Sexual liberation

[MadMage]

Look at the differences in pay for women, or the whole 'when a girl acts like a guy she's a slut' mentality, or most of the Middle east, or...

The first I've never seen legit statistics before, just people calling out that there's a massive gender pay gap. That girl fucks around thing is perpetuated by women as a bad thing far more than it is men, at least from what I've observed. There isn't that much further to go, especially compared to before this happened when women were stoned to death and pretty much sold by their fathers, didn't have any say, couldn't own property or have a career; go ahead, tell those women that the biggest problem is a pay gap and name calling and see if they feel sorry for women today.

OT: I guess it's cool, I sure as shit wouldn't want to live in a sexually oppressed society though.

The pay gap is real. Its also a difference of between 50 cents and 2 dollars per hour. So loss of 20 - 80 bucks a week.

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

The pay gap is real. Its also a difference of between 50 cents and 2 dollars per hour. So loss of 20 - 80 bucks a week.

Okay, go back up the page to where I said I've never been given legit stats just people telling me there's a gap. Give me a chart, a report or something that gives me the average pay rate per hour or salary for women and men working the exact same job and maybe I'll believe there's a pay gap.

 

[blackrave]

no. I mean applying morality to sex (to a certain extent) is stupid...because there's no actual objectivity

Why? What is so stupid in having moral point of view on sexual relationship?


[quote/]I'm arguing (or what I think I was originally) that just because a women has been with a few previous partners (and lets say they are all full on relationships) it does not make her "damaged" or "used" in anyway

and just because someone has engaged in "casual" sex doesn't not make their "lovemaking" sex any less special...there is a difference[/quote]

Not buying it. If you have 10+ partners you aren't less of a person, that's true.
But that doesn't mean that I must accept you as my partner, if my previous sexual experience is close to non-existent.
There are plenty of guys out there who also had multiple partners, go hook up with them.

I'm single right now...but even if I did get a boyfriend..at my age marriage/kids is NOT something I want to be thinking about right now

sometimes people aren't ready for that level of commitment

Too bad, it isn't that big a thing to evaluate you current partner from that point of view
And if you can't see a future with him/her I don't see any good reason to continue relationship

so?...is masturbation evil now? if not then whats wrong with mutual masturbation?

I can understand the desire to releases ones "urges" without the added hassle of a relationship...hence a friends with benefits scenario...I wouldn't know how such arrangements work out a lot of the time (I'm not making any assumptions eather way) but whatever...I don't think involuntary celibacy is healthy

Never said about masturbation being evil, but being indifferent to one you have in your arms at the moment seems sick and wrong (wrongsick?). Maybe you give extra thought about your one night stands, but most people don't. For them it is just a way to release an urges, and nothing more.

BOTH

I can have access to all kinds of information that I would never have dreamed of.....a memes..the spreading of Ideas and a whole new culture

on the internet I argue with strangers from halfway across the globe while browsing facebook and listening to a remix of music from donkey kong country 2...that's mind blowing

you can whine all you want about the masses but I don't care.....its all one big horrible and wonderful thing at the same time

That doesn't mean we aren't cavemen :/

The very fact that people can be so easily manipulated proves that we aren't that far from some sort of cro-magnon primate.

You can consider humanity as some sort of jewel of nature.
But I personally prefer thinking of it in less optimistic way.

 

[jaymiechan]

The pay gap is real. Its also a difference of between 50 cents and 2 dollars per hour. So loss of 20 - 80 bucks a week.

The causes of the pay gap however, for as far as they're proven, are all non-discriminatory in nature, sinking any feminist ideas on that.

That's likely what he meant by a lack of decent statistics; all 'studies' who claim to have proven discriminatory pay just observe the difference in pay, and incorrectly assume it to be due to gender discrimination.

Some factors actually linked to the male-female wage gap are taking breaks in your career (pregnancy for instance), more often working parttime than men, and different negotiation strategies about wages, where it's said that men more often demand a pay rise, and drive a tougher bargain.

