This is topic Hey, hey! Ho, ho! Sexy cheerleading has got to go! in forum Your News! at The Geek Culture Forums!.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.geekculture.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=002362

Posted by Cap'n Vic (Member # 1477) on May 05, 2005, 13:04:
 
Pretty sad.
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on May 05, 2005, 13:38:
 
To be fair, if their cheerleading routines actually do lead to pregnancies and STDs, then they probably do need to tone them down a little.

On a more serious note, have a look at GWBs attitude to fighting AIDS
 
Posted by Aditu (Member # 2340) on May 05, 2005, 14:32:
 
I live near a school and sometimes see them practicing routines. Some are more like a stripclub than a cheer and they are in middle school.
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on May 05, 2005, 14:40:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Aditu:
I live near a school and sometimes see them practicing routines. Some are more like a stripclub than a cheer and they are in middle school.

Pictures !
</WWCVD>
 
Posted by Orpheus (Member # 2397) on May 05, 2005, 14:46:
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:
On a more serious note, have a look at GWBs attitude to fighting AIDS

gaarrhh what a [edit: muted-explitives deleted for sake of board]

that's just wrong on so many levels

*stops off grumbling incoherently*
 
Posted by Sxeptomaniac (Member # 3698) on May 05, 2005, 15:26:
 
I'm not a fan of legislating morality. The process butchers any common sense that might have been part of the original intent.

I also think that the people who allow or even encourage teen girls to turn a dance routine into a sleazy show for pedophiles deserve the crappy laws they get. I don't particularly like feeling dirty if I happen to see a show like that at a high school sports game.
 
Posted by SilverBlade (Member # 3541) on May 05, 2005, 17:47:
 
I find the whole concept of cheerleeding very odd. Why are there a bunch of girls prancing and doing somersaults everywhere? They chant "Go go Countryhill School!" or whatever, but I am certain that they want all eyes on them only.

And to see schools with their awards for cheerleading? And girls getting upset, angry, horrible for not getting into the cheerleading squad? And those who get in are instantly the most popular girls in school and become all high-and-mighty?

Absurd really. Quite absurd.
 
Posted by ZorroTheFox (Member # 917) on May 05, 2005, 17:50:
 
I heard they discovered weapons of ass seduction
 
Posted by GameMaster (Member # 1173) on May 05, 2005, 21:25:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sxeptomaniac:
I'm not a fan of legislating morality. The process butchers any common sense that might have been part of the original intent.

I also think that the people who allow or even encourage teen girls to turn a dance routine into a sleazy show for pedophiles deserve the crappy laws they get. I don't particularly like feeling dirty if I happen to see a show like that at a high school sports game.

Morality, basic simple morality, is all that should be legislated. Why are murder's illegal? Because killing in cold blood is wrong.
 
Posted by jordanv (Member # 3189) on May 05, 2005, 22:14:
 
Killing is wrong because we don't want it done to us.

We are participating in a social contract where we rule out force because we, as individuals, recognise that the benefits of force (phat lewt) are outweighed by the consequences (revenge murders, burning our houses down, getting stolen from).

Morality has absolutely nothing to do with legislation. I don't think ethics even exists.
 
Posted by GameMaster (Member # 1173) on May 06, 2005, 00:04:
 
Killing is wrong because we don't want it done to us.
"Follow a maxium such that you could reasonably legislate as the universal legislative" -- Kant

Yes, that is exactly why, because it is immoral -- by the very deffinition used to describe morality.

We are participating in a social contract
Social Contract theory is a moral theory, as proposed by Kant, Locke and Jefferson. Other theories include The Greatest Happiness Princible and Moral Relitivisim.

Morality has absolutely nothing to do with legislation. I don't think ethics even exists.
You go on describing the very thing governments are designed to do, and one of the more common moral theories, then say ethics don't exsist?

Am I missing something here?
 
Posted by Sxeptomaniac (Member # 3698) on May 06, 2005, 00:11:
 
quote:
Originally posted by GameMaster:
Morality, basic simple morality, is all that should be legislated. Why are murder's illegal? Because killing in cold blood is wrong.

I probably shouldn't have used such a subjective term as "legislate morality." [Wink]

I think there is a large gray area invoved in deciding what is and what is not a crime. I think a crime primarily is when the rights of a group or individual are taken away by another ("rights," another undefined subjective term [Wink] ).

Morality involves not only how we treat others, but how we treat ourselves. It involves not so much whether or not we denied another of rights, but whether or not we treated them in a way we would like to be treated.

So, I see this law as attempting to prevent these girls from encouraging immoral behavior, as opposed to illegal behavior.

The overlap between the illegal and immoral makes these things a little tricky, but that's my take on it, grossly oversimplified.
 
Posted by BradMan (Member # 3897) on May 06, 2005, 03:58:
 
Um... Murder is wrong because it negatively affects other 'free thinking; free choice' individuals. Not to mention the effect being quite detrimental (death). If you are out to murder someone, they have no choice to whether or not to die... you don't ask them if you can murder them.

In this case though everyone has free choice. No one is FORCED to do anything. Therefore regulation by a government body is definitely NOT needed. If the girls feel they are being showcased in a sexual manner and do not feel comfortable they can (gasp) NOT JOIN THE CHEERLEADING CLUB. If the parents don't like it, they too have choices. One being NOT GOING TO THE GAMES, and the second being not allowing their child to join the club.

No my friends this should not be placed on the shoulders of our government (FYI: they are not our babysitter...YOU ARE AN ADULT!). I'm tired of these overly religeous, morally superior (bwahaha priests and boys anyone?) deciding what should and should NOT be allowed in our society.

-Brad
 
Posted by jordanv (Member # 3189) on May 06, 2005, 04:41:
 
ethics as in metaethics; any form of universal standards.

So technically, morality exists, but not for metaethical reasons.
 
Posted by drunkennewfiemidget (Member # 2814) on May 06, 2005, 05:14:
 
Wow. Sounds like the TX government needs to desperately pull its head out of its ass. If they think disallowing cheerleaders from doing suggestive routines is going to stop them from banging the football team, they've lost their minds.
 
Posted by Erbo (Member # 199) on May 06, 2005, 08:42:
 
Yeah, this is another one of those "don't those guys have anything better to do?" moments. Suggestive cheerleader dance routines causing pregnancy and VD? Honestly, I thought those kind of attitudes went out with high-button shoes.

Ironically, the guy that introduced this measure in the Texas state House is not a religious-right wingnut, as one might have surmised, but Al Edwards, who is (a) black, and (b) a Democrat. Go figure. [Confused]

Thankfully, Texas' state Senate seems to have better sense, and the bill will likely be dropped.
 
Posted by Orpheus (Member # 2397) on May 06, 2005, 08:44:
 
quote:
Originally posted by drunkennewfiemidget:
Wow. Sounds like the TX government needs to desperately pull its head out of its ass. If they think disallowing cheerleaders from doing suggestive routines is going to stop them from banging the football team, they've lost their minds.

The problem is having your head up your ass for so long can lead to learning through osmosis. I see it every day. [shake head]
 
Posted by drunkennewfiemidget (Member # 2814) on May 06, 2005, 08:47:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Orpheus:
quote:
Originally posted by drunkennewfiemidget:
Wow. Sounds like the TX government needs to desperately pull its head out of its ass. If they think disallowing cheerleaders from doing suggestive routines is going to stop them from banging the football team, they've lost their minds.

