and full of energy. a carrot is even more, a human way more. And if you took the whole of everything, you have one hell of a pattern with crazy amounts of energy with in it.
As to life is an intelligence gathering/entertainment mission, once I thought of Everything as being sentient, I wondered at it's purpose. If I were alone, utterly and completely alone, what would I want? Well, I'd want stuff to happen that would interesting and unpredictable, so I"d set up a bunch of systems and let them go, see where they led. I'd also want to not be alone, I'd want others to have the ability to think and feel and make decisions and learn from them. Don't get me wrong, I don't think Everything designed us like for a high school science fair...I think it made a system where higher intelligence could form and let it go.
Posted by shadowland (Member # 12366) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I use the word "theory" as my best guess/current thinking based on available evidence on a topic which I can not prove, but will modify slightly/quite a bit, or completely abandon as new evidence/ideas are gathered.
Does your Theory make any predictions that can be tested?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that this is a problem with the word "theory". I don't think it necessary or good to have to look at everything in a scientific framework. "Theory" implies that this is something that should be looked at scientifically.
Posted by shadowland (Member # 12366) on :
I think it's important for any idea regarding our existence in the universe to include at least some scientific framework. Doing so helps to identify what exactly you find useful about a certain idea or belief.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Why?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by shadowland: Does your Theory make any predictions that can be tested?
Not that I can think of.
Posted by shadowland (Member # 12366) on :
quote:Why?
If you are going to allow a belief to influence the decisions you make, I think it's a pretty good idea to know what the belief is based on and the limitations of that belief. If that belief doesn't influence your decisions, it's good to be clear about that as well.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
No. I mean, why do you have to think about it scientifically to decide that?
Posted by shadowland (Member # 12366) on :
Let me clarify. I think any belief should at least partially be looked at scientifically in order to help determine the limitations of that belief. If you cannot apply the scientific method to any aspect of that belief, that's good to know when determining the usefulness and limitations of that belief.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
It's important to note that something could be useful to know yet untestable. For instance, one could believe that stealing is inherently morally wrong, yet there's no scientific way to test that. Or if an afterlife exists and there's only one way to get there, it might be important to know that even if there's no way to test that.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I say that I have a theory instead of a belief because I feel beliefs can be difficult to change, where as part of the idea of a theory is that it changes as understand/evidence changes.
I imagine that there are some predictions and experiments that can be made. One just doesn't come to mind right off.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I say that I have a theory instead of a belief because I feel beliefs can be difficult to change, where as part of the idea of a theory is that it changes as understand/evidence changes.
I imagine that there are some predictions and experiments that can be made. One just doesn't come to mind right off.
I don't think those definitions of "belief" and "theory" are particularly useful, frankly. The whole point of distinguishing belief from theory is that theories are testable beliefs, whereas beliefs do not necessarily have to be testable.
I sympathize strongly with the desire to come up with a testable theory regarding the existence of God that God would not fail. So far, God has failed every test I've come up with, but I recognize that I can't possibly have covered every scenario; it's why proving a negative is so difficult.
There may in fact be an invisible force that holds us and binds us and loves us very much. But if life without that invisible force would be indistinguishable from life with that invisible force, if there is no way to detect or interact with that force in any reliable way, then any theory which incorporates such a force is unnecessarily complicated. That said, such a belief may make you feel better; in those scenarios, I don't see much of an obvious downside -- especially if you stick to a belief without too many artificial dogmas or restrictions that would impose costs in exchange for that good feeling.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm no quantum physicist by a long shot, but I do enjoy science shows and everything I've seen so far doesn't contradict my beliefs.
At certain points science isn't able to get the job done...and philosophy must step in. I'm not saying that science will never be able to overcome questions like this, but the real point is that we don't know, and so the suggestion that believing in something greater then you can prove is delusion is just as much guess work as the faith that there is something.
But the faith that there is something greater, some purpose, some higher power, while unprovable, it can really enrich your life. Of course it can also cause a lot of problems, like condoms are sin and the Crusades just to name two.