You realize that a function of that is constantly fighting bias, and eventually having to relent just because you get so goddamn sick and tired of fighting for the same rights that come more freely to men? Pregnancy is not something that should matter, since it is a biological process, that women have to invest more in than men (after all, you just have a few pumps and a bloody squirt). Add in the fact that due to cultural bias and what is seen as traditional social norms, women are expected to me caretakers for kids... Part time is also another bias thing, which has gotten worse with the AHA, employers cutting back hours so they don't have to pay for health care.

To answer the original question, hell no i don't feel sexually liberated, when someone feels free to fucking rape me due to my not consenting to a sex act that person wanted, and saw it as 'owed'.

 

[jaymiechan]

You realize that a function of that is constantly fighting bias, and eventually having to relent just because you get so goddamn sick and tired of fighting for the same rights that come more freely to men?

When it comes to payment for jobs, pay is equal, without gender discrimination. That was the entire point of my previous post.

Try again. http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/04/17/465554/pay-gap-feed-family-37/

EDIT: and to back up further, from the US Census Bureau. http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/news_conferences/20120912_ip_newsconf.html

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

It also flies in the face of capitalism. Why hire a man when women will accept less pay? Maybe big businesses aren't that profit orientated.

I call shenanigans on it, I'm far more inclined to believe it's a misinterpretation of statistics than sexism.

Try again. http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/04/17/465554/pay-gap-feed-family-37/

EDIT: and to back up further, from the US Census Bureau. http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/news_conferences/20120912_ip_newsconf.html

What am I meant to be looking at here, I see an article about how women earn less with no reason given, just the observation that they earn less in a lifetime and a page of links to random information. The income report doesn't seem to have any information on gender earnings.

All I've ever seen in the way of statistics is an average total lifetime earning that never includes hours worked, hourly pay, salary, years worked etc. Also, pregnancy should totally matter since it's a choice that you've made to have a child. It's going to cut into time worked and just because it's unique to your gender doesn't mean that a company should ignore that it's going to reduce your production for some period of time.

 

[jaymiechan]

It also flies in the face of capitalism. Why hire a man when women will accept less pay? Maybe big businesses aren't that profit orientated.

I call shenanigans on it, I'm far more inclined to believe it's a misinterpretation of statistics than sexism.

Try again. http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/04/17/465554/pay-gap-feed-family-37/

EDIT: and to back up further, from the US Census Bureau. http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/news_conferences/20120912_ip_newsconf.html

What am I meant to be looking at here, I see an article about how women earn less with no reason given, just the observation that they earn less in a lifetime and a page of links to random information. The income report doesn't seem to have any information on gender earnings.

All I've ever seen in the way of statistics is an average total lifetime earning that never includes hours worked, hourly pay, salary, years worked etc. Also, pregnancy should totally matter since it's a choice that you've made to have a child. It's going to cut into time worked and just because it's unique to your gender doesn't mean that a company should ignore that it's going to reduce your production for some period of time.

i'll dig through the data for you, since you seem incapable of it yourself, but regarding pregnancy: you realize that, even taking time off to give birth to a child, a woman in the United States is NOT guaranteed her job back? And in fact that taking time off to give birth is used as an excuse to fire someone? That is sexist, because of the nature of giving birth and firing someone for what is a natural biological process is not to be accepted.

EDIT: Go to page 5-7 of the Income PDF. Deals with median income, full time work, and notes the fact that women make 77 cents on the dollar compared to men. There is your time worked. If you want to get into the very nitty gritty, remember that this is median income, as in AVERAGE. Sure there are outliers, but this is averaging everyone, years worked, minute details, blah blah blah. By wanting all that in minute detail, instead of noting the information gathered by the government by a census, you are trying to deny facts without having any evidence yourself to back up your claim. Familiar with the term "confirmation bias"?

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

i'll dig through the data for you, since you seem incapable of it yourself, but regarding pregnancy: you realize that, even taking time off to give birth to a child, a woman in the United States is NOT guaranteed her job back? And in fact that taking time off to give birth is used as an excuse to fire someone? That is sexist, because of the nature of giving birth and firing someone for what is a natural biological process is not to be accepted.