The problem is having your head up your ass for so long can lead to learning through osmosis. I see it every day. [shake head]
That would work, if you were studying the human rectum.

"IM GONNA SHOVE YOUR HEAD SO FAR UP YOUR OWN ASS, YOULL HAVE TO WEAR YOURSELF AS A HAT!" -- Matt Stone.
 
Posted by TMBWITW,PB (Member # 1734) on May 06, 2005, 09:40:
 
Suggestive cheerleading routines probably don't lead to more teen pregnancies or STDs, but some of those routines do qualify as child pornography. True, the girls on the squad are not forced to join, and probably not forced to do anything they are uncomfortable with, but I've known plenty of sixteen year olds that loved to show off their bodies more than they should have. I'm not sure what standard Texas will use to decide which routines are appropriate and which are not, but I think I approve of some regulation.
 
Posted by Stereo (Member # 748) on May 06, 2005, 09:57:
 
My main question would be - why do they need a legislation about that? Isn't there any adult supervising these cheerleading squads who can put some boundary on what's acceptable in a routine, and what's not? (Or maybe the ones who do are pedophile?)

As for the "not forced to do it" part, I think the social pressure can be quite strong in such a case. Just imagine: "Don't want to do it? No problem, there are plenty of other girls who would just love to take your place." Along with that silly thing that cheerleaders are automatically high in the popularity ladder, tell me, how many of them push their uneasiness aside so they can keep their social status?
 
Posted by Stereo (Member # 748) on May 06, 2005, 10:25:
 
(Sorry, stupidly backed and resubmitted the post.)
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on May 06, 2005, 14:11:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stereo:

As for the "not forced to do it" part, I think the social pressure can be quite strong in such a case. Just imagine: "Don't want to do it? No problem, there are plenty of other girls who would just love to take your place." Along with that silly thing that cheerleaders are automatically high in the popularity ladder, tell me, how many of them push their uneasiness aside so they can keep their social status?

Hmmm.....

Sexually suggestive routines ... increased popularity.....

/me might have spotted a cause-and-effect relationship ....
 
Posted by Sxeptomaniac (Member # 3698) on May 06, 2005, 15:02:
 
Sometimes people seem to forget that there is a range of belief systems in a society, and a balance needs to be struck between the extremes. If some people were too shortsighted to realize that they were going to offend conservatives by dancing that way at public events in Texas, then it's reasonable for the legislature to intervene, even if the resulting laws suck.

"A conservative is a statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the liberal who wishes to replace them with others." - Ambrose Bierce
 
Posted by Zargof McBain (Member # 3856) on May 06, 2005, 15:13:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sxeptomaniac:
Sometimes people seem to forget that there is a range of belief systems in a society, and a balance needs to be struck between the extremes. If some people were too shortsighted to realize that they were going to offend conservatives by dancing that way at public events in Texas, then it's reasonable for the legislature to intervene, even if the resulting laws suck.

"A conservative is a statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the liberal who wishes to replace them with others." - Ambrose Bierce

But by the same token, introducing these laws encroaches on the beliefs of those who believe in freedom of expression. So why does the rights of conservatives appear to outweigh the rights of liberals?
 
Posted by Rhonwyyn (Member # 2854) on May 06, 2005, 16:24:
 
Zargof McBrain said:
quote:
So why [do] the rights of conservatives appear to outweigh the rights of liberals?
That may be the case here, but it's definitely not true in many cases. Following the assumption that conservatives tend toward the moralistic, conversely liberals would tend toward the amoralistic. Consider the case of abortion "rights," where liberals have succeeded in legislating their form of morality--"every woman has the right to do with her body what she wants." The rights of the liberals have definitely not been outweighed by the conservatives.

/me opens another can of worms

What I don't get about the whole right-to-abort movement, especially the argument posed by feminists that it's a woman's body and she has the right to do whatever she wants to, is this: What about the unborn woman who is denied the basic rights set forth as fact/truth in the U.S. Declaration of Independence--the rights to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"? Apparently, feminists only want rights for women who have been born, not those who are germinating in the womb.
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on May 06, 2005, 16:38:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rhonwyyn:
Zargof McBrain said:
quote:
So why [do] the rights of conservatives appear to outweigh the rights of liberals?
That may be the case here, but it's definitely not true in many cases. Following the assumption that conservatives tend toward the moralistic, conversely liberals would tend toward the amoralistic.
Wrong.

Not amoral, just not the same morals as the Christian Conservatives.

All morality is a balancing act, weighing conflicting priorities and deciding who will win and who will lose.

For example, while the Xtian Right adopted the 'Preserve Life At All Costs' approach in the Terry Schiavo case, based on a commandment from a very old book.

Liberals tended to favour the 'Right To Die' approach, based on Ms Schiavos own statements that she'd prefer not to be kept 'alive' as a vegetable, and the belief that the unfortunate woman had actually 'died' over a decade ago.

Both are 'moral' views.
 
Posted by Rhonwyyn (Member # 2854) on May 06, 2005, 16:50:
 
Ehh, arguably, what her husband said were her words... technically the judge ruled on hearsay, the truth of which should be called into question considering the circumstances.

And, morality does not necessarily mean Christian, as you and others have pointed out. Nor does conservative imply Christian. Yes, many Christians tend to hold conservative views, but Christians can also be liberals. In the fight to end abortion, some of the staunchest supporters I know are of the vegetarian Buddhist sort.
 
Posted by Sxeptomaniac (Member # 3698) on May 06, 2005, 17:15:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zargof McBain:
But by the same token, introducing these laws encroaches on the beliefs of those who believe in freedom of expression. So why does the rights of conservatives appear to outweigh the rights of liberals?

I'll echo Rhonwynn here. That position heavily reflects your particular lens with which you view the world (no offense intended. I believe you are biased because I believe everyone is biased [Razz] ). I frequently hear conservatives complain about the liberals always winning, particularly in this area of California, which is conservative but frequently outvoted by the liberal urban areas in state matters.

I consider myself a political moderate, which means I generally feel like I lose on issues whether the liberals or conservatives win.

I try to take solace by believing that things balance out in the big picture. [Wink]
 
Posted by Rhonwyyn (Member # 2854) on May 06, 2005, 17:25:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sxeptomaniac:
I try to take solace by believing that things balance out in the big picture. [Wink]

So to be irreverant here...

Even though the liberals are pro-choice/pro-abortion, they're against war. Meaning, if they pass the first test--birth--no sense killing 'em off later! Well, at least until they're old or have defects (assisted suicide, legalized euthanasia). [Razz]
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on May 06, 2005, 17:29:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rhonwyyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Sxeptomaniac:
I try to take solace by believing that things balance out in the big picture. [Wink]

So to be irreverant here...

Even though the liberals are pro-choice/pro-abortion, they're against war. Meaning, if they pass the first test--birth--no sense killing 'em off later! Well, at least until they're old or have defects (assisted suicide, legalized euthanasia). [Razz]

Not all liberals are pro abortion.
I'm not.

To turn your comment around, how many of the 'Preserve Life At All Costs' side in the Schiavo debate are also avid fans of the Death Penalty and the war in Iraq ?
 
