PDA

View Full Version : Birth Control: "Abortion-Inducing Drugs"



IMPress Polly
09-09-2018, 08:01 AM
That's how Trump's Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh described contraceptives (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/brett-kavanaugh-birth-control_us_5b917b79e4b0162f472b3cb8) during the third day of his confirmation hearing in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee this week, which the Senate has prioritized over renewing the Violence Against Women Act, which is set to expire at the end of the month (and probably will this time) (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/violence-against-women-act-expiring-september_us_5b6b0a4ae4b0de86f4a789db), and follows on the heels of the Secretary of Education's recent decision to lift the Obama-era crackdown on campus sexual violence and harassment (https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2018/08/208685/betsy-devos-campus-sexual-assault-title-ix-rules-change). I point this pattern out to highlight the fact that it is not simply misogynistic rhetoric and behavior that emanates from this White House and its governing allies, but also misogynistic policies that seem to revolve around a theme of denying women basic control over our own bodies in one sense or another.

I highlight Kavanaugh's remarkable statement to clarify what the anti-abortion movement is actually about. The fact that the anti-abortion movement objects not only to abortion, but also to birth control shows that the question of life has nothing to with their position in reality. What they object to is women possessing enough bodily autonomy to participate in the economy in a meaningful way and plan our own futures. More than 95% of the female population of this country uses contraceptives at some point in their lives. When Kavanaugh describes that as abortion, which in conservative parlance means murder, he is thus suggesting that nearly all women in this country are murderers of children, including probably every female member of this message board, be they left, right, or in the middle. Perhaps it is this sort of disingenuous and hate-driven mentality that makes violence against women so acceptable (as highlighted above) in the eyes of the modern American rightist.

Peter1469
09-09-2018, 08:08 AM
SCOUTS should not be pro or anti-abortion.

They should follow the Constitution.

It is the job of the legislature to make laws that effect abortion one way or another.

donttread
09-09-2018, 08:44 AM
That's how Trump's Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh described contraceptives (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/brett-kavanaugh-birth-control_us_5b917b79e4b0162f472b3cb8) during the third day of his confirmation hearing in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee this week, which the Senate has prioritized over renewing the Violence Against Women Act, which is set to expire at the end of the month (and probably will this time) (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/violence-against-women-act-expiring-september_us_5b6b0a4ae4b0de86f4a789db), and follows on the heels of the Secretary of Education's recent decision to lift the Obama-era crackdown on campus sexual violence and harassment (https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2018/08/208685/betsy-devos-campus-sexual-assault-title-ix-rules-change). I point this pattern out to highlight the fact that it is not simply misogynistic rhetoric and behavior that emanates from this White House and its governing allies, but also misogynistic policies that seem to revolve around a theme of denying women basic control over our own bodies in one sense or another.

I highlight Kavanaugh's remarkable statement to clarify what the anti-abortion movement is actually about. The fact that the anti-abortion movement objects not only to abortion, but also to birth control shows that the question of life has nothing to with their position in reality. What they object to is women possessing enough bodily autonomy to participate in the economy in a meaningful way and plan our own futures. More than 95% of the female population of this country uses contraceptives at some point in their lives. When Kavanaugh describes that as abortion, which in conservative parlance means murder, he is thus suggesting that nearly all women in this country are murderers of children, including probably every female member of this message board, be they left, right, or in the middle. Perhaps it is this sort of disingenuous and hate-driven mentality that makes violence against women so acceptable (as highlighted above) in the eyes of the modern American rightist.



Don't we already have laws against violence against EVERYBODY? That's what I don't get. Some guy argues with me over a fender bender and then punches me multiple times , kicks me , threatens to kill me etc. He be going to jail on a felony. Doing the same thing at home should bring the same results. I also come from a culture where teenage sons are threatened with 2x4's ( because we know they will eventually be bigger and or stronger than dad) if they ever lay a hand on a woman.
So why not just enforce the laws we have.?
About 38 years ago when I did "pre-marital counseling " with the priest before marrying my first or brief wife , the priest tried this line on us about BCP causing abortion. I knew better. I also told him we were like 21 and 19, moving out of state with no jobs and weren't about to concieve. Turns out all he wanted was some signature for the records. I don't even think he believed his own bullshit. Despite all that I have a 37 year old daughter, but that's beside the point. Anyway in most cases that argument is scientifically unsound.
Having rambled I can't see a reversal of Roe v. Wade. It's simply too impractical.

Chris
09-09-2018, 09:01 AM
Kavanaugh was being asked a specific question about the case, Priests for Life v. HHS. The OP link has a link to that case: https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/425C0AE29F10AFD785257E4B00767BF5/%24file/13-5368.pdf. The concern in that case was in fact the use of contraception for abortion: "The plaintiff business owners believed that 'providing the coverage demanded . . . is connected to the destruction of an embryo in a way that is sufficient to make it immoral for them to provide the coverage.'" "The company opposes providing some contraceptives to employees through its company health care plan on religious grounds, saying some contraceptive products, like the morning after pill, equate to abortion." (http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/27/hobby-lobby-faces-millions-in-fines-for-bucking-obamacare/)

So the OP is misleading in the premise of its argument.

midcan5
09-09-2018, 09:29 AM
"I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live" (Deuteronomy 30:19, KJV)

Every month a woman must try to conceive and no man shall beat off, sex shall not be spent unless for procreation, so saith the religious right and Kavanaugh, hopefully all here abide by the law and allow thy seed to prosper and live.

"Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State." Edward Abbey



http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/49059-It%E2%80%99s-Science?p=1216728&viewfull=1#post1216728
http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/16436-Mom-Who-Was-Ordered-to-Stop-Breastfeeding-Is-Arrested-After-Her-Baby-Dies?p=363335&viewfull=1#post363335
http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/54299-Would-you-have-rather-been-aborted-instead-of-being-born

Peter1469
09-09-2018, 09:43 AM
"I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live" (Deuteronomy 30:19, KJV)

Every month a woman must try to conceive and no man shall beat off, sex shall not be spent unless for procreation, so saith the religious right and Kavanaugh, hopefully all here abide by the law and allow thy seed to prosper and live.

"Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State." Edward Abbey



http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/49059-It’s-Science?p=1216728&viewfull=1#post1216728
http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/16436-Mom-Who-Was-Ordered-to-Stop-Breastfeeding-Is-Arrested-After-Her-Baby-Dies?p=363335&viewfull=1#post363335
http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/54299-Would-you-have-rather-been-aborted-instead-of-being-born

Do you have independent thought or do you cut and paste from sources that you believe will make you look intelligent?

I think no, and yes- except it doesn't.

countryboy
09-09-2018, 10:17 AM
That's how Trump's Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh described contraceptives (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/brett-kavanaugh-birth-control_us_5b917b79e4b0162f472b3cb8) during the third day of his confirmation hearing in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee this week, which the Senate has prioritized over renewing the Violence Against Women Act, which is set to expire at the end of the month (and probably will this time) (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/violence-against-women-act-expiring-september_us_5b6b0a4ae4b0de86f4a789db), and follows on the heels of the Secretary of Education's recent decision to lift the Obama-era crackdown on campus sexual violence and harassment (https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2018/08/208685/betsy-devos-campus-sexual-assault-title-ix-rules-change). I point this pattern out to highlight the fact that it is not simply misogynistic rhetoric and behavior that emanates from this White House and its governing allies, but also misogynistic policies that seem to revolve around a theme of denying women basic control over our own bodies in one sense or another.

I highlight Kavanaugh's remarkable statement to clarify what the anti-abortion movement is actually about. The fact that the anti-abortion movement objects not only to abortion, but also to birth control shows that the question of life has nothing to with their position in reality. What they object to is women possessing enough bodily autonomy to participate in the economy in a meaningful way and plan our own futures. More than 95% of the female population of this country uses contraceptives at some point in their lives. When Kavanaugh describes that as abortion, which in conservative parlance means murder, he is thus suggesting that nearly all women in this country are murderers of children, including probably every female member of this message board, be they left, right, or in the middle. Perhaps it is this sort of disingenuous and hate-driven mentality that makes violence against women so acceptable (as highlighted above) in the eyes of the modern American rightist.
Kavanaugh is right. All birth control drugs have to potential to cause spontaneous abortion. This is only important within the scope of religious freedom. Nobody is going to outlaw contraceptives, we just aren't going to force people to participate in them if it goes against their religious faith. Why is that such a problem?

Captdon
09-09-2018, 10:20 AM
Abortion is murder. That's all of it.

Adelaide
09-09-2018, 10:54 AM
Don't we already have laws against violence against EVERYBODY? That's what I don't get. Some guy argues with me over a fender bender and then punches me multiple times , kicks me , threatens to kill me etc. He be going to jail on a felony. Doing the same thing at home should bring the same results. I also come from a culture where teenage sons are threatened with 2x4's ( because we know they will eventually be bigger and or stronger than dad) if they ever lay a hand on a woman.
So why not just enforce the laws we have.?
About 38 years ago when I did "pre-marital counseling " with the priest before marrying my first or brief wife , the priest tried this line on us about BCP causing abortion. I knew better. I also told him we were like 21 and 19, moving out of state with no jobs and weren't about to concieve. Turns out all he wanted was some signature for the records. I don't even think he believed his own bullshit. Despite all that I have a 37 year old daughter, but that's beside the point. Anyway in most cases that argument is scientifically unsound.
Having rambled I can't see a reversal of Roe v. Wade. It's simply too impractical.

I posted something a while back about why this is federal and why it is needed. Not going to bother repeating myself so I am just going to copy/paste from Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_Against_Women_Act).




