Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[Kevin_Lowe]

I can agree that we can put virginity testing and rape on different parts of a spectrum of morality. However it is nowhere close to just being "icky and sexist", it is closer to child molestation.

I think that child molestation is a terrible point of comparison. Virginity testing is just a potentially unwanted and potentially embarrassing medical examination.

The problem is with the culture which discriminates against women based on their virginity, or based on the results of a "virginity test" which isn't even reliable.

I think that it's also somewhat unfair to demonise people who think virginity is important in an area with a very high rate of HIV infection and limited medical resources to test for, treat and/or prevent the transmission of HIV. Even if you are 100% on board with modern feminist ideas about the treatment of women, if you accept that people have a legitimate interest in not getting AIDS and their children not getting AIDS, you have to be able to see why even men who were virgins themselves and planned to be 100% faithful to their wives might want to be as certain as they can be that they are marrying a virgin.

Yes, HIV can't spread without both men and women being promiscuous, and yes, screwed-up cultural values often prize male promiscuity while condemning female promiscuity. However HIV will kill you, your wife and your children completely regardless of those cultural values because viruses just don't care about social justice.

 

[Stout]

I can agree that we can put virginity testing and rape on different parts of a spectrum of morality. However it is nowhere close to just being "icky and sexist", it is closer to child molestation. I'm not going to embrace the idea that something like that is alright in some other culture, anymore than I would accept that something like rape or slavery would be alright in some other culture.

Are you trying to assert that there's some sort of sexual component to this virginity testing ?

 

[Foolmewunz]

I noticed this "workshop" on the upcoming Skepticon schedule.

Getting It On at the Con: How to Get Lucky Consensually with Miri Mogilevsky

Alternate title: How to get laid without actually talking to a girl

I think I'll be in the bar, trying to get laid the old fashioned way - getting a girl drunk.

This is on the opening afternoon.

1:00 pm • Handling Public Criticism - Stephanie Zvan

I'd say this is your best chance to hook-up with Teh Watson. This is a topic near and dear to her heart, and she's so fond of the speaker....

 

[Kochanski]

This is on the opening afternoon.
1:00 pm • Handling Public Criticism - Stephanie Zvan

I'd say this is your best chance to hook-up with Teh Watson. This is a topic near and dear to her heart, and she's so fond of the speaker....

Oh, I think this is one that I would dearly love to attend, although I would have to sit in the back and try not to laugh my head off as the crowd who hides from any sort of criticism attempts to tell people how to handle it.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

This is on the opening afternoon.


I'd say this is your best chance to hook-up with Teh Watson. This is a topic near and dear to her heart, and she's so fond of the speaker....

Oh, I think this is one that I would dearly love to attend, although I would have to sit in the back and try not to laugh my head off as the crowd who hides from any sort of criticism attempts to tell people how to handle it.

Backstory? I have a hard time keeping track of who hates who and why.

 

[Kochanski]

Backstory? I have a hard time keeping track of who hates who and why.

I have no clue whether Stephanie Zvan has a problem with Rebecca. I tend to ignore the drama llamas infighting.

I just think it is too funny that someone from a group whose usual response to criticism is to block bot people and/or whine and complain when people criticize or disagree with them is speaking about Handling Public Criticism.

 

[theprestige]

That is some extreme moral relativism you've got going there. Under your philosophy the best way to deal with the problem of rape in Western society would be to train men and women to be OK with being raped, instead of finding ways to reduce the incidence of rape. If our society accepted non-consensual sex as a norm, according to your philosophy rape would be perfectly moral. Pedophilia? Depends on the society! Slavery? Depends on the society! Humans weren't making moral progress outlawing pedophilia and slavery, they were just shifting to a new moral code, just as valid as the old one that accepted those practices. Right?

Kevin's explained it a lot better than I did.

I think there's a pretty obvious contradiction between "non-consensual" and "accepted... as a norm": If one of the parties involved isn't consenting, then there's a clear lack of acceptance. So your whole line of "reasoning" there is a non-starter for me.

What I'm actually trying to say is that opinions differ on what should and should not be accepted. Some things are probably bad in almost any cultural or personal context. Others? Not so much. I think it's important that we try to make a sincere, good-faith effort to understand which is which before issuing passionate, absolutist decrees about who is right and who is wrong, who is good and who is evil. I don't see you making that effort, and that's what I objected to.