Posted by Xanthine (Member # 736) on May 06, 2005, 17:41:
 
Bush, Delay, Frist...

Not all liberals oppose war. My dad very firmly believes that sometimes war is just and unavoidable (I agree on the second part). He also very firmly believes that our current war is neither just nor was it unavoidable (we see eye to eye on that one). Not all liberals oppose capital punishment either. I'm pretty sure my dad supports it. Not all liberals are in love with the idea of abortion either. I'm not a big fan of it. I hope I am never in the position where I have to consider it. My mom is very much opposed to abortion. Yet neither my mom nor I wish to see abortion made illegal. The price is just too high. Discourage it if you want, but don't ban it. Otherwise we'll be back to the days of backstreet butchers and women douching themselves with turpentine.

Saying all liberals are abortion-loving war-hating hippies is like saying all conservatives are undereducated Jesus-freaks. It is just not true.
 
Posted by Rhonwyyn (Member # 2854) on May 06, 2005, 18:42:
 
Xanthine: Amen.

And that's exactly why I never vote a straight-party ticket. No one party exists that perfectly aligns with my views. I am pro-life, but Republicans tend to be fundamentally agreeable with war and the death penalty. Likewise, Democrats tend to be anti-war (I was a card-carrying member of MoveOn during my college years), but I can't balance that with their pro-choice views.

And that's only the life/death issues.

Yes, I moved the conversation into terms of political parties because that seems to be really what we were discussing. What are conservatives, after all, but people who tend to abide by tradition and be more wary of change? What are liberals, but those who tend toward change and revolution against traditions? (At least, those are the definitions taught us in grade school.) Nothing is wrong with either perspective because many traditions are good. Likewise, change can be good. The problem arises when both sides insist that THEY and only they have the corner on the market of "bestness."

EDIT: I say "tend" in my statements because what I claim may be generally true, but cannot be proven true for 100% of the population. Blanket statements--stereotypes--should be used with caution, if used at all.
 
Posted by GameMaster (Member # 1173) on May 06, 2005, 20:22:
 
So, I see this law as attempting to prevent these girls from encouraging immoral behavior, as opposed to illegal behavior.
There is nothing immoral about it "sexy" cheerleading. They want to pass legislation because they want to impose a higher standard of "precieved decency."

The overlap between the illegal and immoral makes these things a little tricky, but that's my take on it, grossly oversimplified.
I think that it should be grossly simplified. We currently have FAR too much verbage in our far, far too many laws. We wouldn't need them if people would just act morally.
 
Posted by GameMaster (Member # 1173) on May 06, 2005, 20:31:
 
Um... Murder is wrong because it negatively affects other 'free thinking; free choice' individuals. Not to mention the effect being quite detrimental (death).
Why is death detrimental, and why others being "free thinking and free choice" individuals have anything to do with murder. I could argue, though I won't, that society as a whole is bettered by our numbers diminishing -- especially if I bought into all those arguments about the world being overpopulated and man's over crowding being the cause of all "enviromental problems."

If you are out to murder someone, they have no choice to whether or not to die... you don't ask them if you can murder them.
Then do believe that suicide and assisted suicide should be legal?

Then is all accidental death illegal because the death took away their choice.

In this case though everyone has free choice. No one is FORCED to do anything. Therefore regulation by a government body is definitely NOT needed.
Here, here. I never said that the cheerleaders were immoral. I never ment to imply such a thing.

If the girls feel they are being showcased in a sexual manner and do not feel comfortable they can (gasp) NOT JOIN THE CHEERLEADING CLUB. If the parents don't like it, they too have choices. One being NOT GOING TO THE GAMES, and the second being not allowing their child to join the club.
Taking away her daughter's precious CHOICE. There are lots of things we don't have control or choice over. Deal.

No my friends this should not be placed on the shoulders of our government (FYI: they are not our babysitter...YOU ARE AN ADULT!). I'm tired of these overly religeous, morally superior (bwahaha priests and boys anyone?) deciding what should and should NOT be allowed in our society.
Passing religous dogma, and true moral laws into law are two complety different things.
 
Posted by TMBWITW,PB (Member # 1734) on May 06, 2005, 20:37:
 
quote:
Originally posted by GameMaster:
There is nothing immoral about it "sexy" cheerleading. They want to pass legislation because they want to impose a higher standard of "precieved decency."

If they were talking about cheerleaders for professional sports teams or colleges I would agree, but it looks like they are talking about high school (and maybe junior high?) cheerleading. There is a difference between 20 year old women showing off their bodies and 16 year old girls displaying themselves as sex objects.
 
Posted by GameMaster (Member # 1173) on May 06, 2005, 20:40:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rhonwyyn:
Zargof McBrain said:
quote:
So why [do] the rights of conservatives appear to outweigh the rights of liberals?
That may be the case here, but it's definitely not true in many cases. Following the assumption that conservatives tend toward the moralistic, conversely liberals would tend toward the amoralistic. Consider the case of abortion "rights," where liberals have succeeded in legislating their form of morality--"every woman has the right to do with her body what she wants." The rights of the liberals have definitely not been outweighed by the conservatives.

/me opens another can of worms

What I don't get about the whole right-to-abort movement, especially the argument posed by feminists that it's a woman's body and she has the right to do whatever she wants to, is this: What about the unborn woman who is denied the basic rights guaranteed in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution--the rights to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"? Apparently, feminists only want rights for women who have been born, not those who are germinating in the womb.

Life liverty and Pursuit of Happiness isn't in the constitution, it's in the Declaration... And not it's preable, but the third line of the body. The body reads:

"We take these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. That they are endowed with certian unalienable rights, by their creator. Among these are life, liberty and the presuit of happiness. To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just power from the consent of the goverened. When governments become destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it..." (from memory, so it mat have errors)
 
Posted by Rhonwyyn (Member # 2854) on May 06, 2005, 20:44:
 
Dang! I always confuse those two. It spites me now that I didn't take my teacher up on the offer for extra credit if I memorized the Preamble.

Thanks for that correction, GM! [Smile]
 
Posted by GameMaster (Member # 1173) on May 06, 2005, 20:57:
 
If they were talking about cheerleaders for professional sports teams or colleges I would agree, but it looks like they are talking about high school (and maybe junior high?) cheerleading. There is a difference between 20 year old women showing off their bodies and 16 year old girls displaying themselves as sex objects.
Bah! 16, 20, 50, 3, 106... Where human, we all make mistakes, we're all naive about certian stuff till we learn different [sic -- htink: Think Different], and we all learn at different rates.

<rant>
signs in store windows read "only 2 students allowed in the store at a time." How many people would be out raged if they changed the sign to "only 2 old-folks home patients allowed in the store at time?" Or how about "only 2 [insert racial slur here] in the store at a time." Note, they don't ban them all together, because they'd lose too much money. I've always wanted to orginize a boyot of all stores that have such policies. It's discrimination, plain and simple.

It's illegal, in some states, for a 20 year old to sleep 18 yearold, but it's "okay" for a 19 yearold to sleep with a 90 year old. Tell me that makes sense. Another trip arround the sun, or better yet the 24 hours before your birthday.

When will people come to their damn senses and stop pretending that numbers matter. Personally, I think there are people in their 40s and 60s who should still be considered legal minors, and I know people in their early teens who should be "legal." The system needs to change.

