quote:

---

But you don't want to lie,
Not to the young ...

---

The secret to sex is that there is no secret.

Surprising, isn't it, what with all the whispers and the winks and the you-better-nots. You'd think that the world must have something up its sleeve, something really good that everyone else is holding onto.

Sex isn't more than you can imagine. It is the same fumbling and cuddling and exercise that you can do anywhere else, but there can be love and tenderness and extra-good feelings (like there can be anywhere else). Some parts of it you only get when someone else is there, especially the closeness, when it comes (sometimes, it doesn't).

To be good at sex, you have to practice, it is true. But that practice is as much getting over your own sense of embarrassment and fear that you'll make some funny noise or that you don't look good, as it is any special flip of the fingers or special technique. And the people in your life who love you don't want you to have sex in large part because that fear and embarrassment can last a long, long time, often longest when you start early.

Sometimes not. You may see friends that are happy with being sexually active (this is very different from just saying you are, by the way). But your best bet is to wait until you've had enough other experiences to get a bit of a hard edge, to spot the users and abusers behind the pretty lies and flowers. This goes for guys as well as girls -- if you think you don't have a heart that can be trampled on and smushed underfoot into bits, just wait. The world has a few things waiting for you.

Heartbreak is easier when there isn't a mess of hopes and dreams made more complicated by sex. You feel less used. You don't feel like you gave something away that will always be out there in the world.

What about being experienced enough at life to be "ready for it?" Don't you still get your heart broken?

Sure, a lot of the times, you do. But you also have other skills to make it easier, and you get to know how to weed out the people who will do the most damage before you let them in.

Waiting to have sex means you'll have a better chance of doing what you want with your life (college, a good job, success in sports), other things being equal. And sex isn't going away anytime soon. People will still be having sex five years from now, even ten years from now.

You won't be growing cobwebs anywhere, you won't get rusted out, and you won't lose it if you don't use it. It will still be there, healthy and ready, without any extra bugs or scars that can come back to bite you later.

Sex isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

It's sometimes tremendous, sometimes comforting, sometimes unworkable. It will be different things to you at different times in your life on different days. This is another reason why those who love you want you to wait: it is as much about what you bring to it as it is what you do. Right now, what you have is still unfolding, and we don't want you to have less out of this or any experience than you could.

Now, sometimes people who love you will tell you to wait to have sex until you are married. Listen to them. Hear them out. They often have good reasons, and they often have a lot of love and caring for you. It isn't my reason, but there are many good reasons besides my reason.

And if you do have sex before you are ready (whenever that is happens to be different for everyone -- there's no date we can point at for you, unfortunately), the world won't fall in. You just may not have as much out of it and of life as you could have. But if bad times come, the thing to do is pick yourself up and carry on. The world will go on.

And sex isn't going anywhere, anyway.



[ September 12, 2004, 05:25 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Um. Stirring, moving essay.

Might I ask what prompted the post?

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
Thanks.

It comes from a question asked of me. I'm curious as to what letters others here would write on the same topic.

If sex had been made less mysterious, I think I wouldn't have been so afraid or intrigued by it as a young adult. I mean, it is a fearful and intriguing thing, but not at all in the way you'd expect. And the mystique of that makes both more and less of it than it should be.
 

---

Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
 
Thank you, Sara! This is one of the most truthful and beautiful treatises of the subject I have ever read.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
I'm not sure that a frank discussion about sex would necessarily dissuade curious and hormonally-driven teens to really alter their approach to sex.

A thorough and frank discussion about the consequences of sex, including STDs of the throat might seriously impact the casual nature with which people approach the topic, but it kinda falls into the love-and-sex issues.

I was something of a social cold fish, so I can't really speak to how the average young man views the topic and as rivka has pointed out, my experience with teen and pre-teen women is more than a little lacking, but I think the overall attitude towards sex and sexual activity is changing.

Given the rise of toys like "Bratz" and the massive influx of erotic themes in pop culture, teens are taking a more casual attitude towards the subject which is even scarier, given the consequences of risky behavior.

Where is my rather meandering reply going? That's a good question. Trying to define "love" and "sex" and the implications of both would go a lot further, I think, than trying to demystify the experience.

Because, let's face it, plenty of adults engage in risky behavior long after the mystery of sex has been explained.

-Trevor

Edited for poor word choice and why lie? I'm still a cold fish.

[ September 12, 2004, 05:37 PM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
 

---

Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
 
Trevor,

What I got from Sara's note is that she is just trying to give some advice to some young people who might be overawed or fascinated with sex. I don't think it's necessary to critically evaluate that advice, since the advice is not harmful, absolute or insistent. People will find it helpful or not, just as they have done for as long as advice has been given.
 

---

Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
 
Can't get much more casual in adult attitudes than WesternEurope, especially the Netherlands. And basicly, increasing casualness is linked to an increase the age at which people begin having sex, along with a decrease in STD transmissions, unwanted pregnancies, abortions, and unplanned-for children.

What "sex between unmarried partners is a sin" accomplishes is to encourage youth to engage in high risk behaviours such as abusing drugs (yeah, alcohol is included) to get past the psychological inhibitions, to work up the nerve to "sin". Which in turn leads to sex at a younger age, high risk casual sex and the consequent increase in STDs, unwanted pregnancies, abortions, and unplanned for babies.
The other aspects are "getting married because of a pregnancy" and increasing serial polygamy -- marry, divorce, marry, divorce... -- cuz folks get married and have kids because they mistake temporary lust for a committed love relationship.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Moral situations aside, it also encourages young people to wait until they are married to have sex.

It does do that.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
I meant no offense and I hope Sara as a medical professional can appreciate my opinions on her essay and not misconstrue my thoughts as an attack on her.

But she wanted to know how others might approach the same topic and I think her approach would work for teens who are enraptured with the mystery of sex, but my thought is not that teens are enamoured of sex, but rather don't appreciate the consequences of what they are about to do and as such cannot make rational decisions on the subject, not that anyone would typically accuse a teen of being rational at the best of times.

-Trevor

Edit: And for all the former teenagers, do you remember your first crush? Your first love?

Looking back, do you feel the same way as an adult that you did as a teen?

[ September 12, 2004, 06:39 PM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
 

---

Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
 
Mmmmm.... sex.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
That was a beautiful letter!