All I'm saying is that we should judge people on how the treat others and not on what they believe.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: It's important to note that something could be useful to know yet untestable. For instance, one could believe that stealing is inherently morally wrong, yet there's no scientific way to test that.
There is an effective ethical test of that theory. Morality is just ethics because God says so. People came up with the ethical values because they made sense anyway.
quote: Or if an afterlife exists and there's only one way to get there, it might be important to know that even if there's no way to test that.
Then you don't *know*. You *believe*. If it is important for you to *believe* then you are free to do so. It is not knowledge, however.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I'm no quantum physicist by a long shot, but I do enjoy science shows and everything I've seen so far doesn't contradict my beliefs.
Your beliefs are untestable. Science has no interest in fairy tales, any more than your religion. You're mistaken if you think this represents a failure on the part of the scientific establishment, and a victory for religion. It's a non-starter. Science has no interest in untestable beliefs because they can be *anything*. That has no scientific meaning or interest.
quote: All I'm saying is that we should judge people on how the treat others and not on what they believe.
How you treat others is a function of what you believe. The diminution of violence against non-believers in the Christian world is inescapably due to the influence of scientific, rational teachings, which weaken the hold of religious leaders on the whims of the masses.
There hasn't been a Christian crusade or a grand inquisition since the enlightenment. Why? Because of the enlightenment. Because of scientists and rationalists. You behave the way you do today because you were raised in more or less rational society. Not because you're a christian. Islam and Christianity teach the same lessons of peace and non-violent moral living, and yet Islam is racked with fundamentalist violence. Why? Lack of education. Lack of reason. And it wasn't always that way. When the Islamic world was the leader in science and the study of philosophy, it was also much more peaceful, while the Christian world was dark and violent. You see the pattern, I'm sure.
Posted by shadowland (Member # 12366) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: But the faith that there is something greater, some purpose, some higher power, while unprovable, it can really enrich your life.
Does an idea need to be true in order to enrich your life?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: You're mistaken if you think this represents a failure on the part of the scientific establishment, and a victory for religion.
I'm not a member of any organized religion, nor do I think that science and beliefs which are not provable are opponents.
quote:Originally posted by shadowland: Does an idea need to be true in order to enrich your life?
Not necessarily. Ideas which are false can cause problems later down the line, even if they do good at first. But truth is a slippy bugger to hold on to. But some lies do make people happier.
Posted by shadowland (Member # 12366) on :
Ok, so to expound further on that, do you think it's possible to know that a story is false (or possibly false) while still allowing it to enrich your life?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Fiction does enrich my life...so, yes.
Posted by shadowland (Member # 12366) on :
So what does believing the story as if it were factually true add to your life that you couldn't gain otherwise?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
That's the part about it being a theory...you don't believe a theory absolutely 100%, you think it's right and try and keep it current to the facts at hand.
If I knew it was false it would be a fascinating thought and that's all. But where I'm at is, I think this is likely.
Posted by shadowland (Member # 12366) on :
Ah, so really it's just an interesting idea, right up there with other possible interesting ideas. I don't know that I would call that a belief. Or a theory, for that matter. Out of curiosity, would you behave differently if you knew that this idea were not true?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I do hold it as a belief, but it's different then say, a Christian who holds that belief in Jesus is the ONLY way to heaven and without it you go to hell.
It's not just an interesting idea, it's the way I think it is.
Would I act different if I knew it was not true...yes, I'd feel less content not having a belief of how things work and what happens after death, but I'd also be interested and fascinated about coming up with another theory.
Posted by shadowland (Member # 12366) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: it's the way I think it is.
Why do you think god is everything rather than, say, god having nothing to do with it, or that everything is just a dream?
quote:I'd feel less content not having a belief of how things work and what happens after death
Why couldn't it be just one of those useful fictions? Why can't the idea itself enrich your life without the need to act as if it is factually true?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Fiction does enrich my life...so, yes.