Moreover, the society deems pedophilia wrong, and illegal. I agree, there is a problem when adults force children (or manipulate them) to have sex before they are mature enough to handle it. But the same society also tells women to shave their legs, pits and (sometimes) other places to please us men who want them to appear younger. Women, then, dislike to give their age -- because the older they are the farther they are from being the "ideal" (another rant I won't launch into).

Child labor laws that were originally to protect the children from unsafe conditions and being overworked, have now changed so that few places would consider hiring anyone under 16, and even people who are 16 need to jump through extra hoops
to find employment. I would have liked the extra spending money when I was young, and there were plenty of things I could have done at younger ages.

I don't have a solution to any of this, but the system in regards to age is broken. Period.
</rant>
 
Posted by TMBWITW,PB (Member # 1734) on May 06, 2005, 21:02:
 
I suppose my real issue is that sexually suggestive photographs of sixteen year old girls would always be considered child pornography, and therefore illegal, so why should sexual routines be allowed in public? It's more of an extrapolation of an existing law to me. If it were legal for high school girls to pose for *ahem* certain websites then I would think that any cheerleading routine would be okay (legally).
 
Posted by Rhonwyyn (Member # 2854) on May 06, 2005, 22:00:
 
Here's an interesting take on the liberal vs. conservative argument re: morality.
 
Posted by Sxeptomaniac (Member # 3698) on May 06, 2005, 22:41:
 
quote:
Originally posted by GameMaster:

There is nothing immoral about it "sexy" cheerleading. They want to pass legislation because they want to impose a higher standard of "precieved decency."

You see nothing immoral about it. That doesn't mean that others will not find it immoral. "Perceived decency" and morality are all but indistinguishable in practice. For the purposes here, I'm lumping them together under "morality."

quote:
I think that it should be grossly simplified. We currently have FAR too much verbage in our far, far too many laws. We wouldn't need them if people would just act morally.
And there's my point. If people acted morally, we wouldn't need laws.

I find it interesting that you say it should be simple, but complain about 18 being an arbitrary dividing line in your other post. That line is there to make it simple. When it comes to the legal system, arbitrary lines are necessary. When you don't have those, things get ridiculously complex.
 
Posted by GameMaster (Member # 1173) on May 07, 2005, 00:36:
 
You see nothing immoral about it. That doesn't mean that others will not find it immoral. "Perceived decency" and morality are all but indistinguishable in practice. For the purposes here, I'm lumping them together under "morality."
Morality isn't about "view," ever. Morality is about "following a maxium that you could reasonably legilate as the universal legislative."

And there's my point. If people acted morally, we wouldn't need laws.
Which means laws are to enforce morals. Right?


I find it interesting that you say it should be simple, but complain about 18 being an arbitrary dividing line in your other post. That line is there to make it simple.


But it doesn't, it complicates things. People need to hire people who speak this whole other language "legalese" to makesure they understand what the system is really doing, and what these arbtrary lines are. Adding statues of limitations and adding rules about intent (proving intent is completely impossible).

Granted that it makes the job of judging each case easier, and granted that our courts are part of one of the best justice systems in the world; but, it's far from just. Every circumstance is unique, and writting down every possible circumstance regarding a single action that might judged "illegal" and/or "immoral" would be a problem that is NP hard. I know that laws are needed, but the very spesific way they are written these days (where a person's defense might rest on the meaning of the word "is" or weather the actions were "racially motivated" makes things more difficult.

When it comes to the legal system, arbitrary lines are necessary.
Why?

When you don't have those, things get ridiculously complex.
But it would stop the thing keeping an accused person's life from hanging on the definition of "is," or if the victum (or accused) was 12 or 85. Legaleese, numbers picked out of law maker's asses and how rich the two parties are shouldn't play a role. What is important is the spirt and meaning of the law.

Besides, including ages in the laws means the courts are trying cases against "kids" differently than cases against adults. We also try "kids" differently. Why is this wrong? How outraged would everyone get if it were "lets try old people differently?" Or "seperate but equal" became court policy. It's discrimination. It's just one circumstance where the phrase "equal protection under the law" means squat.
 
Posted by Sxeptomaniac (Member # 3698) on May 07, 2005, 01:13:
 
quote:
Originally posted by GameMaster:

Morality isn't about "view," ever. Morality is about "following a maxium that you could reasonably legilate as the universal legislative."And there's my point. If people acted morally, we wouldn't need laws.
Which means laws are to enforce morals. Right?

Wrong. Laws are to protect rights. Morals go beyond that. Laws only tell me what I shouldn't do, but morality tells me what I should. If I see someone injured and in need of help, yet I just walk by, I wouldn't be breaking any laws, but I would be violating my code of morality.

quote:
But it would stop the thing keeping an accused person's life from hanging on the definition of "is," or if the victum (or accused) was 12 or 85. Legaleese, numbers picked out of law maker's asses and how rich the two parties are shouldn't play a role. What is important is the spirt and meaning of the law.
In order to give the spirit of the law more weight, you would have to put more power on individual judges. Laws get complex in order to set standards. It reduces the ability for an incompetent or corrupt judge to act up, because they have strict rules to follow. Part of the reason the arbitrary lines are there is for our protection. It's not a perfect system because it's not a perfect world.

A lot of the really confusing and convoluted laws come about when someone decides to make a law but can't decide on the arbitrary line, or that line is drawn in the wrong place. That's part of the problem with the cheerleader law referred to. There is no line drawn between what is and what is not sexually suggestive.

quote:
Besides, including ages in the laws means the courts are trying cases against "kids" differently than cases against adults. We also try "kids" differently. Why is this wrong? How outraged would everyone get if it were "lets try old people differently?" Or "seperate but equal" became court policy. It's discrimination. It's just one circumstance where the phrase "equal protection under the law" means squat.
Because "kids" are different. I've read a few studies in which it has been found that, even as teenagers, their brains are not fully developed, which can lead to poor decision-making. (It's getting to late to research that at the moment)
 
Posted by Zargof McBain (Member # 3856) on May 07, 2005, 01:25:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sxeptomaniac:
And there's my point. If people acted morally, we wouldn't need laws.

But who decides what is moral? It seems that some perceive high-school cheerleaders performing sexy routines as immoral, whilst others do not.

Lincoln got it right when he said "you can't please all the people all the time". The myriad opinions throughtout society mean there will always be some that disagree with whatever decision if made. Then as you can see here, there is the usual exchange of rhetoric of everyone trying to justify their opinions. This is all part of being human rather than drones, and it's what makes life great.

So any civilised society needs laws to act as a set of boundaries and guidelines, and you can of course disagree with them, but you are still bound by them.
 
Posted by Zargof McBain (Member # 3856) on May 07, 2005, 01:49:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rhonwyyn:
Zargof McBrain said:
quote:
So why [do] the rights of conservatives appear to outweigh the rights of liberals?
That may be the case here, but it's definitely not true in many cases. Following the assumption that conservatives tend toward the moralistic, conversely liberals would tend toward the amoralistic. Consider the case of abortion "rights," where liberals have succeeded in legislating their form of morality--"every woman has the right to do with her body what she wants." The rights of the liberals have definitely not been outweighed by the conservatives.