EDIT: Go to page 5-7 of the Income PDF. Deals with median income, full time work, and notes the fact that women make 77 cents on the dollar compared to men. There is your time worked. If you want to get into the very nitty gritty, remember that this is median income, as in AVERAGE. Sure there are outliers, but this is averaging everyone, years worked, minute details, blah blah blah. By wanting all that in minute detail, instead of noting the information gathered by the government by a census, you are trying to deny facts without having any evidence yourself to back up your claim. Familiar with the term "confirmation bias"?

Yeah, I see the figures you're referring to. They still fail to take into account some very important details for them to be used to look at sexism like the fact that they're broad numbers over the entire US looking at a wide range of different jobs. You're failing to take into account all of the different ways these numbers are affected and how they'll skew what you're trying to make them out to be.

Your argument basically boils down to this: women earn less than men, this must be sexism. You're ignoring every other reason for these numbers in favour of your own idea, the very definition of a confirmation bias.

Obviously the whole maternity leave thing and being fired for being pregnant is unacceptable just for the fact that it happens. Legislation needs to be in place to change that.

 

[jaymiechan]

i'll dig through the data for you, since you seem incapable of it yourself, but regarding pregnancy: you realize that, even taking time off to give birth to a child, a woman in the United States is NOT guaranteed her job back? And in fact that taking time off to give birth is used as an excuse to fire someone? That is sexist, because of the nature of giving birth and firing someone for what is a natural biological process is not to be accepted.

EDIT: Go to page 5-7 of the Income PDF. Deals with median income, full time work, and notes the fact that women make 77 cents on the dollar compared to men. There is your time worked. If you want to get into the very nitty gritty, remember that this is median income, as in AVERAGE. Sure there are outliers, but this is averaging everyone, years worked, minute details, blah blah blah. By wanting all that in minute detail, instead of noting the information gathered by the government by a census, you are trying to deny facts without having any evidence yourself to back up your claim. Familiar with the term "confirmation bias"?

Yeah, I see the figures you're referring to. They still fail to take into account some very important details for them to be used to look at sexism like the fact that they're broad numbers over the entire US looking at a wide range of different jobs. You're failing to take into account all of the different ways these numbers are affected and how they'll skew what you're trying to make them out to be.

Your argument basically boils down to this: women earn less than men, this must be sexism. You're ignoring every other reason for these numbers in favour of your own idea, the very definition of a confirmation bias.

Obviously the whole maternity leave thing and being fired for being pregnant is unacceptable just for the fact that it happens. Legislation needs to be in place to change that.

You realize that a function of earning less is due to the cultural bias of 'gendered' jobs, the ones of which that are viewed as appropriate for women paying less on the average than the ones seen as appropriate for men? The basic fact of gendering a profession means that there is inherent sexism.

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

You realize that a function of earning less is due to the cultural bias of 'gendered' jobs, the ones of which that are viewed as appropriate for women paying less on the average than the ones seen as appropriate for men? The basic fact of gendering a profession means that there is inherent sexism.

Then choose a higher paying job, nobody is forcing anyone to follow cultural standards.

I'm not saying that the pay gap isn't caused by sexism, I'm saying that there's far more to it than people who say it is care to realise.

 

[Hagi]

Since when building chain of reasons and events is wrong?
For example deconstructing reasons behind our Bachelors degree took us all evening (I had an argument similar to the one we have now with my roommate)
In the end we had floor and partially walls covered with paper
Those papers were covered with web of reasons behind reasons behind reasons behind reasons, etc.
All ended up with either "Because I want to live" or "Because I want to have kids"
If you think we just stopped at this point you are wrong.
We couldn't come up with anything than emotional reasons for this ("I'm afraid of death", "I like living", etc.). Only more or less rational reason for kids was that when they'll grow up, you'll be old and they will take care for you (and that taps into "Because I want to live" reason).
When I told about this to our psychology professor and asked if he had any rational reasons for these reasons he said that we are in "the meaning of live" territory, and our guesses are as good as any other (and before you start to nitpick again, he said much more, but I'm simply providing you with basic idea).

Yes... clearly if you yourself are incapable of coming up with other reasons and dismiss reasons anyone else might offer as simply being your own reasons in disguise that conclusively proves that survival and procreation are the only reasons behind existence.