No argument. But fiction is an attempt to portray and reveal the truth of the human condition. Relgion is institutionalized fiction. It is not in competition with science. I realize you conceded that point, I am just pointing out its relevance here.
Edited for stupid iPad autocorrections.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Asking them to be less religious is essentially the same thing.
I actually fundamentally disagree on this point. I would not be attempting to teach someone to believe something; I would be attempting to teach them how to think critically.
Which is an admirable skill to have. But very first, you have to convince them to let go of how they were believing and accept a new way. That's where most of the toes get stepped on.
No, you dont start by insisting that a religious person abandon their beliefs. That would be the thinking of a religious person. You start by engaging the person in a critical view of their surroundings and assumptions. Effective education allows the religious believer to dismiss his beliefs on his own, unless he feels the need to cling to them for some deeper purpose.
That is a convincing way of convincing someone to let go of their religious beliefs. You are certainly convinced that religious people are in error; that's the kind of zeal you need to passionately engage those people in critical thinking. Start with finding the common ground and go from there. It's very effective. Missionaries use it all the time. My argument, as I recall, was that effectively convincing someone to be more religious and convincing someone to be less religious follows essentially the same process.
The process is not the same. Religious conversion requires the teaching of a belief system based on particular glyphs and stories related to that religion. For instance, an understanding of Islam requires a knowledge of the Quran, which ultimately requires knowledge or proxy knowledge of Arabic, its original language. Science can be learned and rediscovered in any language, and can emerge out of any culture independent of cultural association. This is why it is believed that if aliens contacted us, it is highly likely that their scientific knowledge and reasoning would be comprehensible and repeatable by us. This is the principle upon which many science fiction works are based- vulcans being the most recognizable example of the trope. There is no significant likelihood that they would share or understand or have any common sympathy with any of our religious beliefs.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by shadowland: Why do you think god is everything rather than, say, god having nothing to do with it, or that everything is just a dream?
This is a great question, unfortunately, it is one of those answers which will fall short. Beyond what I've already said (pattern + energy = sentience) there is a lot of intuitive leaps, and extrapolations and let's be honest here, feelings. I will go into the deets later, don't have time atm.
quote:Why couldn't it be just one of those useful fictions? Why can't the idea itself enrich your life without the need to act as if it is factually true?
It could be, but it isn't, it's what I believe to be true.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: But fiction is an attempt to portray and reveal the truth of the human condition. Religion is institutionalized fiction.
I'm not really pro organized religion, as I think it denies people one of the most important parts of being human...the search for god. But as far as it goes, if you are going to believe a fiction that portrays and reveals the truth of the human condition, why not believe one that's institutionalized? While it can deny people the search for god, it can make up for it by providing a community to belong to of like minded/moraled people who are bound by traditions and a deep commonality.
If we can agree that some of these questions are unanswerable, then why deny people the comfort of religion?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
People already belong to society. A rational society provides that. Religion is a parasite, not a basis for a society.
I wouldn't deny anyone the right to religious beliefs and practices. But false comfort is not real. It does harm.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: That's the part about it being a theory...you don't believe a theory absolutely 100%, you think it's right and try and keep it current to the facts at hand.
Again, you conflate religious terminology with scientific terminology. Theories are not to be believed in, they are frameworks for analysis. When they cease to function on providing testable predictions, they are replaced or modified. If you have a belief that provides no testable prediction, then it is not a theory.
This is a time honored misunderstanding with science v. religion. A theory is not just an idea, and not a hypothesis. On the flip side, a theory can also concern the basis of known and reliable fact, ie, there is a theory of evolution, and evolution is also an established fact. They are separate terms.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by shadowland: Ok, so to expound further on that, do you think it's possible to know that a story is false (or possibly false) while still allowing it to enrich your life?
Santa Claus.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:
quote:It's important to note that something could be useful to know yet untestable. For instance, one could believe that stealing is inherently morally wrong, yet there's no scientific way to test that.