/me opens another can of worms

What I don't get about the whole right-to-abort movement, especially the argument posed by feminists that it's a woman's body and she has the right to do whatever she wants to, is this: What about the unborn woman who is denied the basic rights set forth as fact/truth in the U.S. Declaration of Independence--the rights to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"? Apparently, feminists only want rights for women who have been born, not those who are germinating in the womb.

I see a proofreader is never off-duty. [Razz]

I was just commenting on this particular case, and not in general terms, and you are right about abortion being a "victory" for liberals. My point was more why does one persons rights outweigh those of another. Ultimately, a decision is made and someone loses out.

I don't agree that to be liberal you have to be amoral, I would say it's more a case of choosing your own morals rather than having them imposed on you.
 
Posted by jordanv (Member # 3189) on May 07, 2005, 02:33:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zargof McBain:
So any civilised society needs laws to act as a set of boundaries and guidelines, and you can of course disagree with them, but you are still bound by them.

Yes. Remember, individual rights are a significant portion of an aunthentic right-wing political philosophy (which I subscribe to).

Limiting rights and legislating morality is a left-wing political philosophy.

Bush is not a real Republican; simple as that.
 
Posted by Relativistic (Member # 3876) on May 07, 2005, 03:06:
 
I subscribe to the idea that morality is defined by whatever makes us happiest. And despite hormonal stimulation from pornographic imagery, it won't make people happy. Disrespecting the self and the body, parading around intimate things in front of people who don't care about your well-being, and suggesting those personal and intimate things should should be common and taken lightly-- this all destroys human dignity.

Of course, I've shared some intimate things on this board that perhaps I shouldn't have. You're all a bunch of strangers, and many of you don't really care about me. Nor do you know me. There are things of myself that should be given more reverence and respect. By extension, I don't know those cheerleaders down in front of the bleachers putting their bodies on display and acting in a sexually suggestive manner. I don't know what their hopes and dreams are, their fears and insecurities, what makes them laugh, and what makes them happy. I'm a total stranger to them. There's no way they can actually trust me to mentally treat their bodies with respect, and yet they show them to me anyway. There's only one way they can: by not having respect for themselves either. That lack of self respect is what is immoral, and manifesting it by cheapening sacred things only leads to greater self disrespect.

Sacred, of course, can be a loaded word. Life, to me, is sacred. Our identities, what makes us who we are, are sacred. My fears and insecurities, my mistakes, my trials, my successes, my joys... these are sacred. Anything that is important to me such that its ridicule would wound me, that is sacred. The "self" is sacred. Sexual intimacy represents a granting of the self to another person, sharing the sacred with each other. We reserve it only for those we trust implicitly, typically. Whenever we betray and belittle sacred things, there is a feeling, maybe suppressed behind other things occupying our attention, but there nonetheless, that what we've done is dirty. Like we've defiled a temple. Maybe after a while, we become desensitized to that. Sometimes, I have been.

I've always been the most content, most happy when I've had the humility to show proper respect to the sacred. Both things of myself and of others. I wish I always understood this, and I hope I can increase my understanding and not lose it. Anything that cheapens sex is a sullying of something pure, a disrespect of that which should be held in awe and reverence, which awe and reverence should he held because it lies at the very core of who we are. I want to see a football game. I don't want to see young women insult themselves and everybody around them.

I'm not trying to be self-righteous. My own mistakes and irreverence for noble things don't give me the leeway to be self-righteous; the gap between my understanding and my behavior is often large. But, right now, it is something I understand better than I have at most other times, and I have an insight I hope I can maintain. While I have it, and while there's a topic of discussion such as this to provoke some response from me, I feel inclined to share it.
 
Posted by Zargof McBain (Member # 3856) on May 07, 2005, 04:48:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Relativistic:
I subscribe to the idea that morality is defined by whatever makes us happiest. And despite hormonal stimulation from pornographic imagery, it won't make people happy. Disrespecting the self and the body, parading around intimate things in front of people who don't care about your well-being, and suggesting those personal and intimate things should should be common and taken lightly-- this all destroys human dignity.

Or the human body is an art form and you should be proud of displaying its beauty.

quote:
Of course, I've shared some intimate things on this board that perhaps I shouldn't have. You're all a bunch of strangers, and many of you don't really care about me. Nor do you know me. There are things of myself that should be given more reverence and respect. By extension, I don't know those cheerleaders down in front of the bleachers putting their bodies on display and acting in a sexually suggestive manner. I don't know what their hopes and dreams are, their fears and insecurities, what makes them laugh, and what makes them happy. I'm a total stranger to them. There's no way they can actually trust me to mentally treat their bodies with respect, and yet they show them to me anyway. There's only one way they can: by not having respect for themselves either. That lack of self respect is what is immoral, and manifesting it by cheapening sacred things only leads to greater self disrespect.
But you are judging these cheerleaders by your standards, yet you say you know nothing about them, it seems contradictory. Your argument about not being able to mentally trust someone when showing their bodies is a red herring. Why should a cheerleader be concerned that she cannot mentally trust someone to treat her with respect? If you are of that mindset, then would you treat her with respect if she was swimming, sunbathing, or just sat in a classroom. Surely it would be you at fault for having those thoughts and to try and place the blame on her is frankly distasteful. Following your argument does this mean all young girls should be locked away for fear of doing something that could be construed as suggestive and therefore losing self-respect.

How can what *you* think about someone have any bearing on their self-respect? If they are happy doing what they do, then it should not matter what you, me, or anyone else thinks.

quote:
I've always been the most content, most happy when I've had the humility to show proper respect to the sacred. Both things of myself and of others. I wish I always understood this, and I hope I can increase my understanding and not lose it. Anything that cheapens sex is a sullying of something pure, a disrespect of that which should be held in awe and reverence, which awe and reverence should he held because it lies at the very core of who we are. I want to see a football game. I don't want to see young women insult themselves and everybody around them.
Again, you are judging everyone else by your standards. If you want to watch the game, then watch the damn game, ignore the cheerleaders.

You say that sex should be held in reverence, I say sex is a way to reproduce and ensure the continuation of the species. Who's right? It doesn't matter, the point is for me, watching the cheerleaders is just a bit of fun and entertainment. Hell, I tried to to watch the Superbowl last year, and I gave up after about 1/2 an hour, American Football is such a dull game, the cheerleaders were the best thing there. So I say ban the football for being tedious and just have the cheerleaders.

Without cheerleader they would never have made "Bring It On", Kirsten Dunst and Eliza Dushku in short skirts... Mmmmm... Damnit they've just lost all their self-respect.

quote:
I'm not trying to be self-righteous. My own mistakes and irreverence for noble things don't give me the leeway to be self-righteous; the gap between my understanding and my behavior is often large. But, right now, it is something I understand better than I have at most other times, and I have an insight I hope I can maintain. While I have it, and while there's a topic of discussion such as this to provoke some response from me, I feel inclined to share it.
Indeed it is always good to have debate, and I have no problem with anyone having a different opinion, so long as they have no problem with me having a different opinion.
 
Posted by jordanv (Member # 3189) on May 07, 2005, 07:36:
 
So explain again where you got your mandate to enforce your beliefs on mine?

Thats why i believe in legislating basic offences as expounded by Glaucon in The Republic.

You don't want to do porn? dont do it.

you want to have wild sex with every man in the world? go ahead.

Why the hell should i get to decide what you do if you are old enough to know what you want.
 