STOP Grants (State Formula Grants)
Transitional Housing Grants
Grants to Encourage Arrest and Enforce Protection Orders
Court Training and Improvement Grants
Research on Violence Against Native American Women
National Tribal Sex Offender Registry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_offender_registries_in_the_United_States)
Stalker Reduction Database
Federal Victim Assistants
Sexual Assault Services Program
Services for Rural Victims
Civil Legal Assistance for Victims
Elder Abuse Grant Program
Protections and Services for Disabled Victims
Combating Abuse in Public Housing
National Resource Center on Workplace Responses
Violence on College Campuses Grants
Safe Havens Project
Engaging Men and Youth in Prevention



A lot of those items are important, and to break it down further with the National Domestic Violence Hotline's history of VAWA (https://www.thehotline.org/resources/vawa/)

1994 VAWA:



[*=left]Community-coordinated responses that brought together, for the first time, the criminal justice system, the social services system, and private nonprofit organizations responding to domestic violence and sexual assault
[*=left]Recognition and support for the efforts of domestic violence shelters, rape crisis centers, and other community organizations nationwide working everyday to end this violence
[*=left]Federal prosecution of interstate domestic violence and sexual assault crimes
[*=left]Federal guarantees of interstate enforcement of protection orders
[*=left]Protections for battered immigrants
[*=left]A new focus on underserved populations and Native American victims of domestic violence and sexual assault



2000 renewal:



[*=left]Identifying the additional related crimes of dating violence and stalking
[*=left]Creating a much-needed legal assistance program for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault
[*=left]Promoting supervised visitation programs for families experiencing violence
[*=left]Further protecting immigrants experiencing domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault or stalking, by establishing U- and T-visas and by focusing on trafficking of persons


2005:



[*=left]Creating provisions that exclusively serve to protect immigrant victims of domestic violence but also include protections to alleviate violence against immigrant women
[*=left]Developing prevention strategies to stop violence before it starts
[*=left]Protecting individuals from unfair eviction due to their status as victims of domestic violence or stalking
[*=left]Creating the first federal funding stream to support rape crisis centers
[*=left]Developing culturally-and linguistically-specific services for communities
[*=left]Enhancing programs and services for victims with disabilities
[*=left]Broadening VAWA service provisions to include children and teenagers




2009:



[*=left]Provides law enforcement with better resources to investigate cases of rape



[*=left]Gives colleges more tools to educate students about dating violence and sexual assault



[*=left]Empowers tribal courts to prosecute those who commit domestic violence on tribal lands, regardless of whether the aggressor is a member of the tribe



[*=left]Continues to allow relief for immigrant victims of domestic violence



[*=left]Provides for more care and assistance for LGBTQ victims





So, some important features: training law enforcement at every level and in as many places as possible of how to deal with cases involving violence against women, including how to prevent revictimization. Protection across state lines of protection orders, which are hard enough to enforce within one state, nonetheless when it involves more than one state and coordination between states. Funding for shelters and crisis centers because states and local governments have defunded many for various reasons. Consideration for the economic hardship experienced by victims while they are trying to recover, including some protection from eviction, financial aid, and so forth. On and on. The sheer volume of women who are victimized at some point is part of why it is necessary.

barb012
09-09-2018, 06:50 PM
How about women actually take responsibility and not get an unwanted pregnancy in the first place. We have numerous birth control methods available so there is no excuse for an unwanted pregnancy.

Chris
09-09-2018, 07:31 PM
How about women actually take responsibility and not get an unwanted pregnancy in the first place. We have numerous birth control methods available so there is no excuse for an unwanted pregnancy.

Feminists like Polly don't want to hear that.

Adelaide
09-09-2018, 09:33 PM
How about women actually take responsibility and not get an unwanted pregnancy in the first place. We have numerous birth control methods available so there is no excuse for an unwanted pregnancy.
I read something interesting in one of my physiology classes a while back. No form of birth control is 100% effective - not even celibacy. Once you factor in sexual assault and mistakes people make, not even being completely celibate is 100% effective. I thought that was an interesting perspective because I had never thought of it like that before.

At any rate, unwanted pregnancy rates have been going down, as has the rate of abortion. Maybe that's due to a rise in education and awareness, or the availability of different forms of contraceptives. Last I checked, anyway. It would seem that people, men and women, are being more responsible in general.

Adelaide
09-09-2018, 10:01 PM
Kavanaugh was being asked a specific question about the case, Priests for Life v. HHS. The OP link has a link to that case: https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/425C0AE29F10AFD785257E4B00767BF5/%24file/13-5368.pdf. The concern in that case was in fact the use of contraception for abortion: "The plaintiff business owners believed that 'providing the coverage demanded . . . is connected to the destruction of an embryo in a way that is sufficient to make it immoral for them to provide the coverage.'" "The company opposes providing some contraceptives to employees through its company health care plan on religious grounds, saying some contraceptive products, like the morning after pill, equate to abortion." (http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/27/hobby-lobby-faces-millions-in-fines-for-bucking-obamacare/)

So the OP is misleading in the premise of its argument.

The morning after pill is not equal to abortion. It prevents/delays ovulation and thus fertilization. There is nothing to abort unless fertilization has occurred. Conception takes about 42 hours from start to go assuming there is an egg in the mix to begin with. Sperm usually meets the fallopian tubes between 30 minutes (pft... not the norm) and the 12-hour mark, gets excited for approximately 7 hours, but it's not a complete process until fertilization is completed and that takes another 24 hours. Removing an egg from the mix, such as delaying it or making it malfunction, or not being near the time of ovulation means emergency contraceptives can work for up to 4 days (a pregnancy would be unlikely, anyway, by that point).

Abortifacients, on the other hand, abort a pregnancy. They use different forms of hormones and vastly different dosage levels.
This is basic science. Nothing debateable. It's not like determining the status of a fetus. Sperm, egg, fertilization or no fertilization. You can't abort unless fertilization has occurred. That is physically impossible.

Tahuyaman
09-09-2018, 10:48 PM
I read something interesting in one of my physiology classes a while back. No form of birth control is 100% effective - not even celibacy. Once you factor in sexual assault and mistakes people make, not even being completely celibate is 100% effective. I thought that was an interesting perspective because I had never thought of it like that before.

At any rate, unwanted pregnancy rates have been going down, as has the rate of abortion. Maybe that's due to a rise in education and awareness, or the availability of different forms of contraceptives. Last I checked, anyway. It would seem that people, men and women, are being more responsible in general.


In spite of that, abstinence is 100% effective. One can't get pregnant through osmosis.

Dr. Who
09-10-2018, 12:16 AM
In spite of that, abstinence is 100% effective. One can't get pregnant through osmosis.

No more than you can wish away sexual congress between healthy and hormonally driven members of any species. In the past the only way to truly accomplish that was to keep human females essentially under lock and key. Basically never alone with males of the species. Mother nature has her own agenda and human beings are not immune. The instinct to mate is hardwired. Abstinence is a philosophical and religious ideal that tends not to resonate with the majority of people.

Cletus
09-10-2018, 12:24 AM
I read something interesting in one of my physiology classes a while back. No form of birth control is 100% effective - not even celibacy. Once you factor in sexual assault and mistakes people make, not even being completely celibate is 100% effective. I thought that was an interesting perspective because I had never thought of it like that before.

You probably never thought about it like that before because it is nonsense.

IMPress Polly
09-10-2018, 06:24 AM
Adelaide wrote:
I read something interesting in one of my physiology classes a while back. No form of birth control is 100% effective - not even celibacy. Once you factor in sexual assault and mistakes people make, not even being completely celibate is 100% effective. I thought that was an interesting perspective because I had never thought of it like that before.

At any rate, unwanted pregnancy rates have been going down, as has the rate of abortion. Maybe that's due to a rise in education and awareness, or the availability of different forms of contraceptives. Last I checked, anyway. It would seem that people, men and women, are being more responsible in general.


In spite of that, abstinence is 100% effective. One can't get pregnant through osmosis.
Momentarily forgot you were female, didn't you, Adelaide? Assumed people would bother reading your post before formulating a reply because your thoughts mattered, no? Had this been an actual, in-person conversation, you'd never have gotten through your second sentence before the being interrupted with Tahuyaman's above reply. I get treated the same way all the time around here (as yesterday on a different thread). Sometimes it feels like there's no sense bothering to say anything, doesn't it?

Now you can still more easily understand how rape can happen, speaking of which. One way it can happen anyway. "No" only means something if the other person can be bothered to listen.


Dr. Who wrote:
No more than you can wish away sexual congress between healthy and hormonally driven members of any species. In the past the only way to truly accomplish that was to keep human females essentially under lock and key. Basically never alone with males of the species. Mother nature has her own agenda and human beings are not immune. The instinct to mate is hardwired. Abstinence is a philosophical and religious ideal that tends not to resonate with the majority of people.
You know, the more I read of Sheila Jeffreys' work, the more I become convinced that this actually isn't true. I'm increasingly convinced that the idea that most women generally want to have sex with men despite achieving orgasm in less than 50% of heterosexual encounters and defining "good sex" not even as a pleasureful experience (as would men), but simply as sex that doesn't include physical and/or emotional pain (http://theweek.com/articles/749978/female-price-male-pleasure), is a liberal myth. Much time, research, and effort is expended to persuade us that we are definitely having fun anyway though, despite the aforementioned facts. We just have to learn to define "fun" differently, and specifically more generously, than our male counterparts. :rollseyes:

Other species have sex only cyclically, for purely reproductive purposes, and the females often resist it by banding together in male-exclusionary groups. In a context like ours, successfully reproducing another generation requires the average American woman to have sex with men on only two or three occasions per lifetime, not two or three times a week.

In those countries that rank highest on the World Economic Forum's Global Gender Gap Index (i.e. feature the most political, economic, educational, and medical equality between men and women), sex with other women is the #1 most commonly reported sexual fantasy among women. "Lesbian" is the #1 most common porn search term among women in every U.S. state. But we are definitely having fun anyway, despite the evidence. Right?

You see what I'm getting at? To what extent is female heterosexuality actually biological when women achieve orgasm more often in lesbian relationships and, in a contemporary context, increasingly are able to know that due to increased personal freedom and autonomy and improving means of communication? To what extent is sex with men in general actually consensual (as in something that a woman legitimately wants to happen and doesn't basically just endure so that her partner won't leave her and that she will often fake pleasure in to get it over with) in aggregate? Are most women actually straight, legitimately, despite increasing evidence to the contrary, or is that reeeeeeaaaaaally just the socially obligatory answer as yet?

It is insisted to us that the male penis is central, almost vital even, to female sexual pleasure, despite the fact that the female orgasm is realized through the stimulation of the clitoris, which does not involve the male penis, and despite the fact also that female partners tend to engage in clitoral stimulation a lot more often than men can be bothered to for obvious reasons of comparative understanding of the female anatomy and of caring. I think that, at minimum, we should seriously question heteronormativity when acceding to the "instinct to mate" results in less sexual pleasure for women than lesbian relationships, wherein of course reproduction is not directly possible. That is the conclusion I have reached.

donttread
09-10-2018, 06:55 AM
I posted something a while back about why this is federal and why it is needed. Not going to bother repeating myself so I am just going to copy/paste from Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_Against_Women_Act).