I come from a culture where children are strongly encouraged to wait until marriage to have sex. Some of them do wait. Some don't. But something that often happens in this culture is that children grow up with strong sexual taboos that die hard upon marrying. This can cause strong inhibitions that make it difficult to enjoy married sex.

But I have seen for myself that it doesn't have to be this way. Two families in particular come to mind. The parents were very open about discussing sex and do so with joy, respect, and a fun-loving spirit. The children raised in these families have grown up to have a very healthy view of sex despite waiting until marriage. They are not weighed down with inhibition and guilt.

I have been deeply touched by this. My family was fairly open in talking about it, and as a result I feel I have come away with a fairly healthy attitude about sex. My husband comes from a family where such things were *never* discussed. As a result, he has had some difficulty with his inhibitions. I have inhibitions too, but they mostly come from insecurity--particularly from the cruelty of other kids and the feeling that I don't "measure up".

Anyway, I want to emulate the accomplishment of the two families I mentioned: teaching my children to respect and hold sex sacred, encouraging them to wait until marriage, but to also approach it without fear, guilt, and unrealistic awe. I want to pass on to them positive feelings about it and any wisdom I can impart that will help them to make better choices. I don't know if I will succeed, but I will sure try!
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
I like the advice, but one important subject is left out: Babies.

Don't have sex until you are ready to have a baby. After all, that's what it's for (and there's no protection out there that can absolutely promise you won't end up having to face the difficult choice between killing an unborn child and raising a child you are not ready for.)
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Well, in fact, there is : You stop considering two-week fetuses as 'unborn babies.'
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
Thanks, Jenny, beverly, katharina. Spot on, Johnny. That indeed is where I was aiming.

Trevor, I appreciate the reflective, thoughtful feedback. I was gearing this to a specific person. Although trends may describe many in the group, any personal advice would best be geared to the individual -- and individual experience, background, and sets of assumptions will vary. But your response does help me understand more of how a different individual might better respond to a different approach.

And certainly I would not expect your feedback to have anything to do with a critique of me in my profession. I'm glad you were so frank.

aspectre, I share an understanding of global perspectives with you. Thanks for the real-world reminders.

Tres/Xap, of course. Of course. (Thank you! I needed this feedback. It was a rough draft, but even the roughest draft should have included this.)

How could I have forgotten two of the best pieces of advice I found as a teen?

quote:

---

If anyone tries to get you to do something you don't want to do by saying "trust me," you have very good reason there not to.

and

The appropriate response to "If you loved me, you'd do it" is "If you loved me, you wouldn't push me to do something I don't want to do."

---

I'll be editing my own draft.

(again, thanks)
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
Excellent points about sex, and well written...

(I just wish it would happen to me soon, like this year)
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
And Tres/Xap, you've reminded me to be clear about what "sex" is. Much of sex comes with no risk of resultant pregnancy, but it still counts. (Amazing how many young folk will not include anything but the traditional intercourse in the definition. Really amazing.)
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
Syn, I'll light a candle to the ease of your heart tonight.

Ginger-melon, white with embedded flowers. Round and sweet and with a flame that burns true.

All things in good time.

((Syn))

[ September 12, 2004, 08:17 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
KoM, let's discuss this in a secular manner, since you are a secular-minded individual. There is no such thing as a two-week old fetus. I know what you meant, or at least, I think I do, but it is an important point for accuracy of communication.

There are two different ways to measure the "age" of a developing human. One counts from the first day of the last period. According to this method, week two is the moment of conception. According to another method of accounting, two weeks is approximately the time of implantation and certainly the soonest a woman is capable of even knowing she is pregnant. This is not a fetus, it is an embryo.

This is an honest question, I don't know the answer: how many abortions happen at this point? How many women, the moment they discover they are pregnant rush out and get an immediate abortion? My guess is not many. It is probably difficult to abort something so small without risk to the woman. Again, I don't really know.

Now, granted an embryo is a far more simple life-form than a fetus. A fetus is a far more simple life-form than a newborn. A newborn is far more simple a life-form than a child, and so on. At what point does it become wrong morally to kill? Don't tell me that killing an embryo is not killing. It is a life-form. It is a dependant life-form, a parasite if you will, but it can be killed. The question here is whether or not this killing is moral.

Quite often at the end of a movie we see a phrase to the extent of "No animals were harmed or killed in the making of this movie". But at what point does something cease to be an "animal" under this phrase? Does a fish count? An earthworm? A fly? Certainly a horse does. Or a puppy. People would get really upset if you killed or hurt one of those in the making of a film. But where do you draw the line?

From a completely secular POV (which is not my actual POV) I can see killing a zygote as not such a big deal. But an embryo, with a heartbeat and nervous system.... I am not so comfortable (secularly) with that. Especially if the reason is "convenience". If the mother's life is at stake, or even if there is something seriously wrong with the child, then there might be some room for leeway, weighing one moral choice for another.

I believe that the beating hearts inside the wombs of women deserve protection and life, regardless of my religious beliefs on the matter. Women and men alike should be taught to respect sex because it makes babies. They should be taught not to seek abortion as a solution except in extreme circumstances.

Why is it murder to kill a pre-mie born at 6 months? It certainly is less intelligent than the dog your neighbor euthenized the other day. Because it is human. Why does this reasoning not extend to implanted embryos--if not zygotes which are naturally discarded on a regular basis by the human body?

[ September 12, 2004, 08:22 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
Thanks

I think we need to have a hybrid attitude towards sex, restraint and respect, yet at the same time understanding the gravity and pull of it.
It is a very powerful pull.
It should be considered a sacred bond of sort, creating some sort of energy between people or new life...
I have romantic views on the subject.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 

 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Therse are good questions. I think my answer would be that there is no 'point' at which it becomes immoral to kill the developing life; that is a fiction of convenience that we introduce for legal purposes. However, there is a period of time in which it is not immoral, a period in which it is a bit of a grey zone, and a period (much longer than the other two) in which you definitely do not kill. The current abortion laws, both in the US and in Norway, draw a line at a time that is slightly further into the grey zone than I am entirely happy with - a consequence of being drawn up in the seventies, when a six-month baby was certainly going to die. A limit of eighteen or twenty weeks might be better.

But I think what you are asking is : Do I really think there is a moral difference between a three-week and a three-month fetus? (Or embryo, if that is the correct term). And the answer is, yes, I do. If you like, it is a question of the mother's control over her own body and life. The earlier in the pregnancy, the less separate is the fetus from the mother.