I'm sure there are feminists in the West who firmly believe that any sort of awkwardness or discomfort during a gynaecological exam contributes to a culture of rape, and that if such an exam is carried out by a male physician, it is de facto rape. For sure there are those who believe that consensual sex that a woman later regrets is rape. And the theory has been recently put forth that No True Consent can be had while even mildly intoxicated--if you have a few drinks and then consent to sex, you've been raped.

Obviously opinions differ about what counts as consent, what counts as rape, and what people should and should not consent to in differing circumstances. I think those opinions--and the corresponding cultural mores--should be carefully considered. If you decide to reject them, it should be an informed decision. And if you decide to insist that your decision is correct, you owe it to your audience to provide the details of what information you considered, in making that decision.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I have no clue whether Stephanie Zvan has a problem with Rebecca. I tend to ignore the drama llamas infighting.

I just think it is too funny that someone from a group whose usual response to criticism is to block bot people and/or whine and complain when people criticize or disagree with them is speaking about Handling Public Criticism.

They'll probably have a group exercise where everyone stands up and yells MISOGYNIST!!!

 

[Savant]

Oh, I think this is one that I would dearly love to attend, although I would have to sit in the back and try not to laugh my head off as the crowd who hides from any sort of criticism attempts to tell people how to handle it.

Perhaps it is a typo, and the description is actually supposed to read "Handing-out Public Criticism"

They have some real heavy-hitters in that arena.

 

[Edx]

Kevin's explained it a lot better than I did.

I think there's a pretty obvious contradiction between "non-consensual" and "accepted... as a norm": If one of the parties involved isn't consenting, then there's a clear lack of acceptance. So your whole line of "reasoning" there is a non-starter for me.

Just like to add something I dont think has been mentioned. Our society has defended circumcision for a very, very long time on the basis of the above logic. At least a virginity test doesnt leave you permanently physically changed.

According to the children’s ombudsmen of the Nordic countries, male circumcision is a form of genital mutilation and they’re fighting to ban the practice.... the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child... says, “Children should have the right to express their own views and be protected from traditional rituals which may be harmful to their health.”
In other words, the boys should wait until they’re old enough to decide for themselves. This all began when a 16-year-old Icelandic boy asked if his parents had the right to circumcise him when he was a baby. The matter was brought to the attention of Iceland’s children’s ombudsman, Margaret Maria Sigurðardotti

[...]

“I am firmly opposed to such a proposed ban,” said Rabbi Pewzner, who plays an integral role in the Icelandic Jewish community that has grown to include over 100 people across the underpopulated country.
“Ritual circumcision of underage boys increasingly has come under attack in Scandinavia, both by left-wing secularists as well as right-wingers who fear the influence of immigration from Muslim countries,” he said.
“How can any government get in the way of this sacred ritual, which mind you is absolutely safe?”

...


Religious male circumcision happens practically everywhere. Popular among African tribal groups, it is known to symbolize a rite of passage into manhood or “warrior status.” It is symbolic in other ways, too, to demonstrate a pain that is the male counterpart of menstruation, birth or even hymen-breaking – as well as discourage masturbation among teens.

http://www.vice.com/read/is-male-circumcision-a-form-of-genital-mutilation

 

[Foolmewunz]

Backstory? I have a hard time keeping track of who hates who and why.

Well, she said the he said that she wouldn't and he couldn't so.....

Naaah. Just speculation on my part. They're both FTB contributors, but SZ has been very pointed in her criticism of Carrie Poppie for having an agenda and the FTB commenters are beginning to sharpen the pitchforks, I feel.

And the topic? Well, I reckon Rebecca could be giving the lecture. Her version of how to handle criticism? Milk It Like Your Grampa's Champion Gurnsey!

 

[Humes fork]

The plussers are going to start meetups!

I'd have thought they are too few to sustain that, but maybe not?

 

[Joe Random]

The plussers are going to start meetups!

I'd have thought they are too few to sustain that, but maybe not?

Since I don't live in the UK, I might offer to send money to someone willing to stand in front of whatever pub they decide to hold this in and hold up a sign saying "Trigger warning : actual human beings who you can not ban holding conversations you can not control inside".

 

[Humes fork]

I wonder if they would avoid pubs hosting skeptics in the pub.

 

[Locknar]

Thread closed due to size; continued here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=268324

Posted By: Locknar