A lot of those items are important, and to break it down further with the National Domestic Violence Hotline's history of VAWA (https://www.thehotline.org/resources/vawa/)

1994 VAWA:


2000 renewal:

2005:



2009:




So, some important features: training law enforcement at every level and in as many places as possible of how to deal with cases involving violence against women, including how to prevent revictimization. Protection across state lines of protection orders, which are hard enough to enforce within one state, nonetheless when it involves more than one state and coordination between states. Funding for shelters and crisis centers because states and local governments have defunded many for various reasons. Consideration for the economic hardship experienced by victims while they are trying to recover, including some protection from eviction, financial aid, and so forth. On and on. The sheer volume of women who are victimized at some point is part of why it is necessary.



While doing some research not too long ago I ran across a "Domestic violence" site that used strictly female pronouns. Not very 2018 and I sure hope they weren't getting any federal funds.
Basically IMO, we have too many laws and too many agencies being funded to reinvent the wheel. Smack somebody around for no good reason? Go to jail. If the victim is the only witness they have to step up and testify or the charges cannot be pushed to their full extent. That's just the way it is. Teach people that giving into fear will only lead to more fear and more of the same.

countryboy
09-10-2018, 08:04 AM
Momentarily forgot you were female, didn't you, Adelaide? Assumed people would bother reading your post before formulating a reply because your thoughts mattered, no? Had this been an actual, in-person conversation, you'd never have gotten through your second sentence before the being interrupted with Tahuyaman's above reply. I get treated the same way all the time around here (as yesterday on a different thread). Sometimes it feels like there's no sense bothering to say anything, doesn't it?

Now you can still more easily understand how rape can happen, speaking of which. One way it can happen anyway. "No" only means something if the other person can be bothered to listen.


You know, the more I read of Sheila Jeffreys' work, the more I become convinced that this actually isn't true. I'm increasingly convinced that the idea that most women generally want to have sex with men despite achieving orgasm in less than 50% of heterosexual encounters and defining "good sex" not even as a pleasureful experience (as would men), but simply as the absence of physical and/or emotional pain therein (http://theweek.com/articles/749978/female-price-male-pleasure), is a liberal myth. Much time, research, and effort is expended to persuade us that we are definitely having fun anyway though, despite the aforementioned facts. We just have to learn to define "fun" differently, and specifically more generously, than our male counterparts. :rollseyes:

Other species have sex only cyclically, for purely reproductive purposes, and the females often resist it by banding together in male-exclusionary groups. In a context like ours, successfully reproducing another generation requires the average American woman to have sex with men on only two or three occasions per lifetime, not two or three times a week.

In those countries that rank highest on the World Economic Forum's Global Gender Gap Index (i.e. feature the most political, economic, educational, and medical equality between men and women), sex with other women is the #1 most commonly reported sexual fantasy among women. "Lesbian" is the #1 most common porn search term among women in every U.S. state. But we are definitely having fun anyway, despite the evidence. Right?

You see what I'm getting at? To what extent is female heterosexuality actually biological when women achieve orgasm more often in lesbian relationships and, in a contemporary context, increasingly are able to know that due to increased personal freedom and autonomy and improving means of communication? To what extent is female heterosexuality actually consensual (as in something that a woman legitimately wants to happen and doesn't basically just endure and often fake pleasure in to get it over with) in aggregate? Are most women actually straight, legitimately, despite increasing evidence to the contrary, or is that reeeeeeaaaaaally just the socially obligatory answer as yet?

It is insisted to us that the male penis is central, almost vital even, to female sexual pleasure, despite the fact that the female orgasm is realized through the stimulation of the clitoris, which does not involve the male penis, and despite the fact also that female partners tend to engage in clitoral stimulation a lot more often than men can be bothered to for obvious reasons of comparative understanding of the female anatomy and of caring. I think that, at minimum, we should seriously question heteronormativity when acceding to the "instinct to mate" results in less sexual pleasure for women than lesbian relationships, wherein of course reproduction is not directly possible. That is the conclusion I have reached.
Your defensive, insulting, and combative posture are likely the reason you get treated the way you do. Contrary to your insinuations, not all men are pigs, and not all women aren't.

Chris
09-10-2018, 08:23 AM
The morning after pill is not equal to abortion. It prevents/delays ovulation and thus fertilization. There is nothing to abort unless fertilization has occurred. Conception takes about 42 hours from start to go assuming there is an egg in the mix to begin with. Sperm usually meets the fallopian tubes between 30 minutes (pft... not the norm) and the 12-hour mark, gets excited for approximately 7 hours, but it's not a complete process until fertilization is completed and that takes another 24 hours. Removing an egg from the mix, such as delaying it or making it malfunction, or not being near the time of ovulation means emergency contraceptives can work for up to 4 days (a pregnancy would be unlikely, anyway, by that point).

Abortifacients, on the other hand, abort a pregnancy. They use different forms of hormones and vastly different dosage levels.
This is basic science. Nothing debateable. It's not like determining the status of a fetus. Sperm, egg, fertilization or no fertilization. You can't abort unless fertilization has occurred. That is physically impossible.


Everything I've read say the pill can be used to prevent and to abort. Perhaps we are talking about two different pills: The Difference Between the
Morning-After Pill and the Abortion Pill, The latter is what Kavanaugh was talking about, despite Polly's misrepresentation.

I understand the biology, no need for lectures.

Chris
09-10-2018, 08:26 AM
Your defensive, insulting, and combative posture are likely the reason you get treated the way you do. Contrary to your insinuations, not all men are pigs, and not all women aren't.

Really, poor oppressed Polly.

Standing Wolf
09-10-2018, 08:29 AM
Really, poor oppressed Polly.

Way to stay on topic and away from criticizing individuals, Chris.

Chris
09-10-2018, 08:36 AM
Way to stay on topic and away from criticizing individuals, Chris.

Sometimes I can't help it. This entire topic, premissed on a misrepresentation, is about poor oppressed women. Seemed appropriate especially after she lashed out. Let us note you don't say anything to her now do you.

Tahuyaman
09-10-2018, 08:45 AM
The rape exemption is a red herring.

Abstenence works every time. It's 100% effective, no matter what the pro abortion liberals say.

Standing Wolf
09-10-2018, 08:52 AM
Sometimes I can't help it.

Yeah, okay...I'll have to remember that one.


This entire topic, premissed on a misrepresentation, is about poor oppressed women. Seemed appropriate especially after she lashed out. Let us note you don't say anything to her now do you.

I haven't actually been following the thread, so I can't speak to what others have been doing or saying. I just recall from when I was posting on here more frequently your obsession with other members staying on topic and away from getting "personal". I guess that in pointing out your hypocrisy I'm doing it too, though, huh? :rollseyes:

Chris
09-10-2018, 09:04 AM
Yeah, okay...I'll have to remember that one.



I haven't actually been following the thread, so I can't speak to what others have been doing or saying. I just recall from when I was posting on here more frequently your obsession with other members staying on topic and away from getting "personal". I guess that in pointing out your hypocrisy I'm doing it too, though, huh? :rollseyes:

If you haven't been following the thread, and you're obviously now not contributing to the topic in any way, aren't you guilty of what you accuse: "Way to stay on topic and away from criticizing individuals, Chris Wolf." Aren't you thus a hypocrite?

Sorry, you walked into that one as you so often do.

IMPress Polly
09-10-2018, 09:07 AM
I haven't actually been following the thread, so I can't speak to what others have been doing or saying. I just recall from when I was posting on here more frequently your obsession with other members staying on topic and away from getting "personal". I guess that in pointing out your hypocrisy I'm doing it too, though, huh? :rollseyes:

For some proper context, the remark I made on page 2 of this thread about a recent experience on this message board was an allusion to this recent thread (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/100889-Academic-Activists-Send-a-Published-Paper-Down-the-Memory-Hole) on which both Chris and more especially Mister D engaged me in a frustrating conversation starting on page 2 and running through page 5 wherein I was apparently unable to communicate simple points to either successfully, mostly because neither could be bothered to pay attention to what was actually being said. That conversation devolved into Mister D invoking my personal life and Chris backing him up.

I casually mentioned it because Adelaide was clearly experiencing something similar here on page 2; that familiar experience of people not really listening; of people replying to you without bothering to fully read what you wrote. I sympathized with the feeling of vanity.

Chris
09-10-2018, 09:15 AM
For some proper context, the remark I made on page 2 of this thread about a recent experience on this message board was an allusion to this recent thread (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/100889-Academic-Activists-Send-a-Published-Paper-Down-the-Memory-Hole) on which both Chris and more especially Mister D engaged me in a frustrating conversation starting on page 2 and running through page 5 wherein I was apparently unable to communicate simple points to either successfully, mostly because neither could be bothered to pay attention to what was actually being said. That conversation devolved into Mister D invoking my personal life and Chris backing him up.

I casually mentioned it because Adelaide was clearly experiencing something similar here on page 2; that familiar experience of people not really listening; of people replying to you without bothering to fully read what you wrote. I sympathized with the feeling of vanity.


OMG, we engaged you in discussion! Sounds like you're complaining because you assume you're always right and for someone to challenge you is, well, frustrating.

Let's look at that discussion, where, to set context, you were once again complaining about how oppressed women are.


Were you forced to become a school teacher? Did the patriarchy circumscribe your possibilities? Were you conditioned to believe you couldn't do much else? No, Polly. What circumscribed your possibilities were your abilities, your preferences and your interests.


What in the hell are you even talking about? My personal life is not the subject at issue here. It would be appreciated if you could possibly manage to avoid dragging every thread on which I participate into the dirt like this.

I'm also tired of your stupid, condescending attitude. Act at least half your age.


Complains about getting personal, gets personal. :rollseyes:


D's point was simply that social stigma about female intelligence didn't stop you from academic success. It really wasn't all that personal.


Once again, you misrepresent.

Chris
09-10-2018, 09:19 AM
The rape exemption is a red herring.

Abstenence works every time. It's 100% effective, no matter what the pro abortion liberals say.

Agree, but people fail abstinence.

