MAP Forum

Artaxerxes II wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2024 8:46 pm The employee can still get fired for violating workplace rules, no biggie. I don't get what's your point here, unless you're suggesting capital punishment over dick pics as a deterrent

You said you agreed with Fragment's view that people's emotional responses to sex isn't the government's business. I gave you examples of where sexual harassment goes beyond a casual sex joke, none of which necessarily involve being employed. Capital punishment isn't the only way the law is applied to a problem. Would you admit that some forms of sexual harassment do require government intervention, e.g. jail time, restraining orders, and so on?

What difference does it make if it's sexual or not? Doing something illegal will always result in negative feelings, whether it's sexual or something like doing hate speech in a place that's criminalised (such as Germany). You can't avoid that unless the culture changes such that not only it's legal, but it won't result in negative backlash.

I disagree about negative feelings and the law, people jaywalk, speed, take drugs, and while still being gravely serious about the sexual mores of a society. For comparison, how many pop culture references can you think of that refer to making use of drugs compared to references to performing sexual assault? Certain laws are more socially acceptable to break than others, which reflects a difference in emotional reactions.

But back to homework, force and coercion were still used nonetheless. I fail to see what's the difference as long as the parent does it to their child. Since it's assumed that parents have the child's best interests in mind, it is thus argued that a parent coercing their child to do something, whether it's forcing their religion on their child or getting them to go to school even if there's no guarantee that she/he will ever get a job, is justified. As such, if the parent deems it fit to have AMSC with their child on the basis that it'll benefit them in the future, is it really that objectionable? What if it was a state worker under the government's auspices who did it?

The idea is that education contributes to the autonomy of the child in the long-run, child marriage isn't setting a child up to be free whereas being forced to learn to read is. I would say as long as the child is genuinely willing/there's no external pressure (e.g. it isn't a veiled form of prostitution), there's no need for it to have any long term benefit to the child; to a certain limited degree it could be compared to another physical activity like sports, in order to use up a child's energy.

Point being, while I don't necessarily think coercion is right, there are myriads of ways which coercion for non-sexual reasons with worse risk than simple sex that society is willing to justify, showing that yes, society will uphold double standards based on arbitrary reasons. If it can be argued that sex is beneficial to a child (particularly taught to them by someone they trust), do we have any right to oppose it? Given the well-documented adverse effects of inceldom in men, it would definitely be beneficial for heterosexual minor boys, especially if their adult partner was female. I'm not sure about gay sex, but it might be too traumatising for boys or have too many negative effects depending on the culture. As for girls, I would need to think through it, but legalised parentally-approved youth-adult marriage would definitely be a good step imo.

I mostly agree with this, to be honest.

Fair enough. But the thing is, trauma is not inherent to sex and neither are the meanings people attach to it, and people (including most adults) do make regrettable decisions all the time. As I pointed out before, if avoiding regrets was the ultimate goal, you'd have to take away everyone's free will since one way or another they would have bad feelings over a past decision they made eventually. Because I'm more concerned with the adverse effects of these draconian laws than how the bad feelings are generated. Perhaps I'm too jaded, but I don't think there is any way to dissipate those violent impulses again us without being blunt.

I don't say avoiding regrets is the ultimate goal, just that certain intense regrets should be avoided where possible.
I do think there is a way to dissipate violent impulses. The decriminalization and eventual legalization of MDMA and other psychedelics would make our culture substantially more emotionally stable in my opinion, but that's beyond the scope of this discussion as well as verging on violating rule 1.

Regarding sexual harassment (or other kinds of workplace harassment), I think the term is overused. When a pattern of behavior has been established, ignoring requests to stop, then I think it might be necessary
How about unsolicited dick pics? Single incident? No legal involvement.
Asking what color underwear a woman is wearing? Single incident? No legal involvement.
Stalking a person? Involves a pattern of behavior, so legal intervention may be necessary.
Groping? It depends on the manner and circumstances of touching. But I imagine legal consequences in our current society would be beyond what I deem necessary.