On a side note, have you read Lois McMaster Bujold's Vorkosigan books? (If not, you should do so right away). The ideal solution might be the uterine replicator : If the mother does not want the child, just transfer it to a replicator and let it become a ward of the state. Sort of a pre-birth adoption, without all the messy contractions. Or, of course, there's the nice Betan solution : Everybody gets sterilised at fourteen, and to have children you need to have a permit and an operation. But that's with thirtieth-century technology, admittedly - hardly a solution we can apply here and now.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

Do I really think there is a moral difference between a three-week and a three-month fetus? (Or embryo, if that is the correct term). And the answer is, yes, I do. If you like, it is a question of the mother's control over her own body and life.

---

I can understand this reasoning. Certainly there is a unique relationship between mother and the unborn. The unborn is dependant on the mother and the mother must take risk in order to bring that life to the point of relative independance. This is why I am understanding of women who's health is at stake. But when it is a matter of "oops, forgot my pill!" or even "we did everything right to prevent pregnancy and still got pregnant" I have issues.

I have not heard of the book you mentioned. I am fascinated by the idea of transfering an unborn to another fetus--perhaps that of a donor mother--a woman who is willing to bear it. That is a beautiful idea, and I far prefer it to killing that life-form. I would give my full support for research in that direction. I wonder how much more difficult it would be than a routine abortion?

The concept of needing a permit to become fertile is an interesting idea. I must admit being a little sad that it is not feasable technologically right now.

[ September 12, 2004, 08:46 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
Routine abortions normally consist (for a large part) of "vacumming" the womb and just sucking out the zygote (or whatever stage the child is at then), doing it in such a way as to preserve and seperate the child from everything else would undoubtly be much more invasive.

[Note: vacumming is a very crude term I know, but I can't think of a better one, and it's pretty much it as far as I know ]

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by delicate flower (Member # 6260) on :
 

quote:

---

and there's no protection out there that can absolutely promise you won't end up having to face the difficult choice between killing an unborn child and raising a child you are not ready for

---

quote:

---

It is probably difficult to abort something so small without risk to the woman.

---

AFAIK, not really. The limiting issue is really the diagnosis of pregnancy, not that something so small makes it dangerous for the woman to abort. D&C isn't used routinely now; most early elective abortions are by vacuum aspiration [as noted by Hobbes above ]. This is being replaced (I believe) by mifepristone (RU486) prescribed with a prostaglandin, which is about 96-97% effective and can be used as early as pregnancy is diagnosed, again AFAIK & can tell by research.

Info at emedicine's Surgical Management of Abortion. I think you'd appreciate the wording of the article:

quote:

---

Abortion is by definition a failure. The failure can be the result of the mother's lack of access to care, failure of the contraceptive method, failure to use contraceptives, or failure of the normal reproductive process (eg, fetal anomalies, fetal death, maternal illness)

---

quote:

---

Adequate counseling with discussion of all options available for the pregnancy and explanation of abortion options, risks, and complications is mandatory.

---

quote:

---

Women and men alike should be taught to respect sex because it makes babies.

---

I really appreciate the testimony of your [belief]* and your clarification of terminology, beverly. I'd add a plug that we include certain non-reproductive actions in the term "sex," too, but that's certainly more of an enhancement than a contradiction. My definition of "sex" as communicated to young persons is whenever lips or hands or "parts" touch anyone else's "parts," with "parts" being what is covered by the typical bathing suit.

I suppose one could be creative with elbows and such, but that exhausts my ability to cover in five minutes.

[edit: *changed from "faith," as I understand you are striving for a secular approach. You (and everyone else) are welcome to discuss faith, BTW -- I just started this as a notedly secular approach to address any expectations early on.]

[ September 12, 2004, 09:02 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
 

---

Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
Beverly-
From a secular standpoint, there really isn't much difference between an abortion (at least up until some ill-defined point) and eating an egg. The reason is, that most people who look at it from a secular standpoint won't see an embryo as a person, and hence not worthy of an extra moral value compared to any other non-person life, such as cows, chickens, eggs, flies, or sometimes vegetables depending on the person's moral world view. (Differentiating human from person). To grant extra moral value to an embryo as compared to other non-person life, requires either granting extra weight because of a soul, or becauce of potential personhood. Most people who grant weight because of potentiality, believe in the soul, as well.
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
For clarification regarding immediate complications for first trimester elective abortions (from emedicine as above):

quote:

---

Complication rates are low: 0.071% for hospitalization and 0.846% for minor complications. Abortion complications requiring hospitalization include incomplete abortion (0.028%), sepsis (0.021%), uterine perforation (0.009%), vaginal bleeding (0.007%), inability to abort (0.003%), and combined pregnancy (0.002%). Minor abortion complications include infection (0.46%), repeat suction (0.18%), cervical stenosis (0.016%), cervical tear (0.01%), seizure (0.004%), and underestimate of dates (0.006%).

Manual vacuum aspiration has the following complication rates: infection, 0.7%; perforation, 0.05%; retained POC, 0.5%; and repeat aspiration, 0.5-0.25%.

---

Long-term complications of first trimester elective abortions are yet more rare. This is in marked contrast to long-term complications of PID, by the way -- it is a significant cause of infertility.

adam613, what a delightful and considered response. I wish I had you with me during conversations with young people.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
The uterine replicator is a machine, actually. The sort of transfer you mention might be more feasible, since you wouldn't have to engineer something capable of supplying the whole environment of the womb - clearly a complex business at best. It does pose a bit of a moral issue, though, in that such a transfer would clearly be rather risky before the technology was perfected - sort of a 90% abortion. I get confused, here : Is it OK to do surgery that has a 90% chance of killing the embryo, if the alternative is a 100% chance of an abortion? I think so, but I can see where you could start a rather slippery slope.

You should definitely read the Vorkosigan saga : You're in for a treat. When I first discovered these books, I bought one per two days for two weeks, until I'd bought all that were out. Which didn't do my budget any good, but was a lot of fun while it lasted.
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
Oh, yeah, KoM! Anne Kate from here at Hatrack introduced me to Lois McMaster Bujold, and I'm forever in her debt.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

Maybe Xaposert could have said “face the difficult choice between an terrifyingly uncomfortable procedure involving an extremely sensitive area of your anatomy often resulting in lifelong mental angst and raising a child you are not ready for.” But, even as it stands his point about being able to deal with the consequences of your actions before you act is a very valid one. Not only about sex, but about anything we choose to do.