Posted by ewomack (Member # 3225) on May 07, 2005, 10:26:
 
Morality has as much to do with action as with principle. That's why no universal moral principle could ever catch the entire scope of morality. To believe and to act are two separate things. One could beleive to kill is wrong, and then go out and kill someone and justify it on some other principle. This happens all the time. The case of "dirty cheerleading" lends another example. The current ideology (at least the spoken one) emphasizes "getting government out of people's lives" and "the era of big government is over". Instead what we see are more and more intrusions into people's lives (the gay marriage debate, the Patriot Act, rampant censorship, and of course "dirty cheerleading"). At least most of the sodomy laws have been repealed. Well, most of them.

Western morality tends to focus on the principles alone, and thus gets all washed up and convoluted in language and finding the "Grand Unified Moralistic Theory". Reality is more complex than a theory. One can find cases where relativism makes sense, just like one can find cases where following a maxim makes sense. In the end, morality has a strong situationistic tendency which no principles could entirely engulf. Theorizing becomes almost too abstract to be of any help in many cases.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that morality is inseparable from action and situation, so moral theory only includes half or less of the story.

And in the end, that's why there are so many dead-end debates on the subject. But that doesn't mean debating isn't fun. [Big Grin]

Also: we need to get rid of the conservative / liberal distinction. It's a false dichotomy. In most cases it just confuses things.
 
Posted by jordanv (Member # 3189) on May 07, 2005, 16:11:
 
Yes , and left wing /right wing distinctions are not liberal vs conservative.

Use the political compass (politicalcompass.org) for a better measure of someone's political position.
 
Posted by HalfVast (Member # 3187) on May 07, 2005, 19:49:
 
quote:
Jordanv wrote:

Yes , and left wing /right wing distinctions are not liberal vs conservative.

Use the political compass (politicalcompass.org) for a better measure of someone's political position.


Looks like a online rehash of Pournelle's political axes from 1986.
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on May 07, 2005, 23:42:
 
It occurs to me, this new law in Texas (remember the Texas cheerleader law?) probably means that they'll be needing a team of cheerleading inspectors who will travel around the state, visiting sporting events, and checking the cheerleading for compliance. Probably involves measuring hemlines, checking that the tops are not too revealing, and gathering video evidence of any overly-suggestive routines.

Where do I apply?
 
Posted by Relativistic (Member # 3876) on May 08, 2005, 01:33:
 
quote:
Originally posted by jordanv:
So explain again where you got your mandate to enforce your beliefs on mine?

Probably from my conscience. The same place where you know deep down that what I'm saying is true, and that's why it cut so deep that you reacted so defensively over it.
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on May 08, 2005, 02:27:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Relativistic:
quote:
Originally posted by jordanv:
So explain again where you got your mandate to enforce your beliefs on mine?

Probably from my conscience. The same place where you know deep down that what I'm saying is true, and that's why it cut so deep that you reacted so defensively over it.
My own conscience tells me that public nudity, heroin use, and sodomy should be made compulsory.
If you react defensively to my suggestion, that just proves you know deep down that I'm right.
 
Posted by Zargof McBain (Member # 3856) on May 08, 2005, 06:03:
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:
My own conscience tells me that public nudity, heroin use, and sodomy should be made compulsory.

Cool, you've got my vote. [Wink]
 
Posted by jordanv (Member # 3189) on May 08, 2005, 06:44:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Relativistic:
]Probably from my conscience. The same place where you know deep down that what I'm saying is true, and that's why it cut so deep that you reacted so defensively over it.

Actually , I don't believe anything "deep down". My views on most issues change quite regularly. I accept that I must by necessity exist, but i dont assume anything else does, and I challenge everything.

Besides, are you suggesting we have some kind of universal moral system?

I disagree entirely. What Christians view as moral for example, especially the issue of victimisation of rape victims, i find deplorable.

Does that mean Christians are wrong and I am right? Yes, but only for me. You can believe whatever you want.

P.S: defensive me is where i throw in Hitler.
 
Posted by Groggle (Member # 2360) on May 08, 2005, 10:02:
 
There is a fine line in writing "moral" legislation. Back in the 1970s in Canada there was a whole series of prosecutions and appeals over the so-called "obscenity" laws that were used to regulate pornography.

What it boiled down to was that the term "obscene" could not be adequately described in the language of law. While I believe that there are still laws around the topic of "obscenity", they are only applied in the most extreme of cases.

The proposed law in Texas suffers very much from this problem. (At the age of 15, anything female in a tight outfit is "sexy" no matter how it moves)

I appreciate that the routines may well have gone beyond what the community is comfortable with, but that's a matter for the community to take up with the school policy makers, not in law.

Law is a much stronger vehicle, but it requires much stronger definitions of language as well. The so-called "Communications Decency Act" in the 1990s (Aka the "Helms-Burton act, I believe) is a classic example of this kind of law. It is simply unenforcable because the language used in it is so broad that anything can fall under its wing - including this very discussion. (After all, we are talking about sexually suggestive acts...)

Laws only seem to work when some kind of "harm" can be demonstrated. (my morals being offended is not "harm" in any legal sense) All that the texas lawmakers are doing is adding to the reasons for lawyers to make more money. (Given how many politicians are lawyers, one has to wonder if this is a matter of economic self-interest coming to bear?)
 
Posted by Danimal (Member # 2016) on May 08, 2005, 18:56:
 
Liberal or conservative this is plain dumb legislation. It makes no sense.

What we need is a "Common Sense Party."
 
Posted by Danimal (Member # 2016) on May 08, 2005, 18:57:
 
That being said, I would like to see a lot more "suggestive cheerleading" in an upcoming JOT. YEAH!!! [crazy] [Big Grin] [Eek!]
 
Posted by drunkennewfiemidget (Member # 2814) on May 09, 2005, 06:06:
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:
quote:
Originally posted by Relativistic:
quote:
Originally posted by jordanv:
So explain again where you got your mandate to enforce your beliefs on mine?

Probably from my conscience. The same place where you know deep down that what I'm saying is true, and that's why it cut so deep that you reacted so defensively over it.
My own conscience tells me that public nudity, heroin use, and sodomy should be made compulsory.
Sodomy between two consenting adults is just fine. Compulsory though? *cough* [Wink]

But c'mon people, if someone wants to be nude in public, FEEL FREE! [Big Grin]
 
Posted by GameMaster (Member # 1173) on May 09, 2005, 06:17:
 
quote:
Originally posted by drunkennewfiemidget:
quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:
quote:
Originally posted by Relativistic:
quote:
Originally posted by jordanv:
So explain again where you got your mandate to enforce your beliefs on mine?

Probably from my conscience. The same place where you know deep down that what I'm saying is true, and that's why it cut so deep that you reacted so defensively over it.
My own conscience tells me that public nudity, heroin use, and sodomy should be made compulsory.
Sodomy between two consenting adults is just fine. Compulsory though? *cough* [Wink]

But c'mon people, if someone wants to be nude in public, FEEL FREE! [Big Grin]

Please don't give Sungo any ideas... I'd feel VERY sorry for his neghbors. [Big Grin] [Eek!] [Big Grin]
 
Posted by csk (Member # 1941) on May 09, 2005, 18:22:
 
quote:
Originally posted by drunkennewfiemidget:
Sodomy between two consenting adults is just fine. Compulsory though? *cough* [Wink]

Umm, in some US states, the definition of sodomy includes oral sex.