To me, the entire issue revolves around being responsible for your choices. Choose to have sex, then take responsibility, for you, your family, your community, your baby.

Mister D
09-10-2018, 10:15 AM
OMG, we engaged you in discussion! Sounds like you're complaining because you assume you're always right and for someone to challenge you is, well, frustrating.

Let's look at that discussion, where, to set context, you were once again complaining about how oppressed women are.








Once again, you misrepresent.
"My personal life". lol That's particularly galling coming from a woman who tells us far too much about what really is her personal life.

Standing Wolf
09-10-2018, 10:24 AM
If you haven't been following the thread, and you're obviously now not contributing to the topic in any way, aren't you guilty of what you accuse: "Way to stay on topic and away from criticizing individuals, Chris Wolf." Aren't you thus a hypocrite?

Sorry, you walked into that one as you so often do.

Oh, I understand perfectly, Chris. I always have. Posting a personal criticism of someone for posting a personal criticism of someone else is hypocritical - no doubt. What is the alternative, though? Reporting the post? The Mods don't care about picayune stuff like that, nor should they. I guess the thing to do is just to establish a code word that means, "You're doing what you're always slamming other people for doing". Any suggestions? How about "Swordfish"?

Adelaide
09-10-2018, 10:25 AM
Everything I've read say the pill can be used to prevent and to abort. Perhaps we are talking about two different pills: The Difference Between the
Morning-After Pill and the Abortion Pill (http://The Difference Between the<br /> Morning-After Pill and the Abortion Pill), The latter is what Kavanaugh was talking about, despite Polly's misrepresentation.

I understand the biology, no need for lectures.

It is not allowing me to open your link. Regardless, emergency contraception does not abort because there is nothing to abort within the timeframe it is used.

No, sometimes there is a need for a lecture because some people want to ignore the basic science of how conception occurs. It is impossible to abort something that does not exist.

countryboy
09-10-2018, 10:26 AM
Really, poor oppressed Polly.

She seems like a nice, intelligent person, with a noble profession, and very attractive to boot. I wish she could get over the notion that by simply disagreeing with her, that automatically makes you the spawn of Satan, lol.

countryboy
09-10-2018, 10:28 AM
It is not allowing me to open your link. Regardless, emergency contraception does not abort because there is nothing to abort within the timeframe it is used.

No, sometimes there is a need for a lecture because some people want to ignore the basic science of how conception occurs. It is impossible to aborting something that does not exist.

There are no absolutes. Your claim is simply not supported by the data.

Chris
09-10-2018, 10:32 AM
It is not allowing me to open your link. Regardless, emergency contraception does not abort because there is nothing to abort within the timeframe it is used.

No, sometimes there is a need for a lecture because some people want to ignore the basic science of how conception occurs. It is impossible to abort something that does not exist.


Here's the link, to Planned Parenthood, I simply searched on the title: https://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/3914/6012/8466/Difference_Between_the_Morning-After_Pill_and_the_Abortion_Pill.pdf


The Abortion Pill
Also known as medication abortion,
the abortion pill contains medication
called mifepristone to induce abortion.
Mifepristone (Mifeprex®) can be taken
under supervision up to 70 days after the
first day of the last menstrual period. It
is used in conjunction with misoprostol,
which is taken later to complete the
abortion (Creinin & Aubény, 1999;
Middleton et al., 2005; Schaff et al., 2000;
Schaff et al., 2001)

The Abortion Pill
Mifepristone ends pregnancy by blocking
the hormones necessary for maintaining
a pregnancy. Misoprostol causes the
uterus to contract and empty (Creinin &
Aubény, 1999).

The abortion pill is highly effective at
ending very early pregnancies. Complete
abortion will occur in 96–97 percent of
women who choose mifepristone. In the
small percentage of cases that medication
abortion fails, other abortion procedures
are required to end the pregnancies
(ACOG, 2001; Schaff et al., 2000).

That is what the case Kavanaugh was commenting on.

Again, I understand the biology, no need to lecture. Or should I take your argument, like Polly's, to rely on an ambiguity about what's meant by the pill?

Tahuyaman
09-10-2018, 10:32 AM
Agree, but people fail abstinence.

To me, the entire issue revolves around being responsible for your choices. Choose to have sex, then take responsibility, for you, your family, your community, your baby.


I don't disagree.

Adelaide
09-10-2018, 10:54 AM
Here's the link, to Planned Parenthood, I simply searched on the title: https://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/3914/6012/8466/Difference_Between_the_Morning-After_Pill_and_the_Abortion_Pill.pdf



That is what the case Kavanaugh was commenting on.

Again, I understand the biology, no need to lecture. Or should I take your argument, like Polly's, to rely on an ambiguity about what's meant by the pill?



Alright, here's the issue then.

That is an abortifacient, not emergency contraception. Emergency contraception is a high dose of the hormones found in birth control pills that prevent fertilization by inhibiting or delaying ovulation (not abortion) within 72 hours of unprotected sex. Emergency contraceptives fall under the birth control umbrella. Abortifacients contain (usually) different hormones/chemicals/antagonists that cause a fertilized egg/zygote/embryo/fetus to be aborted, depending on when it is taken. This usually occurs within 60 days of conception but there are other drugs and naturally occurring herbs that can induce an abortion much later into a pregnancy.

Abortifacients are not a method of birth control. It is not a contraceptive method. It is a form of abortion. Contrary to some hysterical people that call abortion a new form of birth control, abortion is not a birth control method.

If Kavanaugh is using "birth control" to describe an abortifacient, then he's using the wrong terminology. If the media twisted it to sound like he was anti-birth control, then they are being idiots.

Captdon
09-10-2018, 10:57 AM
Momentarily forgot you were female, didn't you, Adelaide? Assumed people would bother reading your post before formulating a reply because your thoughts mattered, no? Had this been an actual, in-person conversation, you'd never have gotten through your second sentence before the being interrupted with Tahuyaman's above reply. I get treated the same way all the time around here (as yesterday on a different thread). Sometimes it feels like there's no sense bothering to say anything, doesn't it?

Now you can still more easily understand how rape can happen, speaking of which. One way it can happen anyway. "No" only means something if the other person can be bothered to listen.


You know, the more I read of Sheila Jeffreys' work, the more I become convinced that this actually isn't true. I'm increasingly convinced that the idea that most women generally want to have sex with men despite achieving orgasm in less than 50% of heterosexual encounters and defining "good sex" not even as a pleasureful experience (as would men), but simply as sex that doesn't include physical and/or emotional pain (http://theweek.com/articles/749978/female-price-male-pleasure), is a liberal myth. Much time, research, and effort is expended to persuade us that we are definitely having fun anyway though, despite the aforementioned facts. We just have to learn to define "fun" differently, and specifically more generously, than our male counterparts. :rollseyes:

Other species have sex only cyclically, for purely reproductive purposes, and the females often resist it by banding together in male-exclusionary groups. In a context like ours, successfully reproducing another generation requires the average American woman to have sex with men on only two or three occasions per lifetime, not two or three times a week.

In those countries that rank highest on the World Economic Forum's Global Gender Gap Index (i.e. feature the most political, economic, educational, and medical equality between men and women), sex with other women is the #1 most commonly reported sexual fantasy among women. "Lesbian" is the #1 most common porn search term among women in every U.S. state. But we are definitely having fun anyway, despite the evidence. Right?

You see what I'm getting at? To what extent is female heterosexuality actually biological when women achieve orgasm more often in lesbian relationships and, in a contemporary context, increasingly are able to know that due to increased personal freedom and autonomy and improving means of communication? To what extent is sex with men in general actually consensual (as in something that a woman legitimately wants to happen and doesn't basically just endure so that her partner won't leave her and that she will often fake pleasure in to get it over with) in aggregate? Are most women actually straight, legitimately, despite increasing evidence to the contrary, or is that reeeeeeaaaaaally just the socially obligatory answer as yet?

It is insisted to us that the male penis is central, almost vital even, to female sexual pleasure, despite the fact that the female orgasm is realized through the stimulation of the clitoris, which does not involve the male penis, and despite the fact also that female partners tend to engage in clitoral stimulation a lot more often than men can be bothered to for obvious reasons of comparative understanding of the female anatomy and of caring. I think that, at minimum, we should seriously question heteronormativity when acceding to the "instinct to mate" results in less sexual pleasure for women than lesbian relationships, wherein of course reproduction is not directly possible. That is the conclusion I have reached.

You need to hang out with a better class of women.

Captdon
09-10-2018, 11:00 AM
Everything I've read say the pill can be used to prevent and to abort. Perhaps we are talking about two different pills: The Difference Between the
Morning-After Pill and the Abortion Pill (http://The Difference Between the<br /><br />Morning-After Pill and the Abortion Pill), The latter is what Kavanaugh was talking about, despite Polly's misrepresentation.

I understand the biology, no need for lectures.

I think it depends on when you use it. The morning after there is not a pregnancy to abort while three days later there is. That's how I understand it.

Captdon
09-10-2018, 11:04 AM
Way to stay on topic and away from criticizing individuals, Chris.

The individual should have been criticized for a load of garbage.

IMPress Polly
09-10-2018, 11:05 AM
She seems like a nice, intelligent person, with a noble profession, and very attractive to boot. I wish she could get over the notion that by simply disagreeing with her, that automatically makes you the spawn of Satan, lol.

I'm just used to often being the only person on my side of any given debate. :tongue:

I am sometimes told that I can be verbally intimidating because I'm tired of taking shit off people, most of whom really do seem to just hate me as a person, so I guess I need to work on that more.

Captdon
09-10-2018, 11:12 AM
There are no absolutes. Your claim is simply not supported by the data.

Yes, it is. Pregnancy is not like instant coffee. I;m as anti-abortion as you get but this is a solution that's doesn't involve an abortion to the best of my knowledge.

I have been following the day after pill and don't see a problem when used the day after.

Chris
09-10-2018, 11:13 AM
Oh, I understand perfectly, Chris. I always have. Posting a personal criticism of someone for posting a personal criticism of someone else is hypocritical - no doubt. What is the alternative, though? Reporting the post? The Mods don't care about picayune stuff like that, nor should they. I guess the thing to do is just to establish a code word that means, "You're doing what you're always slamming other people for doing". Any suggestions? How about "Swordfish"?


My point about your hypocrisy is you did criticize Polly for her personal comments.