---

quote:

---

Oh, yeah, KoM! Anne Kate from here at Hatrack introduced me to Lois McMaster Bujold, and I'm forever in her debt.

---

Half of Hatrack is eternally in debt to AK, if only for her kindness and generosity in our times of need.

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
Yah, it would Bev. But I have a feeling that this wouldn't be the main obstacle, if we conquer the artificial womb I'm sure we'll be able to conquer extraction.

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Sara, thanks for the info! That was very helpful and informative.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

From a secular standpoint, there really isn't much difference between an abortion (at least up until some ill-defined point) and eating an egg.

---

Hmmm, I'm not so sure. I would equate eating a bird egg with menstration--in both cases an unfertilized egg is lost. As a side note, in the Philippines they eat fertilized duck eggs at different stages of development. I have eaten them more than once, kind of a "dare" sort of thing. Anyway, they are often jokingly referred to as "abortion eggs".

Since I eat far more developed animals than an unhatched duck on a regular basis, I don't feel all that bad about it. But I also would not eat human flesh (unless maybe I were desperate and no one had been murdered.)

Why will humans eat animals but not other humans? Why won't humans eat eat dog, cat, or horse nearly so often as pig, chicken, and cow? Why is it wrong to kill a 6 month old premie?

We seem to hold a different morality for humans than for animals, at least, the majority of us do. Why doesn't this extend to the unborn human?
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
An artificial womb! Wow. Could science ever really immitate the function of a placenta? That would be truly amazing.

Oh, and I am intrigued by these books you mentioned. It sounds like they need to go on my reading list.
 

---

Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
Because, as I said, from a secular standpoint, there really isn't the "human" identification (I list it as person) until much later in development.

Most people will put the human fetus above a dog or a cat in terms of the amount of moral value it has, but still below a person.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

Most people will put the human fetus above a dog or a cat in terms of the amount of moral value it has, but still below a person.

---

OK, so along this line of reasoning, is a newborn below a person? Is it OK for Jane Doe to euthenize her newborn after discovering it has a terminal illness?
 

---

Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
Dagonee, there are very few secularists who will take that stand point, and I left room for them in my post.

In my second post, I clarify that most secularists are going to put a human fetus higher on the moral worth list then, for example, a dog... but lower then themselves or other people.

Almost everyone on the planet places things on a "moral worth" scale. Those who believe in a soul, and believe embryo's have a soul, will obviously place embryo's at the same point on the scale as everything else that has a soul, since the soul transcends our physical state.

Those who don't believe in a soul, are very likely to place "persons" at the highest end of the moral worth spectrum, and by almost every secular usage of the word "person" an embryo isn't one.
 

---

Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
"OK, so along this line of reasoning, is a newborn below a person? Is it OK for Jane Doe to euthenize her newborn after discovering it has a terminal illness?"

Depends. Personally, I would argue that a newborn IS a person. Most people do argue that. BUT, if you could craft a convincing argument that a newborn isn't a person, I would say that killing that newborn wouldn't be an act of murder. I don't believe such an argument exists, however, that could convince me that a newborn is not a person.
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
Dag, Henthoff seems to oversimplify the matter as well. However, I am very very far (light-years, even light-eons) from having any interest in debating the personhood of a fetus right now, so I'll leave it at the noting that like any controversial topic, small platforms by their very nature cannot sustain the full debate.

However, you might be interested in the article/chapter "The fetus as a patient: historical perspective" by Harrison MR in The Unborn Patient: Prenatal Diagnosis and Treatment.(2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA; WB Saunders Company, 1991, pages 3-7) It is a sympathetic development of Henthoff's point as you note it above.

[ September 12, 2004, 09:31 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Guys (used as a gender neutral phrase to encompass all the above),

We're moving a bit far afield of the original intent of this thread.

Entire pages have been devoted to the subject of abortion and related topics and I don't think derailing Sara's thread is going to accomplish the search for greater insight.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
" Not only are there many, many atheists and agnostics, there are a lot of religious people who go to great lengths to use secular reasoning for the pro-life case."

1) Do those athiests and agnostics value the embryo's life the same way they do a humans? I haven't found very many, and I've been involved in this discussion for a long time, as well

2) I have yet to find a religious person who is able to remove their religious beliefs from their argument to make a completely secular argument, on this and many other issues that are deeply influenced by faith.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Although I am curious - what was the original question for which we are formulating answers?

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
Incidentally, or not so incidentally, I love your letter, Sara
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Paul, what if Jane Doe's newborn was a 6 month old premie? Does medical science have a moral obligation to do everything in their power to keep it alive? What are your feelings on partial-birth abortions?
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Sara, I love the letter, particularly because you didn’t mention pregnancy or STDs. All to often it’s impossible to have an actual conversation about the emotional/psychological issues around sex without it getting bogged down by “well what if you got pregnant/caught AIDS.” Kids aren’t stupid, and many of them know that there are sexual activities they can engage in with extremely low (or no) risk of pregnancy or disease, and it’s great to see someone addressing that.

And, with all respect, could those of you who want to discuss abortion please take it to another thread? It’s a hot enough topic that if it stays here it will almost definitely take over the thread, which I think would be a shame.
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 

quote:

---

We're moving a bit far afield of the original intent of this thread.

---

Ahh, well, derail away to your hearts' content, from my perspective. I am mellowed out from a glass of sirrah with my husband, the aroma of herbed roasting chicken (apologies to the vegetarians), and the glow of a hot-stone massage.

[Have I mentioned often enough that a portable massage table at $100 is a great shared couple's Christmas gift? A good marriage is nothing to sneeze at, and it certainly need not be pedestrian.]

quote:

---

Although I am curious - what was the original question for which we are formulating answers?

---

quote:

---

Incidentally, or not so incidentally, I love your letter, Sara

---

Thank you, Paul! Much appreciated.

And thank you, Dana. Two of my favorite people tossing praise my way.

[ September 12, 2004, 10:12 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
 

---

Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
 
I was asked to write a private letter of advice or whatever, to my young brother-in-law, at about the time he was finishing High School. I'm assuming that's older than your intended audience, dear, but there was one bit of advice I gave him, as well as my own niece at about the same time, that touches on the topic.

And that is, simply, that it is a good idea to guard your heart. By that I mean that, when you experience pleasure and closeness with someone, it can form a sort of bond between you. You'll go back for the feeling, because it's good or because you believe it should be.