There is an effective ethical test of that theory. Morality is just ethics because God says so. People came up with the ethical values because they made sense anyway.
How could you test whether stealing is inherently wrong? "It made sense" isn't a test.
quote:There hasn't been a Christian crusade or a grand inquisition since the enlightenment. Why? Because of the enlightenment. Because of scientists and rationalists. You behave the way you do today because you were raised in more or less rational society. Not because you're a christian. Islam and Christianity teach the same lessons of peace and non-violent moral living, and yet Islam is racked with fundamentalist violence. Why? Lack of education. Lack of reason. And it wasn't always that way. When the Islamic world was the leader in science and the study of philosophy, it was also much more peaceful, while the Christian world was dark and violent.
Are we skipping over the Nazis, the Soviets under Stalin, America vs. the Native Americans, and so on? Those societies were based on science and rationalism yet had no problem being profoundly violent.
A more accurate explanation of the diminution of violence against non-believers in the Christian world is that the Christian world now better understands its religion and ethics. Education and the diversity of opinion brought about by free speech have had a major role in this - everyone now has access to the basic stories and teachings of Christianity because everyone can read, and most now hear different viewpoints on Christianity from different sources. As a result, its fairly hard to escape the conclusion that Christ would have been opposed to the notion of extreme violence against the unfaithful by Christians.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I think we're at the point again where we could scrub every instance of the word 'theory' here and replace it with the word 'hunch.'
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm not married to the word theory...I can say "flexible belief" and be just fine with it.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: People already belong to society. A rational society provides that. Religion is a parasite, not a basis for a society.
Society is a huge concept, community is a much smaller group of people who actually interact on a meaningful level. And since it is religion which is providing the common ground which binds that group, as well as providing other more and less tangible payoffs how is it a parasite, a critter which hurts its host for its own benefit. Exactly how is it that you feel religion is a parasite?
quote:But false comfort is not real. It does harm.
Who says it's false? (Obviously you do, but can you prove it?) We don't know. So saying that their belief is false and yours is true is just another form of religion, the religion of academia.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Zotto!: ... My purpose in posting was to refute the idea that religious believers are, by definition, deluded, which is as obviously false a claim as can be made. The most cursory glance at human history shows that many of the most intelligent people ever born were extremely devout.
The conversation has moved on, but there seems to be a step missing here. Some of the most intelligent people ever born were extremely devout, but this doesn't seem to have any bearing on the claim that the devout are deluded unless you're working under the assumption that intelligent people can't be deluded.
I'll note of course, that not only can intelligent people be deluded, there are highly intelligent people that have been uncontroversially diagnosed with mental illness, including full-on paranoid schizophrenia.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:So saying that their belief is false and yours is true is just another form of religion, the religion of academia.
The religion of academia? What the crap is that?
I mean, yeah, evangelical atheists very often violate basic principles of their putative epistemology. I'm not arguing about that. How do you get to academia from that, though?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I didn't want to use the word "rationality" as I don't agree with the positive implication.
ETA: How about "religion of atheism"?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Evangelical atheism is, as far as I've seen, the commonly accepted term.
But how does academia even enter into this? I don't get the association.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
It doesn't...wrong word choice...
Posted by shadowland (Member # 12366) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I can say "flexible belief" and be just fine with it.
Due to the lack of any actual evidence, I would say that 'wishful thinking' is probably more accurate. Not that there's anything wrong with that in itself; it's just not necessary (that particular one, that is). Or maybe it's necessary for you, but that's only because you haven't yet found a viable alternative. <ETA> I do not intend for this to sound dismissive; we all do what we can to find meaning in life.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I have evidence, just hadn't gotten into it yet...although I admit freely that the evidence could be legitimately interpreted in a different way.
When it comes to "wishful thinking"...if it were up to me, we would have more guidance and less guess work. This isn't my idealized belief.
I'll give up "theory" as it means something very specific in terms of the scientific approach, but to try and downgrade my belief to "wishful thinking" is actually pretty offense considering that I said there was more to it, but I didn't have time as of yet to get into it. Despite your lack of intention to be dismissive, you are doing that.