Go ahead report. If I'm warned for referring to Polly the way she describes herself why then so be it. I dounbt many others will see it that way.

Captdon
09-10-2018, 11:15 AM
Here's the link, to Planned Parenthood, I simply searched on the title: https://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/3914/6012/8466/Difference_Between_the_Morning-After_Pill_and_the_Abortion_Pill.pdf



That is what the case Kavanaugh was commenting on.

Again, I understand the biology, no need to lecture. Or should I take your argument, like Polly's, to rely on an ambiguity about what's meant by the pill?

Am I right that the next day will end any chance of pregnancy? I know the 2-70 part but then the not yet pregnant would be not going to be pregnant. Is that right.

Chris
09-10-2018, 11:15 AM
Alright, here's the issue then.

That is an abortifacient, not emergency contraception. Emergency contraception is a high dose of the hormones found in birth control pills that prevent fertilization by inhibiting or delaying ovulation (not abortion) within 72 hours of unprotected sex. Emergency contraceptives fall under the birth control umbrella. Abortifacients contain (usually) different hormones/chemicals/antagonists that cause a fertilized egg/zygote/embryo/fetus to be aborted, depending on when it is taken. This usually occurs within 60 days of conception but there are other drugs and naturally occurring herbs that can induce an abortion much later into a pregnancy.

Abortifacients are not a method of birth control. It is not a contraceptive method. It is a form of abortion. Contrary to some hysterical people that call abortion a new form of birth control, abortion is not a birth control method.

If Kavanaugh is using "birth control" to describe an abortifacient, then he's using the wrong terminology. If the media twisted it to sound like he was anti-birth control, then they are being idiots.


Adelaide, we all know the difference. Except, apparently, Polly. But I think she knows the difference too.

See earlier in the thread where I cited from the case he opined on. There was no confusion on his part.

Chris
09-10-2018, 11:19 AM
I'm just used to often being the only person on my side of any given debate. :tongue:

I am sometimes told that I can be verbally intimidating because I'm tired of taking shit off people, most of whom really do seem to just hate me as a person, so I guess I need to work on that more.


You are not verbally intimidating in the least. Verbose, yes, intimidating, no.




I'm just used to often being the only person on my side of any given debate. :tongue:

It seems my earlier comment that wolf is all upset about actually fits the way you describe yourself. Basically, you play the victim. Calling you on playing victim is then not off topic in the least.

Chris
09-10-2018, 11:20 AM
Am I right that the next day will end any chance of pregnancy? I know the 2-70 part but then the not yet pregnant would be not going to be pregnant. Is that right.

Right. Even Planned Parenthood makes the correct distinction. There's a pill to prevent conception, and a pill to abort after.

Let me repost my first post in this thread:


Kavanaugh was being asked a specific question about the case, Priests for Life v. HHS. The OP link has a link to that case: https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/425C0AE29F10AFD785257E4B00767BF5/%24file/13-5368.pdf. The concern in that case was in fact the use of contraception for abortion: "The plaintiff business owners believed that 'providing the coverage demanded . . . is connected to the destruction of an embryo in a way that is sufficient to make it immoral for them to provide the coverage.'" "The company opposes providing some contraceptives to employees through its company health care plan on religious grounds, saying some contraceptive products, like the morning after pill, equate to abortion." (http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/27/hobby-lobby-faces-millions-in-fines-for-bucking-obamacare/)

So the OP is misleading in the premise of its argument.

The case was actually about religious freedom.

countryboy
09-10-2018, 05:29 PM
Yes, it is. Pregnancy is not like instant coffee. I;m as anti-abortion as you get but this is a solution that's doesn't involve an abortion to the best of my knowledge.

I have been following the day after pill and don't see a problem when used the day after.

Do a little reading on the subject, your knowledge could use a little update. Besides, Kavanaugh was talking about all oral contraceptives, and their relationship to religious freedom. We are either a free people, or we are not. Forcing someone to go against their faith, is not.

donttread
09-10-2018, 05:57 PM
In spite of that, abstinence is 100% effective. One can't get pregnant through osmosis.

The Bible would dispute that. LOL

donttread
09-10-2018, 06:00 PM
The rape exemption is a red herring.

Abstenence works every time. It's 100% effective, no matter what the pro abortion liberals say.


So how many people do you think never actually have penetrative sex until they are ready for parenthood?

Chris
09-10-2018, 06:02 PM
Do a little reading on the subject, your knowledge could use a little update. Besides, Kavanaugh was talking about all oral contraceptives, and their relationship to religious freedom. We are either a free people, or we are not. Forcing someone to go against their faith, is not.

That's correct, the case he was asked about had to do with forcing a business to act against their religious beliefs.

Tahuyaman
09-10-2018, 06:07 PM
So how many people do you think never actually have penetrative sex until they are ready for parenthood?


I don't know. That's not the point. The point is, absence works 100% of the time. No exceptions.

Mister D
09-10-2018, 06:09 PM
So how many people do you think never actually have penetrative sex until they are ready for parenthood?

Well, Polly assures us that a great many women are actually latent homosexuals who do not enjoy sex with men. It's just that the patriarchy tricks them into it. So if we can get rid of the patriarchy penetrative sex with be largely curtailed.

Tahuyaman
09-10-2018, 06:10 PM
The Bible would dispute that. LOL
Ok, there was the immaculate conception. Can you point to another?

Hoosier8
09-10-2018, 06:13 PM
That's how Trump's Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh described contraceptives (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/brett-kavanaugh-birth-control_us_5b917b79e4b0162f472b3cb8) during the third day of his confirmation hearing in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee this week, which the Senate has prioritized over renewing the Violence Against Women Act, which is set to expire at the end of the month (and probably will this time) (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/violence-against-women-act-expiring-september_us_5b6b0a4ae4b0de86f4a789db), and follows on the heels of the Secretary of Education's recent decision to lift the Obama-era crackdown on campus sexual violence and harassment (https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2018/08/208685/betsy-devos-campus-sexual-assault-title-ix-rules-change). I point this pattern out to highlight the fact that it is not simply misogynistic rhetoric and behavior that emanates from this White House and its governing allies, but also misogynistic policies that seem to revolve around a theme of denying women basic control over our own bodies in one sense or another.

I highlight Kavanaugh's remarkable statement to clarify what the anti-abortion movement is actually about. The fact that the anti-abortion movement objects not only to abortion, but also to birth control shows that the question of life has nothing to with their position in reality. What they object to is women possessing enough bodily autonomy to participate in the economy in a meaningful way and plan our own futures. More than 95% of the female population of this country uses contraceptives at some point in their lives. When Kavanaugh describes that as abortion, which in conservative parlance means murder, he is thus suggesting that nearly all women in this country are murderers of children, including probably every female member of this message board, be they left, right, or in the middle. Perhaps it is this sort of disingenuous and hate-driven mentality that makes violence against women so acceptable (as highlighted above) in the eyes of the modern American rightist.

Here comes the clickbait fake news.

Kavenaugh correctly referred to what the Priests brief said. That’s what judges are supposed to do. The falsehood (lie) above is for the useful idiots.

Captdon
09-10-2018, 08:13 PM
Do a little reading on the subject, your knowledge could use a little update. Besides, Kavanaugh was talking about all oral contraceptives, and their relationship to religious freedom. We are either a free people, or we are not. Forcing someone to go against their faith, is not.

I asked a question and got an answer. I don't care what Kavanaugh was talking about. The thread had moved to a pill. I wanted to know what the differences were. I now know. There, research done.

Captdon
09-10-2018, 08:15 PM
Well, Polly assures us that a great many women are actually latent homosexuals who do not enjoy sex with men. It's just that the patriarchy tricks them into it. So if we can get rid of the patriarchy penetrative sex with be largely curtailed.

I thought she meant we didn't need to have a penis. They don't.

Mister D
09-10-2018, 08:32 PM
I thought she meant we didn't need to have a penis. They don't.
I'm sure you did.

Dr. Who
09-10-2018, 08:43 PM
Momentarily forgot you were female, didn't you, Adelaide? Assumed people would bother reading your post before formulating a reply because your thoughts mattered, no? Had this been an actual, in-person conversation, you'd never have gotten through your second sentence before the being interrupted with Tahuyaman's above reply. I get treated the same way all the time around here (as yesterday on a different thread). Sometimes it feels like there's no sense bothering to say anything, doesn't it?

Now you can still more easily understand how rape can happen, speaking of which. One way it can happen anyway. "No" only means something if the other person can be bothered to listen.


You know, the more I read of Sheila Jeffreys' work, the more I become convinced that this actually isn't true. I'm increasingly convinced that the idea that most women generally want to have sex with men despite achieving orgasm in less than 50% of heterosexual encounters and defining "good sex" not even as a pleasureful experience (as would men), but simply as sex that doesn't include physical and/or emotional pain (http://theweek.com/articles/749978/female-price-male-pleasure), is a liberal myth. Much time, research, and effort is expended to persuade us that we are definitely having fun anyway though, despite the aforementioned facts. We just have to learn to define "fun" differently, and specifically more generously, than our male counterparts. :rollseyes:

Other species have sex only cyclically, for purely reproductive purposes, and the females often resist it by banding together in male-exclusionary groups. In a context like ours, successfully reproducing another generation requires the average American woman to have sex with men on only two or three occasions per lifetime, not two or three times a week.

In those countries that rank highest on the World Economic Forum's Global Gender Gap Index (i.e. feature the most political, economic, educational, and medical equality between men and women), sex with other women is the #1 most commonly reported sexual fantasy among women. "Lesbian" is the #1 most common porn search term among women in every U.S. state. But we are definitely having fun anyway, despite the evidence. Right?

You see what I'm getting at? To what extent is female heterosexuality actually biological when women achieve orgasm more often in lesbian relationships and, in a contemporary context, increasingly are able to know that due to increased personal freedom and autonomy and improving means of communication? To what extent is sex with men in general actually consensual (as in something that a woman legitimately wants to happen and doesn't basically just endure so that her partner won't leave her and that she will often fake pleasure in to get it over with) in aggregate? Are most women actually straight, legitimately, despite increasing evidence to the contrary, or is that reeeeeeaaaaaally just the socially obligatory answer as yet?