I believe harassment, like bullying, needs to be persistent in order to merit strong intervention. Otherwise it should be able to be solved by negotiation between the involved parties. It's only where that negotiation fails that a stronger authority needs to get involved.

You said you agreed with Fragment's view that people's emotional responses to sex isn't the government's business. I gave you examples of where sexual harassment goes beyond a casual sex joke, none of which necessarily involve being employed. Capital punishment isn't the only way the law is applied to a problem. Would you admit that some forms of sexual harassment do require government intervention, e.g. jail time, restraining orders, and so on?

For the inappropriate behaviour to warrant hard power from the state, the behaviour would need to be persistent. A lewd comment isn't enough to merit intervention, and neither many of the cases you mentioned. Apart from stalking and "groping" (depending on the context) I don't see reason for personal intervention.

I disagree about negative feelings and the law, people jaywalk, speed, take drugs, and while still being gravely serious about the sexual mores of a society. For comparison, how many pop culture references can you think of that refer to making use of drugs compared to references to performing sexual assault? Certain laws are more socially acceptable to break than others, which reflects a difference in emotional reactions.

Yes, and you're part of the problem by holding onto sexceptionalist mores. There's no reason as to why sex should be held onto a special place in a society that doesn't value female virginity for marital purposes. Many of the negative feelings people have about sex is due to over-socialisation leading them to be scared of sex and other activities deemed "risky". there are many crimes which cause trauma, and yet sexual assault (defined by the use of force, rather than illicit age gap) is only given more importance since females are more affected by it: https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/com ... _domestic/

The idea is that education contributes to the autonomy of the child in the long-run, child marriage isn't setting a child up to be free whereas being forced to learn to read is. I would say as long as the child is genuinely willing/there's no external pressure (e.g. it isn't a veiled form of prostitution), there's no need for it to have any long term benefit to the child; to a certain limited degree it could be compared to another physical activity like sports, in order to use up a child's energy.

I didn't talk about education though, I talked about compulsory schooling i.e., forcing children to go school even if there's no clear benefit for them beyond some assumptions. I'm not sure why would you bring "autonomy" here, since no one thinks compulsory is about "autonomy" or "freedom", and by the way you already disregarded it the moment you decided that coercion is good for them if it'll benefit them in the long run. It should also be noted that one of the ways minors used to be emancipated was via adult-youth marriage, so your point is erroneous. adult-youth marriage is a choice after all, whether the minor girl does it, or her parents on her behalf. In fact, that's the whole discussion is ultimately about: Not boys, for which people aren't possessive of, but girls. Marriage is a far better way to sanction girl-love than having a convoluted and ever-changing definition of what constitutes "consent" regulating heterosexual relationships, particularly those with an age gap.

I don't say avoiding regrets is the ultimate goal, just that certain intense regrets should be avoided where possible.

Then it should be up to the individual how to deal with it. How one feels about something, or regret about it, is subjective and can't be quantified, so should universal bans be implemented to avoid regrets? I think not, and I think secularisation is partly to blame for government intervention into the private affairs of people in ways even more intrusive than past societies and cultures.

I agree it would need to be persistent, I disagree that it needs to reach the level of stalking.

Why? What penalties would you suggest then? A restraining order?

You can't say for certain that people's discomfort with sex is solely cultural. I've never heard of a culture that had no sexual taboos, just different ones. If you want to go down the "everything is a social construct" route, that's up to you.

Sure, every society has a sexual taboo of some kind, but does that really make them correct? Shouldn't these taboos be questioned in the first place, unless it is found that said taboos have any legitimacy? If the digits isn't legitimate, then it should be dismissed. Remember, history was shaped by small groups of agitators that managed to influence a silent majority, not by "the people". So I don't think that we'll have to engage with every single objection a norm may have.

You constructed a strawman, and I tried to give you an actual challenge. Fighting strawmen isn't how you build stronger arguments.