Posted by shadowland (Member # 12366) on :
By 'wishful thinking', I don't mean that you are making up stories that you wish to be true, rather, you are believing in stories which do not have ample evidence to warrant being supported over other possible stories. As I said earlier, there's nothing necessarily wrong with that in itself, but it is important to recognize that that's what is taking place.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Dude, how can you possibly make the determination about my evidence's ampleness or lack of amplenss if you haven't heard it yet?
It's been a busy couple of days, but I promise I'll furnish it for you, at which if point you want to label my beliefs as wishful thinking you can feel free, but until you actually hear the evidence, you are really prejudging and dismissing and annoying.
ETA: that last bit was meant as a play on words and not name calling...sorry if it came off as offensive.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Are we skipping over the Nazis, the Soviets under Stalin, America vs. the Native Americans, and so on? Those societies were based on science and rationalism yet had no problem being profoundly violent.
Yes we are skipping over them, because *no*, these former two were not societies based in *science*. These were societies based, respectively, in pseudo-scientific concepts of ethnic superiority and nationalist racialism, and in a perverted brand of pseudo-scientific economic theory that was used to justify the reversal of the Czarist power structure with another brand of political structure equally based on old Russian concepts of personal entitlement and a healthy dose of solipsism. And both countries became violent as a result of *massive* violent upheavals in the early 20th century as a result of the international struggle for resource dominance. The American-Indian war, while tragic, was minor on that scale.
quote: A more accurate explanation of the diminution of violence against non-believers in the Christian world is that the Christian world now better understands its religion and ethics. Education and the diversity of opinion brought about by free speech have had a major role in this - everyone now has access to the basic stories and teachings of Christianity because everyone can read, and most now hear different viewpoints on Christianity from different sources. As a result, its fairly hard to escape the conclusion that Christ would have been opposed to the notion of extreme violence against the unfaithful by Christians.
Right. Christians are now less violent because they are *better* Christians. Not because rationalism *taught* them how to think more critically and recognize that fighting on behalf of their religion was foolish.
How do you think these people became "better" Christians? Couldn't have anything to do with education and rationalism? You know, all those schools of thought that promoted education so forcefully in the last 4 centuries? Cause seriously, education in the time of religious domination of academia was... sub-optimal.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:But false comfort is not real. It does harm.
Who says it's false? (Obviously you do, but can you prove it?) We don't know. So saying that their belief is false and yours is true is just another form of religion, the religion of academia.
I did not say the belief was false. You are not paying attention.
The hope is false. The premise underlying religious claims is untestable. Therefore, espousing this untestable premise as true, and deriving comfort from that, is perpetuating a falsehood. Namely, the falsehood that something untestable can be reliably said to be true.
This is the balm of religious people, I understand that. But it produces tangible harm. That which is testable and true is easily demonstrated, given sufficient education- such as any basic scientific theory. But if you have a belief that can't be tested, but you still *really* believe it, the only way to feel secure in that belief is to be part of a group that believes together, and reinforces the belief. That means a church, and proselytizing, and eventually war and religious conquest, when the administration of your church gets *so* big, and *so* overpowered, that it develops the will to exercise its sovereignty and dominion over the world.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Dude, how can you possibly make the determination about my evidence's ampleness or lack of amplenss if you haven't heard it yet?
Share it or be quiet about it. No one is interested in your claims unless you're prepared to substantiate them. Unless you're afraid to do so without first claiming victimhood for being disparaged when you eventually *do* share them. Honestly, this childish manipulation game is so common with religion- it's a wonder so many don't recognize it.
Posted by shadowland (Member # 12366) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Dude, how can you possibly make the determination about my evidence's ampleness or lack of amplenss if you haven't heard it yet?
Quite easily, actually.