/just saying [Wink]
 
Posted by Rhonwyyn (Member # 2854) on May 09, 2005, 19:34:
 
quote:
Originally posted by jordanv:

I disagree entirely. What Christians view as moral for example, especially the issue of victimisation of rape victims, i find deplorable.

Could you explain what you meant by this statement? Do you mean that Christians don't think victims of rape are true victims? I'd be happy to point you to many secular and non-secular sources regarding rape and the victim's level of responsibility in the crime. Typically, rape is understood as a violent crime against the victim, and not brought on by any fault of his/her own.

quote:
"Rape is a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear"
Brownmiller, Susan,  Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape, 1975

Brownmiller is a known feminist, but that blanket statement she uses isn't true. I'm a woman and not in a constant state of fear of rape. Yes, I am glad that when I come home from work in the wee hours of the morning I can park my car in the relative safety of my garage and walk through my lightly fenced backyard to my backdoor without fear of being robbed or brutalized. It's easy to get careless, though, 'cause as soon as I begin to rejoice that I'm not as sexually attractive as the next woman, I'm reminded that in most cases rape is not about sex. The Christian churches in Lancaster recognize that, which is why they particpate in post-rape support services.
 
Posted by Rhonwyyn (Member # 2854) on May 09, 2005, 19:39:
 
Ehh, just found the preceding paragraph to that Brownmiller quote:

quote:
[If] the first rape was an unexpected battle founded on the first woman's refusal, the second rape was indubitably planned. Indeed, one of the earliest forms of male bonding must have been the gang rape of one woman by a band of marauding men. This accomplished, rape became not only a male prerogative, but man's basic weapon of force against woman, the principal agent of his will and her fear. His forcible entry into her body, despite her physical protestations and struggle, became the vehicle of his victorious conquest over her being, the ultimate test of his superior strength, the triumph of his manhood.

Man's discovery that his genitalia could serve as a weapon to prehistoric times, along with the use of fire and the first crude stone axe. From prehistoric times to the present, I believe, rape has played a critical function. It is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear.


 
Posted by csk (Member # 1941) on May 09, 2005, 19:43:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rhonwyyn:


quote:
"Rape is a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear"
Brownmiller, Susan, Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape, 1975

Brownmiller is a known feminist, but that blanket statement she uses isn't true. I'm a woman and not in a constant state of fear of rape.
Apart from which she somehow assigns ownership of rape to "all men", which is, frankly, ridiculous. Not all rapists are men, and not all men are rapists.

Edit: I mean, I'm a bicyclist, and when I'm riding, I fear getting hit by a car. But it's a big step to say that cars are are a conscious process of intimidation by car owners to keep bicycle riders in fear. Which is pretty much the same logical leap that she's making.
 
Posted by Rhonwyyn (Member # 2854) on May 09, 2005, 19:48:
 
csk: Totally. Although by being very nature man, they have the POTENTIAL to rape. [Roll Eyes] EDIT: s/potential/equipment/

But anyways. I read most of Brownmiller's book during my undergrad and I respect the extensive research she put into the book (basically lived in NYC's huge library during the years she wrote it). The further chapters aren't so subjective, but wow, that early "all men want all women to fear them" statement is really harsh and might serve to deter people from reading her book.

PSU has a big "Take Back the Night" event each year. Does anyone else's college/university have something similar?
 
Posted by Danimal (Member # 2016) on May 09, 2005, 20:18:
 
I'm sorry. What was this thread about? [Eek!]
 
Posted by maia (Member # 3778) on May 09, 2005, 20:32:
 
quote:
Originally posted by csk:
quote:
Originally posted by Rhonwyyn:


quote:
"Rape is a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear"
Brownmiller, Susan, Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape, 1975

Brownmiller is a known feminist, but that blanket statement she uses isn't true. I'm a woman and not in a constant state of fear of rape.
Apart from which she somehow assigns ownership of rape to "all men", which is, frankly, ridiculous. Not all rapists are men, and not all men are rapists.

Edit: I mean, I'm a bicyclist, and when I'm riding, I fear getting hit by a car. But it's a big step to say that cars are are a conscious process of intimidation by car owners to keep bicycle riders in fear. Which is pretty much the same logical leap that she's making.

Except that most drivers that actually do run into cyclists do not intend to do so, while there is no such thing as an accidental rape.
 
Posted by csk (Member # 1941) on May 09, 2005, 22:00:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rhonwyyn:
csk: Totally. Although by being very nature man, they have the POTENTIAL to rape.

True. But as I said earlier, females also have this potential. Happens less commonly, sure, but it still happens.

quote:

Except that most drivers that actually do run into cyclists do not intend to do so, while there is no such thing as an accidental rape.

True. However, the mere existence of drivers that do it deliberately is enough to make my point, even if it is a much smaller group.
 
Posted by Rhonwyyn (Member # 2854) on May 09, 2005, 22:21:
 
My first education about date rape came through a book my mother borrowed from the public library. It was an attractive book nd contained at least three stories about date rape. One involved alcohol, another involved GHB/Rohypnol, and the third involved a girl seducing a guy I remember as shy and completely stunned that she was undressing him. He stuttered out that he didn't want to have sex, but she kept doing her thing and overpowered him.
 
Posted by jordanv (Member # 3189) on May 10, 2005, 00:44:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rhonwyyn:
Could you explain what you meant by this statement? Do you mean that Christians don't think victims of rape are true victims?

quote:
28 "If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her; he may not put her away all his days.
and also,

quote:
23 "If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the city and lies with her, 24 then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor's wife; so you shall purge the evil from the midst of you.
Deuteronomy 22 makes it really unclear what is meant: the passages from 22 - 29 seem to be dealing with rape, but passage 23 just says "if he meets her in the city and lies with her" - its not clear if this means she has a choice.

Some right-wing christian nutcases (eg KKK) take this to mean that the married woman is responsible if she is raped in the city, but its not her fault if its elsewhere.
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on May 10, 2005, 02:25:
 
And then there's the whole "death penalty for wearing poly-cotton shirts" thing .....
 
Posted by magefile (Member # 2918) on May 10, 2005, 05:58:
 
Has no one here read Disclosure?
 
Posted by TMBWITW,PB (Member # 1734) on May 10, 2005, 11:16:
 
quote:
Originally posted by jordanv:
quote:
28 "If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her; he may not put her away all his days.

This is part of the "If he lies with her in a field" section. It is assumed that she yelled and no one was around to hear, therefore it was not her fault. It also talks about what should be done if her father does not want to give her to him as his wife.

quote:
23 "If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the city and lies with her, 24 then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor's wife; so you shall purge the evil from the midst of you.
Here is assumes that if you are being raped you will yell. If they are discovered doing the deed in the city where there are people that would hear if she was yelling then it was consensual. Consensual fornication "defiled" the people and that merited a death sentence.

I guess it never occured to anyone that someone might be frightened out of screaming. [ohwell]
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on May 10, 2005, 14:11:
 
So, the penalty for rape is marriage and a 50 shekel fine, the penalty for consensual sex is death.

What does that say about the old-timers view of marriage?
 