In any case, it's really important that when the absolute, bone-deep addiction to another person happens for you, that it happens with someone suitable, someone that you really can make a life with, who is capable and committed to making that life with you.

Some of the saddest shite I've ever seen is when rational people go @ss over teakettle for someone so totally crazy/irresponsible/self-centered <insert descriptor here> that nobody even blinks at them when it all goes kablooie.

Mistakes of that magnitude can be seen coming in satallite photos, but people still make them. *shrug*

My first serious boyfriend in college was one of those. Actually, he was a very nice person, just completely unsuitable for me. We didn't have sex, and I'm soo glad. It probably would have been pretty good sex, and I'd have hung around (partly from the pleasure-bond kind of thing, and partly from the guilt-- we were both very religious). In any case, it could not have done anything but end badly, sooner or later. Once the oo-ah wore off, I'd probably have killed him.

[ September 12, 2004, 11:16 PM: Message edited by: Olivetta ]
 

---

Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
 
I agree that it was a good letter - especially without all the overtones of moral righteouseness and hellfire, etc. I wish I had heard words like those at a much earlier age - and I really wish that the whole concept of sex, gender, and intimacy was presented in a healthy and safe fashion as a child.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I was such a foolish, foolish child. I wonder if any advice given me would have turned me from my destructive course. As beautiful as your letter is, Sara, I fear I would not have heeded it's wisdom at that age. I think my intervention would have needed to come much, much sooner.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
bev, nothing in what you have said, in your landmark or otherwise, leads me to believe you were terribly foolish at all.

AJ
 

---

Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
 
I really admire nurse people. I realize Sara is a doctor person but she has the nurse person personality.

Some of my greatest role models (my young women's leader, my grandmother, a good friend in college) are nurses, and they all seem to have such a great compassionate yet totally grounded, frank outlook that is vital for young people to hear.

It's important to hear the ideological reasonings behind lifestyle counsel, but it's also important to hear the straight up truth about it. And I really admire those who can talk about feelings and personalities and spiritual health in an entirely secular way.
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 

quote:

---

Well, in fact, there is : You stop considering two-week fetuses as 'unborn babies.'

---

quote:

---

Much of sex comes with no risk of resultant pregnancy, but it still counts. (Amazing how many young folk will not include anything but the traditional intercourse in the definition. Really amazing.)

---

It is amazing, actually. One of the most sexually active person I've known (at least among those who talked about it) was someone who claimed to follow abstenance because, to her, only the traditional intercourse "counted".

Needless to say, the are a number of related activities that can be nearly as risky, even though they don't carry the baby risk. I wouldn't be sure where to draw the line...
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
AJ, trust me, I was foolish. Hopefully I am wiser now.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Bev, we all do stupid things. Well, I do stupid things, you did foolish things.

The trick is to learn from your mistakes so you can make new, different and possibly even more embarassing mistakes!

Oh hell, wrong motivational cliche...hang on...oh...two of the pages got stuck together. How embarassing is that?

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 

quote:

---

Regardless of what you consider to be the case, there will always remain the possibility that you are wrong.

---

I don't understand how one could be wrong about this. Does there exist a non-arbitrary definition of "human?" Are you appealing to a deity, here? How would I find out about it, if I were wrong?
 

---

Posted by the master (Member # 6788) on :
 
Sara is so dang cool.


 

---

Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
 
Xaposert:

quote:

---

Regardless of what you consider to be the case, there will always remain the possibility that you are wrong.

---

quote:

---

People will still be having sex five years from now, even ten years from now.

---

Yippie!
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Technically, I suppose you're right. But add in the next sentence in Xap's post and it makes a clear argument:

1. We can't be sure if X is true.
2. If X is false, Y is wrong.
3. Therefore, we shouldn't do Y.

You can disagree with any one of those steps, but it's clearly an argument.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
Sara - loved your original post (haven't read all the ones in between that one and this one here).

I agree that some words like that, or a person like you, might have helped guide me away from some foolish choices when I was a teen (25+ years ago).

I was insanely "curious" about sex -- and sex when it happened was mostly just a fulfillment of that curiosity, nothing more. I had no brothers, I grew up in a predominantly female household, and sex was very taboo to even mention. So of course I was curious about the male anatomy, and male affections.

I try to take all the mystery out of it for my kids by allowing all kinds of conversation about sex -- so that if they have sex, it won't just be to satisfy curiousity (as it was for me) or because the taboo-ness of the subject made it more appealing.

Anyway, I feel that was very well written.

Farmgirl
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
I never got to have much of a wild time when I was a teenager.
I honestly wonder if I've missed out...
 

---

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
Dag, it's not a logical argument (Xap's), though it certainly is an argument.

The logic (in the traditional syllogism sense, which is what you used) breaks down as:

1) X OR NOT X
2) NOT X -> NOT Y
3) NOT Y

Starting at 1), you have a tautology, and from there you can claim anything, with relation to X.

-Bok
 

---

Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
 
No worries, Syn. You're not missing out on some wild heyday that is no longer to be found.

While much of the conversation about sex has used the trump card "but what about pregnancy?" can we try to discuss sexual relations in terms other than those? If only for the reason that many people practice "unconventional" sexuality, whether that be non-intercourse or same-sex partnering.

There's a term I've heard only in certain circles that might be of interest here. The term, "sex-positive," is often used to describe another viewpoint on sex than those commonly held here. From some searching, it seems that the following are ideals held by many who use the term "sex-positive":

quote:

---

Pro Pleasure: We find sexual pleasure to be enjoyable and legitimate in its own right, and support all sex education efforts that we consider to be both pleasure-positive and honest.
Pro Safety: We encourage the widespread availablity of effective safer sex education and supplies, and support whatever personal growth a person may find necessary to maintain his or her emotional safety and health while being sexually active.
Pro Growth: We encourage open communication between people representing all genders, sexual orientations, sexual preferences, and consensual styles of sexual expression. We recognize that it is often from the people whom we perceive to be the most different from us that we have the most to learn.
Pro Communication: We recognize that good communication in sexual matters is often critical in insuring consensuality, maximizing pleasure, and providing the best opportunity for personal development.
Pro Expression: We find the erotic to be a legitimate area for artistic expression, and support the creation and enjoyment of quality erotic arts.
Pro Education: We find the topic of sex to be inherently interesting, and support books, classes, discussions, etc. that increase our understanding of it on both personal and scholarly levels. We support efforts to increase the levels of tolerance, accuracy, and pleasure-positivity in contemporary sex education, and also support efforts to make quality sex education available to everyone.
Pro Freedom: We support the legal right of all adults, regardless of gender, to engage in any consensual sexual activity they wish. We support the full extension of freedoms of speech to sexually explicit writings and discussion, whether in real-life, in print, or online.