Your professor was very correct though, albeit more friendly than I'd have been. Your reasons are indeed as good as any other, or rather as bad as any other. They're pure conjecture, incapable of being falsified or validated. Equally valid as "Because of Jesus" or "Because of Karma", and we all know how very scientific those reasons are...

 

[SpectacularWebHead]

NO.
Because nobody loves me.

 

[Hagi]

What empirical evidence lets us establish that the angles of all triangles add up to 360? If we had to demonstrate that rule empirically we would have to catalogue every single variety of triangle in existence, an impossible task and in any case one which we haven't deemed necessary to consider the proposition a true one.

What? There's no variety in triangles.

It's a binary thing. Either something is a triangle or it's not.

A triangle is defined by a strict set of observable properties. Either an observable object matches all those properties, in which case it's a triangle. Or it does not, in which case it's not a triangle.

Every triangle we can observe is has those exact properties. If it hadn't then it wouldn't be a triangle.

Those properties are rooted in reality, in observation. That's our axiom. That defines what a triangle is.

Based on that axiom we can use reasoning, logic to establish that the angles of all triangles add up to 360 degrees.

And where do "logic" and "reasoning" fit into your assertion that empiricism makes up the basis of knowledge and "reality"? The triangle example I gave is simply one example of a non-empirical method of obtaining knowledge. In your book, mathematical proofs are not empirical and therefore not science.

And besides, we cannot establish by empirical induction that something ALWAYS leads to something. If we find that the boiling temperature of water is 100 degrees celsius by testing it a million times, we still can't be sure that on the million-and-one attempt the result will be the same.

You treat science as a static thing. Where if a theory is considered valid if and only if it'll be valid for all time.

Science isn't static. Science is dynamic. Theories change all the time as new observations and new lines of reasoning become available. That doesn't make previous theories invalid, it merely makes them based on outdated observations.

That's how science works. We make observations. We come up with theories, through logical reasoning, that explain those observations. We make more observations. We come up with new theories and alter existing ones, again through logical reasoning, that explain those new observations. Repeat infinitely.

Then science is incapable of saying anything about 'reality'. If we cannot make statements that were true in the past and are true in the future, what use is that statement? It's not a law and doesn't describe any general principle about our world.

The proposition "water boils at 100 degrees" becomes "water boils at 100 degrees...unless it doesn't".

That's partly true but what I'm saying is that empirical results wouldn't even make sense if there wasn't some pre-existing basis on which to assess them. The statements we are making right now in this thread are not 'based on observation', but a logic based on asserted truths we hold to as more fundamental.

Logic is based on axioms. Axioms which originated from reality.

Some philosopher didn't have a wacky dream at one point in which all those axioms magically came to him.

Those axioms were established through observation of undeniable patterns in reality.

I don't know what you mean by "reality" but not all axioms are obtained by observation. Mathematical proofs, for example.

And based on those axioms we started reasoning.

"Started" reasoning? Are you suggesting we arrived at general rules without the use of reasoning in the first place?

And from that reasoning came statements, such as you're making in this thread.

Where do you think those asserted truth we hold to as more fundamental came from? You think they came from visions special people had? You think they're ingrained in our brains so that everyone knows them?

Then how do we know that they're actual truths? We know because we can test them. And we can test them against reality.

There's that word again - reality. You're going to have to say what you mean by it sometime, you know. Because your whole argument is based upon it.

I don't know where it came from but the brain obviously has an innate knowledge that didn't come from experience, because if it didn't we wouldn't be able to reason or experience anything in the first place.

"water boils at 100 degrees...unless it doesn't".

Yup, it does. On Mars water boils at 10 degrees. Even on very high altitudes on our own planet it does not boil exactly at 100 degrees, but at a slightly lower temperature. So yeah, water boils at 100 degrees... unless it doesn't.

New observations followed by an adjustment on the theory of boiling water. Science. It's wonderful isn't it.

And no, I'm not saying reasoning takes no part in science. That observation is all there is. Reasoning is just as important as empirical evidence. Those are the two legs science stands on.