You said that "that the evidence could be legitimately interpreted in a different way," i.e. it could legitimately support other possible stories rather than the one you choose to believe. Your evidence is also not based on anything that can be tested, so it is in no way objective. I really can't think of any other type of evidence that could reliably support your conclusion without being more easily explained as a delusion. Therefore, 'wishful thinking.'
FWIW, I also consider the belief in String Theory as mere wishful thinking at this point (unless there's new information on that matter that I've missed in the last couple of years).
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote: This is the balm of religious people, I understand that. But it produces tangible harm. That which is testable and true is easily demonstrated, given sufficient education- such as any basic scientific theory. But if you have a belief that can't be tested, but you still *really* believe it, the only way to feel secure in that belief is to be part of a group that believes together, and reinforces the belief. That means a church, and proselytizing, and eventually war and religious conquest, when the administration of your church gets *so* big, and *so* overpowered, that it develops the will to exercise its sovereignty and dominion over the world.
Where are you getting this from? It doesn't seem congruent with any of the research that I'm aware of.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Dude, how can you possibly make the determination about my evidence's ampleness or lack of amplenss if you haven't heard it yet?
Share it or be quiet about it. No one is interested in your claims unless you're prepared to substantiate them. Unless you're afraid to do so without first claiming victimhood for being disparaged when you eventually *do* share them. Honestly, this childish manipulation game is so common with religion- it's a wonder so many don't recognize it.
I'm the father of two small children, and even if I just wanted to spend my time playing xbox instead of having little time do to being the caretaker of my children, you really don't get to demand anything nor draw conclusions from my available time for discussion.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
You do realize that the reason Orin is fed up with such statements is because many people like to claim "I have evidence! I tooootally have evidence!" but play some song and dance about not giving it to people. You know, because they don't have it, and feel like they can get away with lying.
It's a common thing in discussions like this, so I can understand his viewpoint. What he means is that you can say you have evidence until you're blue in the face, but nobody will -or should- believe you have any unless you provide it. Because on subjects like this, people lie.
If it's unfair to you, then perhaps you should blame the people who've burned Orincoro, me, and others with their lies and attempted manipulation.
After all, just like some women, as discussed in the origin of this thread, consider men to be potentially rapists if they don't know them... many people will consider one who claims to have evidence on a matter like this, but won't share it, a potential liar. Or, if they continue to refuse it, it's a tell-tale sign of a definite liar.
Point is, when you play the same game that liars play, it's easy for someone to assume you are also a liar. Don't think I assume you are a liar. Just explaining the point of view as I personally see it.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by shadowland: You said that "that the evidence could be legitimately interpreted in a different way," i.e. it could legitimately support other possible stories rather than the one you choose to believe.
If I'm not mistaken, all evidence requires an interpretation, it's facts that stand alone without analysis.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I get ya 0Mega...I'm just busy and he is rude. I will get to you, it's just difficult at times to find enough hours in the day.
Feel free to treat any claims of evidence as unsubstantiated until rendered, I'm fine with that.
In the end people will prolly say that it isn't evidence anyway...and possibly rightfully so, it's more like hints, clues and speculation.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Right, spend more time softpedalling your claim and getting victim status for being misunderstood before you even make the claim. That boosts your credibility a *ton*.
7 posts back it was evidence. Now you realized nobody is going to let you get away with that. Now it's hints and clues and goose bump feelings and eery coincidences, right? Right. Everyone is a sucker except you. Nobody could possibly be smart enough to see through that.
And don't act like you weren't just waiting for me to come back at you so that you could get pissy and refuse to share you "evidence". Because you were going to play that game until you had a reason to take your ball and go home.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Reading your posts Orin is like a drink of ice cold water on a hot day...I'll share when I have time. I don't have time as of yet. This post, and the ones above took prolly a grand total of ten min.
Ten min I can currently spare, the amount of time I need to put a cohesive argument together is substantial in comparison.
You have two options here, you can keep being aggravating and assume my intentions to be as negative as possible, or just sit back and wait til I post. I trust you to make the appropriate choice to your personality.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Yeah. I was exactly, embarassingly, excruciatingly right about you.