---

Can the above occur outside of marriage? I say yes. Each person must know themselves fully, isn't that the real requirement?
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Your syllogism does not represent what I said at all.

First, X is unknowable does not eqauate to X or not X.

Second, you're using the same symbol, Y to represent the two different concepts: "Y is wrong" and "we shouldn't do Y." They're not the same.

Dagonee

[ September 13, 2004, 11:47 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
Sara, that was a wonderful post.

I also like Olivet's take on it. And I agree, that the best way to prepare your children for the pressures to have sex is not to treat sex as a giant mystery at all. Be open, be honest, and don't flinch from their questions.

Arm them with knowledge, and I especially appreciat the two answers Sara provided - if you loved me, you wouldn't pressure me. Sex should never be necessary to "prove" love, it should be an outpouring of love, but not a necessary ingredient. If my husband were somehow rendered incapable of having sex again the rest of his life, I would certainly miss it, but it wouldn't be fatal to our relationship.
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
It may not be a logical argument, but it is a common sense one.

We do not know if X is true.
If X is true, than Y is wrong.
If X is false, than Y is right.
If Y is wrong, it is very, very wrong indeed.
Therefore, it would make sense to avoid even the possibility of the wrong by assuming X is true.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
I won't go into the logic, because it's been quite some time since I studied syllogisms. But I would like to clarify my point : Arguing purely secularly, the only definition of "human" that makes sense is "whatever we decide is human," because there is no outside authority we can appeal to. Therefore, we can know whether an embryo is human or not : Look it up in a book of law.

From a religious point of view, of course, the matter is entirely different, and you find out whether or not you did right after you die.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Actually, we've had a lot of discussions on this board where atheists have claimed that atheism is not a religion AND that a higher moral authority can exist without being based on the authority of a deity. So I'd say that just at this board there are people who would disagree with your analysis, KoM.

And, of course, if there is no higher authority and right and wrong are just what the law says they are, then there can be no over-arching reason for abortion to be a right. What moral principle would exist outside the law in such a scenario?

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Pixie (Member # 4043) on :
 
...I guess this is mostly just a thank you for being so open and honest about such a controversial and often hard-to-define subject. I think people my age would generally be far less likely to make decisions and choices they are apt to regret later if only such issues were treated upfront with the respect and honesty they merit. Kudos to those of you who have been frank here and/or with your children, etc .

~A teen trying to sort out her own thoughts and feelings on the subject
 

---

Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
 
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<Sara>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<Hobbes>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Y'all are so good to me! I love you both so much!
 

---

Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
 

quote:

---

Actually, we've had a lot of discussions on this board where atheists have claimed that atheism is not a religion AND that a higher moral authority can exist without being based on the authority of a deity. So I'd say that just at this board there are people who would disagree with your analysis, KoM.

---

I don't have the energy for the debate again, but count me as one of the anti-abortion atheists.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 

quote:

---

And, of course, if there is no higher authority and right and wrong are just what the law says they are, then there can be no over-arching reason for abortion to be a right. What moral principle would exist outside the law in such a scenario?

---

Only the consensus morality that all or nearly all humans agree on and are willing to enforce. This is a fairly short list : I think most people would agree that murder, rape, incest, and theft are all wrong, but beyond that you have grey areas. Even theft can be justified in some instances, say to feed a starving child.

There is also an issue of practicality here, of course : If I were to agree that there is in principle nothing wrong with murder, who can say that I would not be the next target? I suspect industrial feudalism would be remarkably unpleasant. Therefore, it is in my interest to come down hard on murderers, and to teach children that "Thou shalt not kill." Similar considerations apply to the other crimes.
 

---

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
Dag, I translated my steps from yours, the variables are the same. I did this an entire semester. I understand the argument, but your presentation implied a syllogism, which I showed in more strict (though not completely strict) notation.

1) X may be right (X) OR may not be right (NOT X), we can't be certain
2) If X is false (NOT X), Y is wrong (IMPLIES NOT Y)
3) Therefore we should not do Y (NOT Y)

It may be a correct argument, but in you presentation, it is a faulty syllogism. I understand it in the sense of Chris' restatement of it, but I was making sure you understood you were setting up the argument in the wrong format.

-Bok
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
I wasn't setting it up in syllogism format. I was setting it up in case-brief holding format.

MY case-brief holding format, that is.

Still, your syllogism equated NOT Y with both "Y is wrong" and "we should not do Y," which are not the same.

Dagonee

[ September 13, 2004, 05:11 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
 

---

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
They are functionally equivalent, in my book

1) The action of Y is wrong
2) Therefore do not act to cause Y



I was going to make a lawyer joke (since I figured that you were setting it up in that format), but I have too much respect for ya

-Bok
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Man. If all lawyers were like Dagonee, we wouldn't need lawyer jokes.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Bok, I'm sure you don't believe that everything that is immoral should be done. Unless you're a strict utilitarian who considers all non-optimal actions immoral.

Bev:

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Bokonon - not at all. The first is a state, the second is a course of action. One may instantly spur the other for you, but they are not the same thing, especially if you're trying to distill a complicated question into an algebra problem.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 

quote:

---

Man. If all lawyers were like Dagonee, we wouldn't need lawyer jokes.

---

quote:

---

However, like all things really worth experiencing, you must be willing to take on the consequences of your choices.

---

Boy, this is just one of those statements that has the potential to derail the whole thread into an abortion argument.
 

---

Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
 
I think that's re-rail, SS.
 

---

Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
 
Oh yes, Dag. But I strongly encourage marriage before childbearing. It's ever so much better to have two people bearing that responsibility. Especially two people bearing different perspectives that are willing to commit to each other and their family. It's a beautiful thing. Not saying that other arrangements are unhealthy or bad. Just not as powerful or as easy to maintain in a healthy manner in the world/culture we live in.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Dag, Dab. What's a "b" or a "g" among friends?
 

---

Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 



 

---

Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
 
Jenny, will you marry me?