How is applying your logic to another situation a straw man? As pointed out multiple times by others, sex is a relatively simple activity, and the meanings attached to it aren't inherent. that you hold a special meaning to it is more of the leftover of christian purity culture influencing your thoughts than the idea that sex is something uniquely special. I guess the closest thing would be sexual reproduction, but honestly having sex being deemed as special within a religious purity culture is far less offensive compared to revering sex as special in a secular nihilistic one.

You brought up homework, something which isn't inherent to education, as much as being inherent to schooling. Hence why I talked about schooling rather than education. Which is going to be relevant since...

The difference is qualitative rather than quantitative. Freedom isn't just the absence of restraints, it's self-realization. In the context of education a person develops the self-understanding that makes them free. For example, teaching an infant to speak makes them reach a level of self-understanding that they wouldn't otherwise have.

Again, I'm talking about schooling, not necessarily education. Schooling does require coercion far more than education, and does carry risks as shown with the phenomenon of schools-to-prison pipelines and with the western model of compulsory schooling falling behind the demands of the modern labour market, it's questionable if there are benefits to it, or if it's even necessary to produce anything other than a labour force capable of just manual labour.

If coercion can be justified even then, then secular society is just upholding a double standard by forcing minors below the magic age line of consent to remain as virgins whilst coercing them to go to school with uncertain results, despite the fact that sex inherently has less risks short of Pregnancy of STIs. If coercion can be justified in one situation and not in another, it should have more of a basis than "oooh, it's too icky for me".

I don't really get what you're talking about here. I'll take it that you're trying to argue that being legally recognized as being emancipated is the same thing as receiving education. I'm not talking about legally recognized freedom, I'm talking about having the actual ability to make choices.

There's no reason as to why marriage can't be deemed as a form of self-actualisation, unless you're against adult-youth marriage for whatever reason. And as I said before, does it really matter whether the marriage was coerced or not if there are actual benefits, such as upward social mobility? I think not, especially when the choice is made by the parents, who have the best interests of the child in mind.

More black and white thinking.

In any case, I'm not going to bother arguing with you in the future. Clearly you have your libertarianism that you're deeply invested in, and virtually my entire way of thinking is opposed to that. We can't have a productive conversation unless we're arguing from the same foundations.

Well, you're the one who thinks the government should come in to boss people around in to avoid regrets, so you do you, though I don't think that whatever sexual hang-ups secular humanist society has are correct or should be the model for which human sexual mores should based on, nor do I think that sex is so risky that a high age of consent + overly-punitive regime are needed.

Edit: I should clarify that the reason I support adult-youth marriage as a remedy is also because that would provide checks and balances for adult-child relationships (not youth, as many so-called "teens" or young adults do have similar decision-making skills to that of standard adults, so they likely won't need more protections than legal adults already have), given that the main concern with "pedophilia" comes down to promiscuity and the fears of unrestrained sexuality, and what better way than parentally-approved marriage in the case of actual adult-child relationships? If anyone has a better alternative, please elaborate below this post.

Artaxerxes II wrote: ↑Thu Aug 15, 2024 7:19 pm How is applying your logic to another situation a straw man? As pointed out multiple times by others, sex is a relatively simple activity, and the meanings attached to it aren't inherent. that you hold a special meaning to it is more of the leftover of christian purity culture influencing your thoughts than the idea that sex is something uniquely special. I guess the closest thing would be sexual reproduction, but honestly having sex being deemed as special within a religious purity culture is far less offensive compared to revering sex as special in a secular nihilistic one.

While I think society makes too big a deal out of sex, I think this goes too far in the other direction. The special meaning assigned to sex isn't just as a result of Christian purity culture. Sex might be "simple", but it also fundamentally changes the brain in ways that many other activities just don't. I've had sexual experiences with people I've felt ambivalent towards, only to grow much closer to them emotionally as a result of sexual contact. Sex drive is a hunger that doesn't exist towards almost any other activity. Humans take risks for sex that we wouldn't for most other kinds of activity. Sex, on a very fundamental, biological level is different to almost any other activity we engage in.