Keep playing though, the house doesn't *always* win.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that "evidence" is problematic as well. It can mean anything from incontrovertable proof to "stuff the inclines me to believe one thing rather than another". That "stuff" could well be interpreted differently or even be meaningless to someone else.
What kind of "evidence" are you talking about here?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:You do realize that the reason Orin is fed up with such statements is because many people like to claim "I have evidence! I tooootally have evidence!" but play some song and dance about not giving it to people. You know, because they don't have it, and feel like they can get away with lying.
Far more common, I think, is a belief that the evidence is sacred or personal and that sharing it opens oneself to painful criticism or mockery. I understand and sympathize with this position, but it suggests to me that there is a known but unacknowledged issue with the strength of the evidence, at least as evaluated with a rational, unbiased eye.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
The protective, caveat laden claims of "proof" which is never proof, and the demand that this silly nonsense be tolerated and even nurtured, and the hurt, indignantly toothless claims of unfair treatment get to me more than the strIght up lies. It's just lame. And yes, it is indicative of a knowledge, on some level, that the actual value of these beliefs and bits of proof is lower than the person wishes it to be. It being so clear that they recognize this weakness, and demand that others ignore it and play nice with them while they pervert the terminology of science and logic? That you might call lying. At least it is self deception.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
How is saying that using words like "theory" or "evidence" is problematic "perverting the terminology of science"? In fact, I would argue that using the language of science perverts discussions of faith.
You try to insist that your way is the only game in town and we should resist falling into that trap.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
even when we were in the depths of the assertion that Judaism was not faith-based, I never for an instant felt like I was being lied to, merely witnessing an example of representative, intransigent religious bias (and the way in which it skews interpretation of likelihood / the likelihood of alternative explanations). When you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail. When you're convinced beyond rational review, everything looks like proof. Hell, young-earth creationists look at the geologic record and are sure it represents a few-thousands-year-old earth.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Yeah, I think that's accurate. I just sometimes find it hard to believe that people can be quite *that* naive, and still manage to eat and wash themselves. But they do! And here, I struggle with those daily chores.
(And yes, I'm kidding. Lest some overzealous poster should imagine me sitting in my living room, in a tattered shirt, starving and unable to satisfy my urge to scratch at my neck beard).
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Well, THAT's an image even steel wool won't scrub from my brain. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Muahaha!
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote: This is the balm of religious people, I understand that. But it produces tangible harm. That which is testable and true is easily demonstrated, given sufficient education- such as any basic scientific theory. But if you have a belief that can't be tested, but you still *really* believe it, the only way to feel secure in that belief is to be part of a group that believes together, and reinforces the belief. That means a church, and proselytizing, and eventually war and religious conquest, when the administration of your church gets *so* big, and *so* overpowered, that it develops the will to exercise its sovereignty and dominion over the world.
Where are you getting this from? It doesn't seem congruent with any of the research that I'm aware of.
So...any answer on this?
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
He heard it somewhere and takes it on faith.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm not sure what you're looking for, Squicky. Evidence that beliefs are reinforced by membership in supportive groups? Or just evidence that beliefs which cannot be validated through actual observation might demand validation from other sources?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Tom, I'm looking for Ori's source for the claims he made, which seem to me to be far more extensive than what you said. Given the position he's staked out, Ori would have to have some pretty strong scientific evidence back those extreme claims, but I'd expect that I know at least an order of magnitude more about the relevant literature and I've never come across it. What I do know even seems to contradict it.
edit:
I've even gone into some depth about the classic research into the psychology of religion and what I consider some of the relevant social/group psychology on Hatrack. You can probably find it by doing a search on my user name and "Allport". I think that this whole line, both here and in the larger context, would greatly benefit if the evangelical atheists actually learned and at least considered incorporating into their worldview the extensive relevant scientific research or heck, even a working understanding of basic scientific epistemology. But you'll forgive me if I don't hold my breath while waiting for that to happen.