It is insisted to us that the male penis is central, almost vital even, to female sexual pleasure, despite the fact that the female orgasm is realized through the stimulation of the clitoris, which does not involve the male penis, and despite the fact also that female partners tend to engage in clitoral stimulation a lot more often than men can be bothered to for obvious reasons of comparative understanding of the female anatomy and of caring. I think that, at minimum, we should seriously question heteronormativity when acceding to the "instinct to mate" results in less sexual pleasure for women than lesbian relationships, wherein of course reproduction is not directly possible. That is the conclusion I have reached.

In humans, given the lack of a "heat" cycle, instinct works differently than it does in the animal kingdom. "Mating" is often (for females) more about securing a mate than the act, whereas among males, the act is of singular importance, occupying virtually hours of thinking time in minute iterations. In females, lust and love are often intertwined and gratification during the act (or lack thereof) doesn't necessarily dampen the hormonal instinct. It is admittedly more complicated with humans, but no less instinctive.

Dr. Who
09-10-2018, 09:21 PM
OMG, we engaged you in discussion! Sounds like you're complaining because you assume you're always right and for someone to challenge you is, well, frustrating.

Let's look at that discussion, where, to set context, you were once again complaining about how oppressed women are.
Once again, you misrepresent.

And once again you deflect. What has her occupation anything to do with a discussion not about teaching other than touching on a subject in which may involve her interests. It is the worst kind of bad faith to continually comment on people in a personal fashion. In fact:

Trolling is defined by forum leadership as "deliberately offensive or provocative online posting with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them." Belittling members will not be tolerated. Calling members out in threads will not be tolerated.


Constantly making personal remarks about someone whose politics offend you is bad faith, pure and simple. Departing from the topic to bring up someone's career choices in a negative fashion, is bad faith. If someone wants to complain about female oppression, general oppression, ethnic oppression or animal oppression, that does not give anyone license to make personal remarks or continually use personal information gleaned in other threads as strawmen to throw in the path of discussion. If you are even remotely concerned with proper debate tactics, each topic stands on its own and what is posted cannot be related to any other thread. The discussion should be about what people post in that thread alone. Otherwise, it becomes a pattern of harassment. I don't think I need remind anyone that this is also bad faith.

Mister D
09-10-2018, 09:31 PM
Bologna. I asked her a perfectly relevant and appropriate question. She argued that the so called patriarchy limits women academically and in their career paths. I asked if she thought this had happened to her. If the question was not asked in good faith it was only because I already knew the answer. You did too.

Mister D
09-10-2018, 09:42 PM
As usual, Polly cries victim and moma Who comes running. Thankfully, she's virtually the only one who still indulges her.

Dr. Who
09-10-2018, 09:42 PM
Bologna. I asked her a perfectly relevant and appropriate question. She argued that the so called patriarchy limits women academically and in their career paths. I asked if she thought this had happened to her. If the question was not asked in good faith it was only because I already knew the answer. You did too.

Everyone knows something about other members, some more than others. Using that information to try to win an argument is bad faith.

Chris
09-10-2018, 09:44 PM
And once again you deflect. What has her occupation anything to do with a discussion not about teaching other than touching on a subject in which may involve her interests. It is the worst kind of bad faith to continually comment on people in a personal fashion. In fact:

Trolling is defined by forum leadership as "deliberately offensive or provocative online posting with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them." Belittling members will not be tolerated. Calling members out in threads will not be tolerated.


Constantly making personal remarks about someone whose politics offend you is bad faith, pure and simple. Departing from the topic to bring up someone's career choices in a negative fashion, is bad faith. If someone wants to complain about female oppression, general oppression, ethnic oppression or animal oppression, that does not give anyone license to make personal remarks or continually use personal information gleaned in other threads as strawmen to throw in the path of discussion. If you are even remotely concerned with proper debate tactics, each topic stands on its own and what is posted cannot be related to any other thread. The discussion should be about what people post in that thread alone. Otherwise, it becomes a pattern of harassment. I don't think I need remind anyone that this is also bad faith.


Deflected? No, I spoke the truth and documented it with the actual posts. It was Polly, and now you, who deflected from that truth by trying to bury it in personal attack that never happened.

Her occupation, in general, not personal, demonstrates that she had choices to make and made them, and that her feminist views she was oppressed are false.

That is true. There is no deflection. Her teaching is demonstration her feminist ideas are false. There is nothing personal about it.

And now you lie to seek sympathy. That is bad faith.

Chris
09-10-2018, 09:47 PM
Everyone knows something about other members, some more than others. Using that information to try to win an argument is bad faith.

No, it is not. To use personal information to insult or attack another member personally is, but that is not what happened. The real problem here is you and Polly and even Wolf lying about something that never happened to try to win an argument. It's very transparent. You all's credibility is being lost for these deceptions.

Mister D
09-10-2018, 09:48 PM
Everyone knows something about other members, some more than others. Using that information to try to win an argument is bad faith.

This is another problem. You two kooks don't understand what a personal life is. Your profession is not your personal.life. Telling the entire board that you were a whore and daddy molested you is making your personal life known. I would never use that against her. In fact, I'm not even sure I believe any of it.

Dr. Who
09-10-2018, 09:48 PM
Deflected? No, I spoke the truth and documented it with the actual posts. It was Polly, and now you, who deflected from that truth by trying to bury it in personal attack that never happened.

Her occupation, in general, not personal, demonstrates that she had choices to make and made them, and that her feminist views she was oppressed are false.

That is true. There is no deflection. Her teaching is demonstration her feminist ideas are false. There is nothing personal about it.

And now you lie to seek sympathy. That is bad faith.
I seek no sympathy. I seek adherence to the forum rules and better behavior, not excuses for ignoring them.

Dr. Who
09-10-2018, 09:50 PM
Excuses.

Mister D
09-10-2018, 09:50 PM
Deflected? No, I spoke the truth and documented it with the actual posts. It was Polly, and now you, who deflected from that truth by trying to bury it in personal attack that never happened.

Her occupation, in general, not personal, demonstrates that she had choices to make and made them, and that her feminist views she was oppressed are false.

That is true. There is no deflection. Her teaching is demonstration her feminist ideas are false. There is nothing personal about it.

And now you lie to seek sympathy. That is bad faith.

Sympathy seeking is getting really old.

Dr. Who
09-10-2018, 09:50 PM
This is another problem. You two kooks don't understand what a personal life is. Your profession is not your personal.life. Telling the entire board that you were a whore and daddy molested you is making your personal life known. I would never use that against her. In fact, I'm not even sure I believe any of it.
Not germane to anything. Just an excuse to behave badly.

Mister D
09-10-2018, 09:52 PM
Excuses.

I have no need for excuses. Your attempts to shame me are as lame as your arguments.

Mister D
09-10-2018, 09:52 PM
Not germane to anything. Just an excuse to behave badly.

It was perfectly germane, moma Who.

Chris
09-10-2018, 09:57 PM
n those countries that rank highest on the World Economic Forum's Global Gender Gap Index (i.e. feature the most political, economic, educational, and medical equality between men and women), sex with other women is the #1 most commonly reported sexual fantasy among women. "Lesbian" is the #1 most common porn search term among women in every U.S. state. But we are definitely having fun anyway, despite the evidence. Right?

That is an interesting claim. I challenge Polly to document the evidence for this correlation.

I find the index she refers to here http://reports.weforum.org/global-gender-gap-report-2017/performance-by-region-and-country/. And here are the top 10: http://reports.weforum.org/global-gender-gap-report-2017/top-ten/

"sex with other women is the #1 most commonly reported sexual fantasy among women" is not something I'm finding.

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/common-sexual-fantasies-threesomes-bdsm-public-american-a8438566.html - no
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/slightly-blighty/201508/womens-sexual-fantasies-the-latest-scientific-research - no
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/common-sexual-fantasies_us_5ae20d7ee4b02baed1b80971 - no

So where is this documented.

And where is it documented such that one can correlate it with the Gender Gap Index?


Keep in mind that this correlation is a premise to her conclusions.

Chris
09-10-2018, 09:59 PM
I seek no sympathy. I seek adherence to the forum rules and better behavior, not excuses for ignoring them.

You seek sympathy for your made up offenses. You seek sympathy for Polly for offenses you invent. It's your lying that ought to be regulated. One would hope you could manage that yourself.

Chris
09-10-2018, 10:00 PM
Not germane to anything. Just an excuse to behave badly.

What's your excuse?

Chris
09-10-2018, 10:03 PM
I have no need for excuses. Your attempts to shame me are as lame as your arguments.

It's just another attempt at diverting attention from a misbegotten topic. The initial premise of the thread was Kavenough wasn't speaking about abortion and life. That was demonstrated wrong, so in the midst of many other diversions, the topic was changed to things like some supposed correlation between income gap and lesbian fantasies. Now Who diverts attention from that.

Mister D
09-10-2018, 10:04 PM
It amazes that otherwise intelligent people would characterize my question as "getting personal".

Dr. Who
09-10-2018, 10:04 PM
No, it is not. To use personal information to insult or attack another member personally is, but that is not what happened. The real problem here is you and Polly and even Wolf lying about something that never happened to try to win an argument. It's very transparent. You all's credibility is being lost for these deceptions.


It was perfectly germane, moma Who.
Both of you should have to write out 100 times: "I will not use personal information about members against them to try to win an argument."
Since you could easily copy and paste it, it should be in alternating lower case and caps (each letter) and in five different fonts, plus every fifth line should be written back to front.

Chris
09-10-2018, 10:05 PM
It no longer amazes me.

nathanbforrest45
09-10-2018, 10:05 PM
Kavanaugh was being asked a specific question about the case, Priests for Life v. HHS. The OP link has a link to that case: https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/425C0AE29F10AFD785257E4B00767BF5/%24file/13-5368.pdf. The concern in that case was in fact the use of contraception for abortion: "The plaintiff business owners believed that 'providing the coverage demanded . . . is connected to the destruction of an embryo in a way that is sufficient to make it immoral for them to provide the coverage.'" "The company opposes providing some contraceptives to employees through its company health care plan on religious grounds, saying some contraceptive products, like the morning after pill, equate to abortion." (http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/27/hobby-lobby-faces-millions-in-fines-for-bucking-obamacare/)

So the OP is misleading in the premise of its argument.


So, what's new with the left. They lie when the truth would serve them better. Lying is what they are genetically programmed to do. If you found out your weatherman was a leftest you would be better off just guessing at the forecast.