Now that "specialness" doesn't necessarily mean that it's something to be avoided or saved for marriage or anything of the sort. We can have a sex positive culture that recognises the exceptional nature of sex as distinct from most other activities. During the sexual revolution sex was seen as empowering, rather than threatening, and I definitely think that's a healthier attitude. But if anyone tries to tell me with a straight face that having sex is no more meaningful than watching a movie I'm going to assume they haven't had a lot of experience with sex.

What to do about the exceptional nature of sex is another question. I agree that our current society demonizes sex in a way that isn't healthy. But the idea of sex being exceptional is something I'm never going to move on.

Fragment wrote: ↑Fri Aug 16, 2024 7:58 am

Artaxerxes II wrote: ↑Thu Aug 15, 2024 7:19 pm How is applying your logic to another situation a straw man? As pointed out multiple times by others, sex is a relatively simple activity, and the meanings attached to it aren't inherent. that you hold a special meaning to it is more of the leftover of christian purity culture influencing your thoughts than the idea that sex is something uniquely special. I guess the closest thing would be sexual reproduction, but honestly having sex being deemed as special within a religious purity culture is far less offensive compared to revering sex as special in a secular nihilistic one.

While I think society makes too big a deal out of sex, I think this goes too far in the other direction. The special meaning assigned to sex isn't just as a result of Christian purity culture. Sex might be "simple", but it also fundamentally changes the brain in ways that many other activities just don't. I've had sexual experiences with people I've felt ambivalent towards, only to grow much closer to them emotionally as a result of sexual contact. Sex drive is a hunger that doesn't exist towards almost any other activity. Humans take risks for sex that we wouldn't for most other kinds of activity. Sex, on a very fundamental, biological level is different to almost any other activity we engage in.

Now that "specialness" doesn't necessarily mean that it's something to be avoided or saved for marriage or anything of the sort. We can have a sex positive culture that recognises the exceptional nature of sex as distinct from most other activities. During the sexual revolution sex was seen as empowering, rather than threatening, and I definitely think that's a healthier attitude. But if anyone tries to tell me with a straight face that having sex is no more meaningful than watching a movie I'm going to assume they haven't had a lot of experience with sex.

What to do about the exceptional nature of sex is another question. I agree that our current society demonizes sex in a way that isn't healthy. But the idea of sex being exceptional is something I'm never going to move on.

I see where you're coming from, and I agree that sex has a unique place in human behavior, but I think that uniqueness can be overemphasized. It's true that sex can lead to pair bonding, and there's biological evidence to support that. However, the way we elevate sex to a special status in society seems to be more of a cultural construct than something inherent to the act itself.

You mention that sexual experiences can deepen emotional connections, which is valid. But I think it's important to recognize that not everyone shares this experience. For some, sex might not carry the same emotional weight, and they might view it more casually without feeling the same need for 'sexceptionalism.'

The idea that sex is fundamentally different from other human activities might hold true in some contexts, especially when discussing the biological drive for reproduction. However, when we strip away cultural and societal layers, it's also possible to see sex as another form of human interaction, albeit one with unique consequences like pregnancy and STIs.

As for the perspective of sexual identity, I understand that as a gay man, sex might hold particular significance in your life and experiences. But from a purely atheistic or secular viewpoint, where there's no inherent moral or spiritual meaning attached to sex, it's difficult to argue that sex should be treated as fundamentally different from other behaviors, beyond its biological consequences.

Ultimately, I think we can acknowledge that sex has a unique role in human life while also questioning whether it needs to be placed on a pedestal. Perhaps a more balanced approach is to recognize its importance without making it something that defines our societal values or laws. I would favour saving (female) virginity for marriage given that so much of the current pedophobia is driven by the fear of men having relationships with young girls, so putting a check-and-balance on promiscuity in a way that the girl's parents have more say and power to approve it seems a better middle ground, but I'm open to other proposals.