*in love*
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
Jenny, that is so awesome.

Clear language that avoids making it mysteriously secret.
 

---

Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
 
Sure, Kama. Can I add you to my harem? I'm sure the guys won't mind a bit!
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 

quote:

---

I don't understand how one could be wrong about this. Does there exist a non-arbitrary definition of "human?" Are you appealing to a deity, here? How would I find out about it, if I were wrong?

---

quote:

---

Arguing purely secularly, the only definition of "human" that makes sense is "whatever we decide is human," because there is no outside authority we can appeal to. Therefore, we can know whether an embryo is human or not : Look it up in a book of law.

---

quote:

---

You seem to be arguing that "X would be really terrible; therefore, not-X."

---

quote:

---

If there are indeed non-arbitrary characteristics that make someone human, surely you should be able to tell me what they are?

---

quote:

---

I am appealing, here, to what you can think of as either an inbuilt sense of morals, or an evolutionary pattern-recognition and species-protection device, as you choose; namely that humans seem to have a strong inhibition against killing other humans that we recognise as such. But embryos are not, until about three months into the pregnancy, instinctively labeled "human." Therefore, the decision as regards them does not depend on our inbuilt moral sense, or inbuilt pattern-recognition if you prefer, and is in that sense arbitrary.

---

quote:

---

Sure, Kama. Can I add you to my harem?

---

Of course!

(so who's in the harem already?)
 

---

Posted by stacey (Member # 3661) on :
 
I wonder why there are hardly any(none I've ever seen) debates in this forum where a person says " You shouldn't drive a car unless you are prepared to face the consequences of killing or injuring someone" ? Millions of people get in their cars and drive them without thinking. No one I know thinks thats a sin. Yet millions of people are killed every year from car accidents....... Why does sex cause such heated debates and this topic probably wouldn't?
 

---

Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
 
It'd be a little more correct to compare car accidents to STDs, not pregnancy. Pregnancy is the primary purpose of sex, whereas killing people isn't (for most people) why we drive cars.
 

---

Posted by AmkaProblemka (Member # 6495) on :
 
There is a lot more to the consequences of sex than the potential harmful ones. There is emotional involvement as well.

And when we are talking about young people, they often are not quite ready for that level of involvement. Not only that, this doesn't happen in emotional isolation. Perhaps the girl is compensating for having no father, or for having an abusive family. She is looking for love and validation through sex. She doesn't yet know the difference between love and sex. I'm far more worried about someone like her than someone who grew up in a stable, loving environment. Unfortunately, these are the least likely people to recieve a healthy education about sex and love from their parents.

Which is why things like sex education in our public schools is important, and why this sex education should start early (pre-puberty) and should include lessons on emotional health as well as or even more than STDs and pregnancy. A well designed program will allow and make children feel comfortable with both moral, logical, or emotional abstinance and methods of protection. Loving and informed parents will supplement this in the way they see best, and the child without such a family will recieve the information they need.

All that said, driving a car is not a very good analogy to sex. You don't need sex, but you do need to go to work or school or get food at the store. In our society, driving is often the only way to do this. Besides, no one under the age of 16 is allowed to drive a car because they aren't generally responsible enough. Their lack of responsibility is so proven that some states are considering raising the age of driving to 18, and our state has made it a law that no teenager under 18 can drive other teenagers (Almost every teenage accident involves other teens in the car).
 

---

Posted by stacey (Member # 3661) on :
 
Alot of people are talking about how sex kills people Frisco..... But I don't suppose you have to debate whether it was a human or just a bunch of cells you hit in your car:P

And I've heard of alot of people getting emotional over driving. Road rage... the feeling you get when you hit someone or kill someone.....the nervousness of driving for the first time....thrill....excitement....boy racers souping up their cars to make them go faster/look better/feel better.....the families of the people that have been killed by car accidents....the families of the people whos relative has killed somebody by car accident....decisions in a car made stupid by alcohol or drugs or adrenaline.

It's probably just me but alot of this sounds like a good comparison to sex. Some people don't learn a healthy education about driving from their parents either, like watching either of them get road rage or being to passive on the road.

In New Zealand you can get a full licence to drive by 16 and also have sex at 16.

lol, damn at first I was just wondering and now I'm arguing about something I don't even know if I believe myself all for the sake of arguing. Fun a?
 

---

Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
I don't think anyone on hatrack has ever argued that people should have sex willy-nilly. There is a difference between saying that "marriage should be the line" and "each must decide for themselves."

And driving is not necessary unless you live in a town with zero public transportation and zero carpooling. Millions of people in major towns could use public transportation. It's the mindset in the US that we need to have our own cars, but it's a false one.

Again, not everyone needs sex. Well, perhaps no one needs sex. But I get very angry when people judge my ability to choose to have sex. They're implying character judgement when it's not their place. In fact, they're usually pushing their own version of reality onto my own. A reality in which women get married to men, and they want to have and raise children.

I believe that sex-positive principles are part of helping individuals learn and take care of themselves. Education, safety, self-comfort.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 

quote:

---

killing people isn't (for most people) why we drive cars.

---

quote:

---

But I get very angry when people judge my ability to choose to have sex. They're implying character judgement when it's not their place. In fact, they're usually pushing their own version of reality onto my own. A reality in which women get married to men, and they want to have and raise children.

---

quote:

---

I don't think anyone on hatrack has ever argued that people should have sex willy-nilly.

---

quote:

---

pYx. She was a bit of a bitch.

That said, I think I've previously come down closer to the "sex willy-nilly" side of the argument before.

---

quote:

---

But what I guess is funny is that I don't see my beliefs as getting into their lives as their beliefs get into my life.

---

quote:

---

I see person B as leading their sex-positive life as having less effect on person A's life than person A's moral-opinions having an effect on person B's ability to lead their life.

---

quote:

---

I think if you look at other countries and compare them to America, a comfortable attitude toward sex doesn't necessarily mean bombarding your children with kinky billboards.

---

Yes, and I am grateful for that.
 

---

Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
 
Okay, here's my opinions on person A's life.

Person B: Of utmost importance is knowing yourself. You should work to have a sense of self-worth and self-esteem. --> Person A.

Person A: Premarital sex is a stupid action. You're acting in immoral acts. --> Person B.

Is that fair?
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
What if Person A is: It is my personal belief that we should not have sex outside marriage. I understand you have a different moral code.
 