Mister D
09-10-2018, 10:06 PM
Both of you should have to write out 100 times: "I will not use personal information about members against them to try to win an argument."
Since you could easily copy and paste it, it should be in alternating lower case and caps (each letter) and in five different fonts, plus every fifth line should be written back to front.

Now you just sound corny and old.

Chris
09-10-2018, 10:06 PM
Both of you should have to write out 100 times: "I will not use personal information about members against them to try to win an argument."
Since you could easily copy and paste it, it should be in alternating lower case and caps (each letter) and in five different fonts, plus every fifth line should be written back to front.

It is personal information Polly shares freely. It is personal information that is relevant to an idea being argued. It is not personal information being used again her personally. No one said she was a bad teacher.

You should write on a screechy blackboard that you will stop being deceptive in twisting people's words.

Mister D
09-10-2018, 10:09 PM
It is personal information Polly shares freely. It is personal information that is relevant to an idea being argued. It is not personal information being used again her personally. No one said she was a bad teacher.

You should write on a screechy blackboard that you will stop being deceptive in twisting people's words.

What she really needs to do is stop making a fool of herself for Polly's sake. Time and again she is left holding the bag but she never learns.

Chris
09-10-2018, 10:10 PM
So, what's new with the left. They lie when the truth would serve them better. Lying is what they are genetically programmed to do. If you found out your weatherman was a leftest you would be better off just guessing at the forecast.

It happens with the best of intentions--which is even scarier! But with the best of intentions liberals tend to believe things true and then cherry pick facts and invent fictions to support those beliefs. The OP was a perfect example of that.

Chris
09-10-2018, 10:11 PM
What she really needs to do is stop making a fool of herself for Polly's sake. Time and again she is left holding the bag but she never learns.

See the sorry thread for another example. It's a pattern.

Dr. Who
09-10-2018, 10:12 PM
It is personal information Polly shares freely. It is personal information that is relevant to an idea being argued. It is not personal information being used again her personally. No one said she was a bad teacher.

You should write on a screechy blackboard that you will stop being deceptive in twisting people's words.
What is shared in one thread is not germane to another thread. Do you need a review of all of the logical fallacy rules?

Chris
09-10-2018, 10:20 PM
What is shared in one thread is not germane to another thread. Do you need a review of all of the logical fallacy rules?

Bologna. You don't get to make up rules of discourse--and especially make it up as a fallacy. I know you'd like to so that your inconsistencies and self-contradictions are not revealed so often. But what you say on a forum anywhere is fair game anywhere.

Interestingly your flitting from one argument to another, as you often do, is a fallacy: Moving the goalposts.

Dr. Who
09-10-2018, 11:16 PM
Bologna. You don't get to make up rules of discourse--and especially make it up as a fallacy. I know you'd like to so that your inconsistencies and self-contradictions are not revealed so often. But what you say on a forum anywhere is fair game anywhere.

Interestingly your flitting from one argument to another, as you often do, is a fallacy: Moving the goalposts.
Have you totally forgotten what an ad hominem attack is? Let me remind you:

This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!"), but this is actually not that common. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information -- for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?" Argumentum ad hominem also occurs when someone's arguments are discounted merely because they stand to benefit from the policy they advocate -- such as Bill Gates arguing against antitrust, rich people arguing for lower taxes, white people arguing against affirmative action, minorities arguing for affirmative action, etc. In all of these cases, the relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid. http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html

IMPress Polly
09-11-2018, 07:05 AM
Chris wrote:
That is an interesting claim. I challenge Polly to document the evidence for this correlation.

There is quite strong evidence that most women are not actually heterosexual, despite their claims. While just 7% of American women claim to be either lesbian or bisexual (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr088.pdf), nonetheless 60% of those who describe themselves as "straight" also report being attracted to other women, half say that they fantasize sexually about other women, 45% report having kissed another woman in a romantic way before (https://www.glamour.com/story/this-just-in-half-of-heterosex), and furthermore about one-third (30%) of women have gone so far as to have sex with another woman before (https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/adamandevecom-asks-have-you-ever-sexually-experimented-with-someone-of-the-same-sex-300295410.html). But 93% are straight...right? The Journal of Personal and Social Psychology has similarly found that most women physically respond to videos of both naked men and naked women (https://www.glamour.com/story/same-sex-fantasies-when-you-identify-as-straight), confirming that most aren't biologically heterosexual. Likewise, "lesbian" is the most common search term that female users of Pornhub, the far and away leading online porn site, employ in their searches in every U.S. state, as well as across South America and Central America, and overall globally (https://www.glamour.com/story/porn-women-watch), indicating that it is not just a fantasy that many women have either, but certainly among the top most common ones, if not the most common. Of late, most surveys even here in the U.S. that ask women to name their favorite sexual fantasies find sex with other women to be either the first or second-most common one. Here's an example conducted last year finding it to be #1 (https://www.askmen.com/top_10/dating/top10-female-sex-fantasies.html).

Is a picture starting to form here?

If we combine the women who are brave enough to describe themselves as lesbian or bisexual to poll-takers with the ostensibly "straight" women who report being attracted to other women, we arrive at the conclusion that nearly two-thirds of the female population experiences same-sex attraction, i.e. does not actually seem to be biologically heterosexual in reality.

Ethereal
09-11-2018, 07:16 AM
There is quite strong evidence that most women are not actually heterosexual, despite their claims. While just 7% of American women claim to be either lesbian or bisexual (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr088.pdf), nonetheless 60% of those who describe themselves as "straight" also report being attracted to other women, half say that they fantasize sexually about other women, 45% report having kissed another woman in a romantic way before (https://www.glamour.com/story/this-just-in-half-of-heterosex), and furthermore about one-third (30%) of women have gone so far as to have sex with another woman before (https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/adamandevecom-asks-have-you-ever-sexually-experimented-with-someone-of-the-same-sex-300295410.html). But 93% are straight...right? The Journal of Personal and Social Psychology has similarly found that most women physically respond to videos of both naked men and naked women (https://www.glamour.com/story/same-sex-fantasies-when-you-identify-as-straight), confirming that most aren't biologically heterosexual. Likewise, "lesbian" is the most common search term that female users of Pornhub, the far and away leading online porn site, employ in their searches in every U.S. state, as well as across South America and Central America, and overall globally (https://www.glamour.com/story/porn-women-watch), indicating that it is not just a fantasy that many women have either, but certainly among the top most common ones, if not the most common. Of late, most surveys even here in the U.S. that ask women to name their favorite sexual fantasies find it to be either the first or second-most common one. Here's an example conducted last year finding it to be #1 (https://www.askmen.com/top_10/dating/top10-female-sex-fantasies.html).

Is a picture starting to form here?

If we combine the women who are brave enough to describe themselves as lesbian or bisexual to poll-takers with the "straight" women who report being attracted to other women, we arrive at the conclusion that nearly two-thirds of the female population experiences same-sex attraction, i.e. does not actually seem to be biologically heterosexual in reality.
And let me just say, that I fully support this view of female sexuality.

:grin:

Chris
09-11-2018, 07:23 AM
Have you totally forgotten what an ad hominem attack is? Let me remind you:

This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!"), but this is actually not that common. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information -- for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?" Argumentum ad hominem also occurs when someone's arguments are discounted merely because they stand to benefit from the policy they advocate -- such as Bill Gates arguing against antitrust, rich people arguing for lower taxes, white people arguing against affirmative action, minorities arguing for affirmative action, etc. In all of these cases, the relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid. http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html

I quite remember what ad hominem is, Who.

No one attacked the character or motives of Polly when they said her being a teacher by choice runs counter to her view women are oppressed.

It is you attempting to argue ad hominem here, no one else. It would do you well to heed your own post.

Ethereal
09-11-2018, 07:24 AM
I read about the experiments where "straight" women became aroused when exposed to pictures of other women. My own experiences seem to back this up. For whatever reason, evolution has seen fit to make women more sexually flexible in terms of who they are attracted to. At least, that's my interpretation of the available evidence. One hypothesis I have is that women can maintain a state of arousal for much, much longer than men can, which creates a pleasure gap that needs to be filled somehow. This makes even more sense when you understand that much of human sexuality serves a social purpose apart from its reproductive purpose.

Chris
09-11-2018, 07:34 AM
There is quite strong evidence that most women are not actually heterosexual, despite their claims. While just 7% of American women claim to be either lesbian or bisexual (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr088.pdf), nonetheless 60% of those who describe themselves as "straight" also report being attracted to other women, half say that they fantasize sexually about other women, 45% report having kissed another woman in a romantic way before (https://www.glamour.com/story/this-just-in-half-of-heterosex), and furthermore about one-third (30%) of women have gone so far as to have sex with another woman before (https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/adamandevecom-asks-have-you-ever-sexually-experimented-with-someone-of-the-same-sex-300295410.html). But 93% are straight...right? The Journal of Personal and Social Psychology has similarly found that most women physically respond to videos of both naked men and naked women (https://www.glamour.com/story/same-sex-fantasies-when-you-identify-as-straight), confirming that most aren't biologically heterosexual. Likewise, "lesbian" is the most common search term that female users of Pornhub, the far and away leading online porn site, employ in their searches in every U.S. state, as well as across South America and Central America, and overall globally (https://www.glamour.com/story/porn-women-watch), indicating that it is not just a fantasy that many women have either, but certainly among the top most common ones, if not the most common. Of late, most surveys even here in the U.S. that ask women to name their favorite sexual fantasies find sex with other women to be either the first or second-most common one. Here's an example conducted last year finding it to be #1 (https://www.askmen.com/top_10/dating/top10-female-sex-fantasies.html).

Is a picture starting to form here?

If we combine the women who are brave enough to describe themselves as lesbian or bisexual to poll-takers with the ostensibly "straight" women who report being attracted to other women, we arrive at the conclusion that nearly two-thirds of the female population experiences same-sex attraction, i.e. does not actually seem to be biologically heterosexual in reality.


Sorry, but even your numbers do not add up to your claims. You sarcastically dismiss "93% are straight...right?" because your claim is supported by diminishing numbers 60%, 45%, 30%. Porn searches hardly qualify as scientific research, but based on that you even dismiss all those who fantasize lesbian sex with "indicating that it is not just a fantasy that many women have." You seem to stretch fantasies into realities.