Posted by Rhonwyyn (Member # 2854) on May 10, 2005, 14:42:
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:
So, the penalty for rape is marriage and a 50 shekel fine, the penalty for consensual sex is death.

What does that say about the old-timers view of marriage?

Actually, it reflects more on their view of rape. If you recall the story of Amnon's rape of Tamar, he lusted for her for a very long time, but after he raped her, he hated her. A forced marriage to the victim would have been a strong punishment for the rapist. Read about it in 2 Samuel 13. Really interesting psychology there.
 
Posted by TMBWITW,PB (Member # 1734) on May 10, 2005, 15:08:
 
I also forgot to mention that elsewhere in Deutoronomy the specify that no one may be put to death on the testimony of only one witness. That means that at least two people would have to catch you in the act *and* notice that no one was screaming for help in order for you to get stoned.
 
Posted by magefile (Member # 2918) on May 10, 2005, 16:06:
 
So the rapist gets punished. Fine, but what about the rapist's victim?
 
Posted by Erbo (Member # 199) on May 10, 2005, 16:16:
 
With regard to the issue of teenage girls, such as cheerleaders, in revealing outfits, among other aspects of present-day culture, Jeff Duntemann (a fellow I know from Colorado Springs) had this to say on the subject:
quote:
So how do we square this good news [that teen sex and pregnancy rates are going down] with the ever-increasing raunch in pop culture? How do we square it with young teen girls wearing clothes that make them look like strippers or worse? What the hell is going on here? [David] Brooks doesn't even try to guess, so I will: Teens are imagining themselves as sexual beings.

In a sense they're playing at sex—in their heads, expressed through their culture—without actually having sex. [...]

The supreme irony is that being able to imagine themselves as sexual beings when puberty happens (and not eight or ten years later) may well make them more functional and responsible sexually as adults. By not insisting that teens pretend to be sexless nine-year-olds until they're in college, parents can allow teens to integrate their sexual identities with all the rest of the personal growth that happens during the teen years. This integration doesn't actually require hands-on sexual experience. (Tom Clancy convinced millions of people that he was a submarine ace without ever having set foot in a submarine. He's a good imaginer.) Nonetheless, such integration is vital to their grounding as adults in adult society.

We won't know for a few years yet, but the result may be more balanced and sane adults. Dare we hope for better marriages and fewer divorces? I do. Support for unlimited abortion is already at its lowest among young women. Something is happening here. More study is needed, but the real numbers seem to be pointed in the right direction.

(This entry was inspired by David Brooks' column here. It's worth reading as well to pick up the background.)

I think Jeff's onto something here...and that would mean that Al Edwards, who introduced that anti-sexy-cheerleader measure in the first place, had it all backwards.
 
Posted by Xanthine (Member # 736) on May 10, 2005, 16:49:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rhonwyyn:
quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:
So, the penalty for rape is marriage and a 50 shekel fine, the penalty for consensual sex is death.

What does that say about the old-timers view of marriage?

Actually, it reflects more on their view of rape. If you recall the story of Amnon's rape of Tamar, he lusted for her for a very long time, but after he raped her, he hated her. A forced marriage to the victim would have been a strong punishment for the rapist. Read about it in 2 Samuel 13. Really interesting psychology there.
Yeah, but what about the victim? I can't imagine she'd be thrilled with the prospect of marrying her rapist.
 
Posted by TMBWITW,PB (Member # 1734) on May 10, 2005, 17:03:
 
Marrying the victim actually would have been a protection for her. As a "defiled" woman, no other man would take her, pretty much sentencing her to a life of poverty (women not being allowed to inherit property unless they had no brothers). By forcing the man to marry her and making it impossible for him to divorce her they ensure that she will at least be taken care of. Now, I agree, the prospect was probably less than thrilling for the victim, but probably better than being poor and cast out for the rest of her life for being "damaged goods". [ohwell]
 
Posted by Rhonwyyn (Member # 2854) on May 10, 2005, 17:13:
 
...And if you read the passage, Tamar suggested marriage to Amnon before he raped her, but he refused. I wish I had a Hebrew Testament so I could compare the words used for love and lust in that chapter. 'Cause if he loved her so much, you'd think he would've married her, or at least not attempted to seduce her (they were half-siblings after all). Maybe it was lust the entire time.
 
Posted by Xanthine (Member # 736) on May 10, 2005, 17:30:
 
I did read the passage, but that doesn't make me feel any better about the laws.
 
Posted by Sxeptomaniac (Member # 3698) on May 10, 2005, 17:49:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Xanthine:
I did read the passage, but that doesn't make me feel any better about the laws.

Well, those laws aren't very good by our standards today, but they were a big step up from the old testament histories. Genesis 34 is a good example, where the son of a town's leader rapes one of Jacob's daughters, and her brothers' response is to kill every man in the town.

Funny this thread should turn to this subject, since I just got back from seeing my little brother, who is on trial for rape. I'm increasingly convinced this particular case is a false accusation, though.
 
Posted by jordanv (Member # 3189) on May 10, 2005, 18:13:
 
Eek, being accused of rape is like the worst thing ever. If its proven, you get beaten in jail. If it's not, people are always suspicious of you for the rest of your life. Whether or not you did it, since it seems its impossible really to prove rape so the laws shield the victims AND unfortunately false accusers.
 
Posted by Sxeptomaniac (Member # 3698) on May 10, 2005, 19:23:
 
quote:
Originally posted by jordanv:
Eek, being accused of rape is like the worst thing ever. If its proven, you get beaten in jail. If it's not, people are always suspicious of you for the rest of your life. Whether or not you did it, since it seems its impossible really to prove rape so the laws shield the victims AND unfortunately false accusers.

It gets worse.

1) His accuser is 13.
2) If convicted, he will be a registered sex offender under Megan's Law, which means this would follow him the rest of his life. His neighbors and employers would have a right to know about this conviction, even 40 years later.
 
Posted by jordanv (Member # 3189) on May 10, 2005, 20:13:
 
How old is your brother?

Yeah that whole thing about hunting down convicted sex offenders is bad - i understand that in America an 18 year old sleeping with a 16 year is statutory rape?
 
Posted by Sxeptomaniac (Member # 3698) on May 10, 2005, 20:38:
 
He's 22, which is particularly bad. Minors under the age of 14 are in a separate class from minors under 18. Even consensual sex with a child under the age of 14 will require a person to be a registered sex offender.

Edit: I just realized I didn't state that quite right. It's if the person convicted is a legal adult that it becomes a very serious offense, and they will be required to be a registered sex offender.
 
Posted by TMBWITW,PB (Member # 1734) on May 10, 2005, 21:01:
 
quote:
Originally posted by jordanv:
i understand that in America an 18 year old sleeping with a 16 year is statutory rape?

In California the answer is, officially, yes. But since the age difference is less than three years if the person was convicted for it they probably wouldn't get more than probation.
 
Posted by drunkennewfiemidget (Member # 2814) on May 11, 2005, 04:51:
 
It's amazing how different the laws are all over the world.

In Canada, the legal age of consent is 14. If a 14 year old has sex with a 13 year old, I'm not sure, though.

The age of consent gets raised to 18 should the older party be in a position of authority over the younger party.. (ie teacher, doctor, guardian, police officer, etc.)
 


© 2018 Geek Culture

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.4.0