[ August 03, 2011, 10:55 AM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*grin* I'm an evangelical atheist. Do you think I don't have a working understanding of epistemology?
I'm curious: what do you think an understanding of Allport would bring to the table, here? Bear in mind that I'm reasonably familiar with his work, although obviously not in the intimate detail one would expect from a student of psychology, and I can't think of anything he's concluded that would be revelatory to critical thinkers.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Tom, I've seen you made very basic epistemology errors several times in your pursuit of evangelical atheism/materialism. The major one that really sticks out to me is that you regard necessary conditions as equivalent to sufficient ones. So, yeah, I don't think your understanding of epistemology is adequate.
Allport was one of the pioneers of the scientific study of religion and was one of the first to tackle the question of why religious people often behave so poorly from an analytical perspective. His work has obviously been greatly expanded on since, but he laid what I consider essential groundwork for exploring and predicting the behavior of ideological groups.
And, again, I've written in some detail on this here, I believe in conversations you were a party to.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:How do you think these people became "better" Christians? Couldn't have anything to do with education and rationalism? You know, all those schools of thought that promoted education so forcefully in the last 4 centuries? Cause seriously, education in the time of religious domination of academia was... sub-optimal.
In the quote you just quoted I said "education and the diversity of opinion brought about by free speech have had a major role in this." So yes, I think education did have something to do with it.
But education is not an outgrowth of rationalism. Rather, rationalism is an outgrowth of education. Education stemmed more from the church - specifically, the modern university system originated from the Catholic Church.
More generally, it is not very accurate to separate reason and education from religion. Reason and education are tools that are a major part of any major religion I can think of - certainly Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism - and have been for thousands of years, before the scientific method was thought out. Religion couldn't really exist, at least as we know it, without them.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The major one that really sticks out to me is that you regard necessary conditions as equivalent to sufficient ones.
I think it would be more correct to state that we disagree on which conditions those are.
quote:I've written in some detail on this here, I believe in conversations you were a party to.
To be fair, it's mainly involved ranting things like "why don't you people read the research? It's all so obvious! Why can't you just learn?" When in reality there's very little that Allport's work brings to the table that I think hasn't been considered here by me and by others. That's not to say that I don't find his approach intriguing, but I'm amused by your tendency to throw social "science" up into the air and say, "Hey, look, this is a settled argument because this professor has an opinion!"
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
So, what did you see in Allport's scientific research, even if it was already something that you considered?
Also, when someone says "You can't do X without Y, therefore X is completely accounted for by Y." that's a basic epistemological error. It matters very little what the conditions are.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Regarding what? If you're talking specifically about his religious research, I think he simply wound up identifying a lot of demographic traits that, yeah, are demographic traits -- many of which seem almost tautological. (This isn't to say that it's not useful to be able to definitively say that, yes, people who consider themselves old-fashioned place a higher value on tradition than people who do not.)
I appreciate his desire to cram people into measurable niches. I'm amused by his distinction between "intrinsic" and "extrinsic" faith, which strikes me as more than a little self-serving; I submit that it begs the question. And I'm sympathetic to the idea that someone's personality can actually be boiled down to a bunch of tendencies, but don't think that people are necessarily consistent enough for those tendencies to be itemized accurately in a way that would allow them to be reliably jammed into one of his niches.
More importantly, I don't understand what you think would change about, say, Orincoro's presentation here if he were intimately familiar with Allport's work.
-----------
quote:Also, when someone says "You can't do X without Y, therefore X is completely accounted for by Y." that's a basic epistemological error.
I'd agree. Where have I done that recently?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
So, I haven't forgotten about this thread...I'm up to two pages in Word, but it is a difficult task to articulate personal beliefs as evidence. As a belief you don't need any real standard, but as evidence...well, it's daunting really. But even if the end result is a bunch of facts and just a lot of conjecture about those facts, I will share it. Thanks for your patience everyone...now Orin will tell you how horrible I am.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
So I've loved me some Hatrack off and on for YEARS.)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)