Moreover, you didn't address the challenge. You made a claim about a correlation between gender gap index and female sexual fantasies. You know, the stuff of my challenge to you that you elided:


That is an interesting claim. I challenge Polly to document the evidence for this correlation.

I find the index she refers to here http://reports.weforum.org/global-ge...n-and-country/. And here are the top 10: http://reports.weforum.org/global-ge...-2017/top-ten/

"sex with other women is the #1 most commonly reported sexual fantasy among women" is not something I'm finding.

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...-a8438566.html - no
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...tific-research - no
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b02baed1b80971 - no

So where is this documented.

And where is it documented such that one can correlate it with the Gender Gap Index?


Keep in mind that this correlation is a premise to her conclusions.

Ethereal
09-11-2018, 07:59 AM
About 30% of women have made sexual contact with other women.

The number one sexual fantasy of women is lesbian sex.

And most women respond physiologically to images of naked women.

So, yeah, there does seem to be a fairly strong empirical basis for Polly's claims.

IMPress Polly
09-11-2018, 08:13 AM
Chris wrote:
Sorry, but even your numbers do not add up to your claims. You sarcastically dismiss "93% are straight...right?" because your claim is supported by diminishing numbers 60%, 45%, 30%.

There is a lot in your reply that isn't worth my time responding to, but a claim of this much disingenuousness is worth saying something about. The numbers are highest in fantasy and arousal and lowest in corresponding action. I think you will find that that's how life tends to work in general. Most people don't act on their every impulse, especially if that impulse is considered to be somewhat taboo. The fact that 30% of women have had sex with other women despite only 7% claiming to be either lesbian or bisexual is a contradiction that one should find remarkable. It becomes unsurprising though when you factor in the reality that 60% of so-called straight women report being physically attracted to other women in addition to men.

The conclusion I draw from it all is that most women are simply ashamed of the fact that they like other women that way. After all, heterosexuality is infinitely more celebrated, legitimized, and promoted in our culture. When you go to the store and hear the radio playing in the background, every song will be about a heterosexual relationship (successful or not). If you go to the movies and pick out any one of them at random, there's only like a 1% chance that a same-sex relationship will be part of the narrative (and even if one is, it will probably be gay men, not lesbian women) and a nearly 100% chance that a heterosexual relationship will be. Almost every video game that includes an intimate relationship as part of its story has that as a heterosexual one revolving centrally around a male. Go to the romance section of your local bookstore or grocery story and you'll not likely find a single book about a same-sex relationship. Most religious institutions still consider homosexuality a sin. Gay conversion therapy is still legal in many U.S. states. Just as some examples. Point being that, despite it weakening some in recent decades, at the end of the day, there is a clear and longstanding cultural bias in favor of heterosexuality that renders same-sex attraction something of a taboo even now; something that most are ashamed to concede despite it being a reality.

Standing Wolf
09-11-2018, 08:19 AM
The conclusion I draw from it all is that most women are simply ashamed of the fact that they like other women that way. After all, heterosexuality is infinitely more celebrated, legitimized, and promoted in our culture. When you go to the store and hear the radio playing in the background, every song will be about a heterosexual relationship (successful or not). If you go to the movies and pick out any one of them at random, there's only like a 1% chance that a same-sex relationship will be part of the narrative (and even if one is, it will probably be gay men, not lesbian women) and a nearly 100% chance that a heterosexual relationship will be. Almost every video game that includes an intimate relationship as part of its story has that as a heterosexual one revolving centrally around a male. Most religious institutions still consider homosexuality a sin. Gay conversion therapy is still legal in many U.S. states. Just as some examples. Point being that, despite it weakening some in recent decades, at the end of the day, there is a clear and longstanding cultural bias in favor of heterosexuality that renders same-sex attraction something of a taboo even now; something that most are ashamed to concede despite it being a reality.

Exactly right. But let a popular t.v. show or film feature a gay character, and you have the usual suspects bellowing, "They're trying to shove that stuff down our throats!" :rollseyes:

Chris
09-11-2018, 08:23 AM
There is a lot in your reply that isn't worth my time responding to, but a claim of this much disingenuousness is worth saying something about. The numbers are highest in fantasy and arousal and lowest in corresponding action. I think you will find that that's how life tends to work in general. Most people don't act on their every impulse, especially if that impulse is considered to be somewhat taboo. The fact that 30% of women have had sex with other women despite only 7% claiming to be either lesbian or bisexual is a contradiction that one should find remarkable. It becomes unsurprising though when you factor in the reality that 60% of so-called straight women report being physically attracted to other women in addition to men.

The conclusion I draw from it all is that most women are simply ashamed of the fact that they like other women that way. After all, heterosexuality is infinitely more celebrated, legitimized, and promoted in our culture. When you go to the store and hear the radio playing in the background, every song will be about a heterosexual relationship (successful or not). If you go to the movies and pick out any one of them at random, there's only like a 1% chance that a same-sex relationship will be part of the narrative (and even if one is, it will probably be gay men, not lesbian women) and a nearly 100% chance that a heterosexual relationship will be. Almost every video game that includes an intimate relationship as part of its story has that as a heterosexual one revolving centrally around a male. Most religious institutions still consider homosexuality a sin. Gay conversion therapy is still legal in many U.S. states. Just as some examples. Point being that, despite it weakening some in recent decades, at the end of the day, there is a clear and longstanding cultural bias in favor of heterosexuality that renders same-sex attraction something of a taboo even now; something that most are ashamed to concede despite it being a reality.


No, I don't find that's how life works. That's an assumption on your part you fail to show. Fantasies are fantasies not realities. Impulses impulses not realities. Yesterday my cat scratched me and I wanted to kick it, of course I didn't--I am not cruel to animals.

That 30% of women have had lesbian sex and only 7% say they are lesbian only means 23% experimented and found they weren't lesbian.

Overall, there are many ways to interpret the data you report. You do little to support your conclusions other than to make claims.

Perhaps heterosexuality is simple more natural. Socially and culturally that's normally supported.


And once again you fail to address the challenge to your claim there's a correlation between gaps and fantasies.


What you fail to condescendingly address stands and your claims fall.

Chris
09-11-2018, 08:26 AM
About 30% of women have made sexual contact with other women.

The number one sexual fantasy of women is lesbian sex.

And most women respond physiologically to images of naked women.

So, yeah, there does seem to be a fairly strong empirical basis for Polly's claims.

Experimentation.

The rest I see no empirical support for and provided studies that find the opposite.

IMPress Polly
09-11-2018, 08:28 AM
Chris wrote:
No, I don't find that's how life works. That's an assumption on your part you fail to show. Fantasies are fantasies not realities. Impulses impulses not realities. Yesterday my cat scratched me and I wanted to kick it, of course I didn't--I am not cruel to animals.

Sexual orientation is not an action though, but a feeling. It is defined by impulse more than by one's actions.

Chris
09-11-2018, 08:47 AM
Sexual orientation is not an action though, but a feeling. It is defined by impulse more than by one's actions.

"Scientists do not know the exact cause of sexual orientation, but they theorize that it is caused by a complex interplay of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences."

@ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation

Nothing there at all about impulses.

Chris
09-11-2018, 09:21 AM
It seems Polly has abandoned trying to demonstrate her claim of some correlation between a gender gap index and women being gay. Her claim shifted from that particular claim, that more women are gay in countires that score high in the index, and conversely less lesbian in countries that don't, to an even more generalized, universal claim most women are gay. And now she pursues that claim elsewhere: http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/100957-Are-Most-Women-Straight. The problem is the new universal claim runs counter to her earlier particular claim.

Captdon
09-11-2018, 10:59 AM
I read about the experiments where "straight" women became aroused when exposed to pictures of other women. My own experiences seem to back this up. For whatever reason, evolution has seen fit to make women more sexually flexible in terms of who they are attracted to. At least, that's my interpretation of the available evidence. One hypothesis I have is that women can maintain a state of arousal for much, much longer than men can, which creates a pleasure gap that needs to be filled somehow. This makes even more sense when you understand that much of human sexuality serves a social purpose apart from its reproductive purpose.

You really believe this?

Chris
09-11-2018, 04:17 PM
Another deception comes to light: Democrats Created a Birth-Control Banning Bogeyman Out of Brett Kavanaugh. Called Out, Kamala Harris Doubled Down (http://reason.com/blog/2018/09/11/kavanaugh-birth-control-clip-was-edited)


California Sen. Kamala Harris and other prominent Democrats distorted Brett Kavanaugh's statements on birth control in widely shared warnings that the Supreme Court nominee is a woman-hating religious extremist. Harris' comments about Kavanaugh have been deemed whoppers by Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler and ruled as false by the lie detectors at Politifact.

Harris, who is widely considered a 2020 Democratic presidential contender, accused Kavanaugh of signaling during Senate confirmation hearings last week that he would be "going after birth control." The Republican nominee, she tweeted, had been specifically chosen for his willingness to snatch up "a woman's constitutionally protected right to make her own health care decisions."

"Make no mistake," she warned, "this is about punishing women."

But the clip Harris shared as confirmation of this secret plot was deceptively edited. Asked about a case involving religious objections to the Obamacare contraception mandate, the video showed Kavanaugh responding that "filling out the form would make [Priests for Life] complicit in the provision of the abortion-inducing drugs that they were, as a religious matter, objected to."

Kavanaugh's use of the phrase abortion-inducing drugs is what's at issue here. The contraception mandate said that employer health-insurance plans must cover birth control, not abortion pills. Harris called Kavanaugh's answer a "dog whistle" that showed he was against not just abortion but also birth control.

Other Democrats echoed her. "This is a red-alarm moment," tweeted Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley. "If you didn't believe it before, believe it now – a woman's constitutional right to abortion AND birth control are both 100% at stake." U.S. House candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tweeted: "Brett Kavanaugh doesn't even know what birth control IS. He doesn't deserve to pass a 7th grade health class, let alone a Supreme Court confirmation…. We must #CancelKavanaugh."

But here's what Harris left off the start of the abortion-inducing drugs sentence in her video clip: They said. Kavanaugh's full sentence has been that "they said filling out the form would make them complicit in the provision of the abortion-inducing drugs that they were, as a religious matter, objecting to."

In other words, Kavanaugh was characterizing the positions of Priests for Life, plaintiffs in the lawsuit which he had specifically been asked about...