4 ms·

(Split answers between "food" and "sex".) > there is little or no limit on your private sexual behavior now Umm, what about the increasing restrictions on acc

by dalke 12y ago

(Split answers between "food" and "sex".) > there is little or no limit on your private sexual behavior now Umm, what about the increasing restrictions on access to abortion, and the continued efforts to prevent teaching effective birth control methods? Instead, over the last 25 years or so there's been increased funding for "abstinence only" methods, which result in making it harder for people to know what sexual freedom means. And here's the thing, neither you nor I really know what private sexual behavior was like in the 1950s, because by definition it was private. That's why the Kinsey reports of the late '40s and '50s were so shocking. What I want is the freedom to not have to keep my entire sexuality private, not the freedom to have whatever sort of private sex I can get. Those are different things. JFK could have extramarital affairs as could his father, Joe Kennedy. People know about it. But because they were privileged, upper-class white males with political power, they could away with it. While there are still people who today can lose their jobs for having pre-marital sex. For example, http://www.10news.com/news/woman-sues-san-diego-christian-college-claims-she-was-fired-for-having-premarital-sex-021413 http://www.10news.com/news/woman-sues-san-diego-christian-co... . In that case, San Diego Christian College's "contract, in part, says "… sexually immoral behavior, including premarital sex, adultery, pornography and homosexuality …" are not allowed." This is clearly a counter-example to your statement that "pretty much everyone in the US" has the freedom to have all the sex they want. Same for http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/02/catholic-religious-schools-fired-lady-teachers-being-pregnant http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/02/catholic-religio... . "Firing unwed teachers who become pregnant is not uncommon for private religious schools. It's not necessarily illegal, either. Although federal law generally forbids discrimination against pregnant women, the Supreme Court has ruled that religious employers are protected from certain discrimination lawsuits brought by employees who serve in ministerial roles." Or here's a "prison guard fired after having sex with convicted wife-beater on parole" http://www.ottawasun.com/2014/09/18/prison-guard-fired-after-having-sex-with-convicted-wife-beater-on-parole http://www.ottawasun.com/2014/09/18/prison-guard-fired-after... . In that case it's likely an abuse of power issue, but it's still a restriction on having sex. The challenge is to show that "the freedom to have all the sex you want" is any more prevalent now than during the free love era the (re)bloomed in 1960s, or the sexual promiscuity of the 1970s. (Eg, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disco#Drug_subculture_and_sexual_promiscuity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disco#Drug_subculture_and_sexua... ) I have a book, written in the 1970s, which says something like "kids these days consider a handjob about as commonplace as a handshake."

fennecfoxen 12y ago
Last I checked, attending San Diego Christian College or pursuing private religious employment is kinda a voluntary deal which a very, very small portion of the population pursues, and when they do so it is frequently because they agree with the ideals the college or the religious employers represent. Are these counterexamples really supposed to represent the worst out there?
- Retric 12y ago
  You only really need 1 counterexample to disprove a theory. The reality is prostitution is still illegal in the vast majority of the US which is a clear sign of a deeply repressed culture. However, TV and video game ratings are another. As is the fairly common ban on breastfeeding in public let alone a lack of nude beaches. And the list just keeps getting longer.
  - fennecfoxen 12y ago
    > You only really need 1 counterexample to disprove a theory. No. Don't be absurd. By and large the conversation people are having here is meaningful because we're talking about the extent to which people (mostly american citizens of the age of majority in this case) face substantial constraints to doing what they want, constraints which are imposed on them by a third party against their will. If your counterexamples substantially consist of people voluntarily making commitments for the sake of their beliefs in a world where avoiding that commitment is trivial, then your counterexamples don't really expose a problem and any remedies which would purport to address the problem would in fact act to reduce freedom. You are, however, right to retreat from some of the trivial barriers you had been mentioning before and looking instead into the sphere of cultural sentiment and public perception. This is easily more relevant than availability of opportunities of employment by a religious institution.
    - Retric 12y ago
      It's illegal for a religious institution to fire someone based on their race. But, we don't protect their sexual activity in the same way so it is a 100% relevant example that on its own disproves the idea. (End of debate let's move on.) The only reason I bring up culture is to demonstrate the point is not just slightly wrong, but clearly into the realm of absurdity. However, I fear this is one of those cases where simply debating the point seems to elevate the counter point from absurdity into some 'debatable' category for reasonable ideas. PS: If we had moved on the idea of a 26 way gay marriage between Hollywood celebrities lasting for 1 day of drunken revelry would not even raise eyebrows.

by dalke 12y ago

fennecfoxen 12y ago

Last I checked, attending San Diego Christian College or pursuing private religious employment is kinda a voluntary deal which a very, very small portion of the population pursues, and when they do so it is frequently because they agree with the ideals the college or the religious employers represent. Are these counterexamples really supposed to represent the worst out there?

Retric 12y ago
You only really need 1 counterexample to disprove a theory. The reality is prostitution is still illegal in the vast majority of the US which is a clear sign of a deeply repressed culture. However, TV and video game ratings are another. As is the fairly common ban on breastfeeding in public let alone a lack of nude beaches. And the list just keeps getting longer.
- fennecfoxen 12y ago
  > You only really need 1 counterexample to disprove a theory. No. Don't be absurd. By and large the conversation people are having here is meaningful because we're talking about the extent to which people (mostly american citizens of the age of majority in this case) face substantial constraints to doing what they want, constraints which are imposed on them by a third party against their will. If your counterexamples substantially consist of people voluntarily making commitments for the sake of their beliefs in a world where avoiding that commitment is trivial, then your counterexamples don't really expose a problem and any remedies which would purport to address the problem would in fact act to reduce freedom. You are, however, right to retreat from some of the trivial barriers you had been mentioning before and looking instead into the sphere of cultural sentiment and public perception. This is easily more relevant than availability of opportunities of employment by a religious institution.
  - Retric 12y ago
    It's illegal for a religious institution to fire someone based on their race. But, we don't protect their sexual activity in the same way so it is a 100% relevant example that on its own disproves the idea. (End of debate let's move on.) The only reason I bring up culture is to demonstrate the point is not just slightly wrong, but clearly into the realm of absurdity. However, I fear this is one of those cases where simply debating the point seems to elevate the counter point from absurdity into some 'debatable' category for reasonable ideas. PS: If we had moved on the idea of a 26 way gay marriage between Hollywood celebrities lasting for 1 day of drunken revelry would not even raise eyebrows.