Logic didn't come purely from observation. As you say, it couldn't have. But it plays a large part in it. Even in logic and mathematics. Because those principles are always taken to the real world, where they are validated. Through observation.

That's how we know those principles actually work and that they aren't simply flukes and wild imaginations. That's the difference between sciences such as logic and mathematics and nonsense such as astrology and homoeopathy. When you take the first two and apply them to the real world they work. When you take the latter two and apply them to the real world they do not.

 

[II2]

It's an odd topic - a kind of kaleidoscope of facets that it 'means' to people.

I'd generally say: "Love is Love" or "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law; but keep SSC / RACK (Safe Sane & Consentual, or Risk-Aware Consensual Kink)"

I'm "for" that. I don't mind "pro sex" or "Sex+" Feminists, for the lady's consideration... Most I've met have been fun, intelligent young women to whom personal empowerment and enjoying a good time don't have to exist at loggerheads.

On self identified "poly amorous" people, who have a steady partner, but also openly swing ... I don't care on the level of ideal or morality, but I've only seen a couple such arrangements that didn't end in tears. I'm happy enjoying "it doesn't have to BE anything" encounters and HAPPIER in lasting monogamous relationships. I like my girlfriends to be my PARTNERS - involved, interested and important... I've been burned plenty and have no patience left in me for bullshit and half measures.

I guess "sexual liberation" and it's conceits seem as subjectively important as any other deeply personal issues, but bedroom politics just leave me with a hard off...

 

[peruvianskys]

Then choose a higher paying job, nobody is forcing anyone to follow cultural standards.

It's really very easy for the person in power to criticize the disempowered person for just not trying hard enough to escape their oppression. Do you really think that women who get paid less do so because they're just too lazy to try for higher-paying jobs? Or could it have something to do with this country's hideously outdated maternity policies? The fact that fewer women are given scholarships for math and science programs in college? The fact that women are taught from a young age to go into lower-paying jobs? The fact that several CEOs and hundreds of business analysts have stated upfront that they won't hire women into high management positions because the endemic sexism of the men in the office would make them a liability? The fact that a woman is going to be called back for a management position interview at roughly half the rate that a man with the same resume would do so? The fact that our patriarchal society pounds the idea of women being unfit for high-paying jobs into the brains of young girls since the moment they're born?

I'm sorry, but I'm really fucking tired of wealthy white men who have had every single possible goddamn privilege handed to them telling women that they wouldn't be paid less, or be raped, or be beaten or murdered or generally abused if they just tried a little harder.

 

[blackrave]

Yes... clearly if you yourself are incapable of coming up with other reasons and dismiss reasons anyone else might offer as simply being your own reasons in disguise that conclusively proves that survival and procreation are the only reasons behind existence.

Your professor was very correct though, albeit more friendly than I'd have been. Your reasons are indeed as good as any other, or rather as bad as any other. They're pure conjecture, incapable of being falsified or validated. Equally valid as "Because of Jesus" or "Because of Karma", and we all know how very scientific those reasons are...

What our professor told that finding reasons why should one want to survive were taping into "meaning of life" discussion, not the very reason behind reason thing.
He mostly agreed upon survival instinct being the main driving force behind everything, but said that reproduction is also driven by survival instinct (and once again it is simplified version- of course there are exceptions, but these are nothing more than exceptions).

You seriously compare survival instinct with some imaginary friend?
And you seriously consider other person who tried to prove me wrong to be biased?
Really? Fine! Perfect!! Excellent!!!
Now lets hear your ideas of basic human "programing", because bashing someone is easy, so, please, enlighten me about deepest layers of human psyche.

P.S. Especially when I read your discussion with Blood Brain Barrier. It's just something. I'm glad that you finally find out that water (and any material) status depends on pressure and temperature. But the very beginning just blew my mind. So how many degrees corners of triangle sum up to again? Because in 2D triangles always have 180 degrees, while in 3D they can build up to ~900 degrees. So 360 degrees? Were you speaking about one exact triangle?

P.P.S. No wait don't answer this. I'm going to bash my head against the wall, because it seems more productive than arguing with you.