---

Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
 
That's totally fine.

but that's not how the thread started out, and that's not how I phrased my original annoyance.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Your breakdown still isn't quite fair. Person B's opinion is described as personally relevant and uses positive terms. Person A's opinion is described as other-centered and uses negative terms.
 

---

Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
 
Yes but I have person B's views, and Scott R has person A's views.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Was that to me?

Can you describe both Person A and Person B's opinion using personally-relevant and positive terms?
 

---

Posted by Stray (Member # 4056) on :
 

quote:

---

What if Person A is: It is my personal belief that we should not have sex outside marriage. I understand you have a different moral code.

---

quote:

---

It's when someone persistently and repeatedly tries to convince me that I'm wrong and should believe what they do, in the face of my repeated polite refusals to do so, that it gets irritating.

---

I figure those efforts can be both futile and harmful when the person holds a different moral code. If they have the same moral code as you, then you have common ground to start from.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
So what exactly does "pushing" mean?

People expressing their opinions here doesn't count - it's expressly designed to talk about our opinions. Bringing it up at a parent/teacher conference or a casual chat about the weather would be annoying, but I don't think happens all that often.

Maybe bumper stickers? I've been thinking about bumper stickers lately because I live in the gay part of town and work in the wildly conservative part of town and I've seen both sides of the gay marriage debate championed explicitly on the cars in front of me.

[ September 15, 2004, 03:09 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by Stray (Member # 4056) on :
 
Heh...no, not quite like that, and it happens less than it used to because I've taken to avoiding conversational topics that would lead to discussion of the less traditional aspects of my life (sex life and otherwise). During adolescence I felt the need to be more "out" about things and defend myself and my choices when the topic came up, but I don't often have the time, energy, or wish anymore. Part of growing up, I suppose.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Heh. That makes sense.
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
Hold on...

Nobody can force you to do anything merely by having an opinion. In fact, nobody can force you to do anything by merely expressing that opinion either. It's up to you whether or not to decide to agree with their views. Thus, there really is no such thing as one person's opinion "crowding" another's. And hence it is not their opinion you should be mad at.

It is someone's ACTIONS that can crowd you. Passing laws, starting a lynch mob against you, protesting at your house, etc - these are the things that restrict your autonomy. And I don't see anything unfair about being very angry at these actions - because although they may feel a moral duty to try to help you as a friend, it is pretty clear that we also have a duty to respect others' freedom of choice. It is realistic to expect others to let you do what you choose to do, to at least some degree.

However, we were not talking about actions. We were talking about the beliefs themselves. We are not talking about legistlation to ban sex, just the mere opinion that your having sex is wrong. The question was, is it fair to get angry at someone merely because they have judged your decision to have sex as wrong? And this by itself, as I argued above, in no way restricts your freedom to do and believe what you want.

Nobody's opinion forces anyone to do anything.

[ September 15, 2004, 03:13 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
 

---

Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
 
Katharina, I found beverly's "my views and your views" to be perfectly reasonable and fair.

Feel free to write up Person A and Person B in both positive words as you see fit. As you see, I have no problem with Beverly's rewrite. But my problem isn't with Beverly. She's been very good about accepting other people's beliefs as their own.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
That's funny. In college, at the 8-people-hanging-around-after-the-partiers-have-left-finishing-off-the-keg portion of the evening, I had lots of people convinced they could "cure" my Catholicism by pointing out a few superficially contradictory aspects of my faith. In these circles, Catholics were one step above fundamentalists on the interfereing prude scale.

I took it as an opportunity to witness, simply by explaining why their objections weren't what they thought they were. At least one of them later converted to Christianity.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
 
Tres: Okay. I understand that viewpoint and agree with it. As long as they're just opinions, getting angry is not generally a reasonable reaction.

And we agree that actions can be harmful to a person's freedom of choice.

Mkay?
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
My opinion: Some people have no tact and get a "high" from telling other people what to do. What their opinions are varies from person to person, but in my opinion, this sort of character trait is just wrong, fosters bad feelings on both sides, and can even ruin hope for future rational discussion. Most people here have been hurt by such people in their lives and as a result are very hesitant to share their mind on sensitive topics. This makes me very sad.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
*blink* This thread was a dobie.

No, not this one, but the stupid thread.

[ September 15, 2004, 03:19 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
 
It was a dobie, but it was also Scott R's opinion.
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
dabbler, yup.

beverly,

But what part of this character trait is the problem? After all, what you've described is remarkably close to the character of any leader, or preacher, or mentor. All get a high from advising others on what to do, and yet I don't think you could say most of these people only foster bad feelings.
 

---

Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
 
wouldn't it be a question of wanted versus unwanted guidance?
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Your opinion, if taken personally, could be equally as offensive.

When we second-guess motives, we reveal much more about ourselves than about the other person.
 

---

Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
 
You'll have to clarify.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

But what part of this character trait is the problem? After all, what you've described is remarkably close to the character of any leader, or preacher, or mentor. All get a high from advising others on what to do, and yet I don't think you could say most of these people only foster bad feelings.

---

quote:

---

If I am giving it to help you, I think I am in the right. But if I am giving it to make myself look good, I think I am treating you poorly.

---

Bingo!

How can you tell the motives? Well, sometimes you can tell and sometimes you can't. Sometimes people say they are doing it out of love--*believe* they are doing it out of love--and yet they are not. I say you try to give them the benefit of the doubt.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
So we really can't know what the motivation is behind what someone says.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
"This is for your own good," eh?

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
 
Katharina, can you clarify your statement above on the person B being offensive?
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Kat, while it is true that you can never really know what someone's motivations are, it can be fairly clear if they are being offensive.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
dabbler, I meant that when you recreated Person A's opinion, it was always negative and inflammatory - casting Person A as the bad guy.

beverly: What would make it clear? In a discussion of issues about which people have different opinions, especially when emotions run high, it can be VERY hard to tell what is offensive, short of personal insults.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Not necessarily.

Offensive is in the mind of the audience.

And if I feel the need to make a point, I may be a bit more sarcastic or abrasive if I think it would help to better convey the message. Depending, of course, on how important I feel the message to be.

Of course, the person could just be a rude prat with the best of intentions. Or just a rude prat.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by Stray (Member # 4056) on :
 
If I could interject something off-topic for just a sec...I'm kind of new here, could someone define the meaning of the term "dobie" in this community for me? And while we're at it, "landmark"? I have a rough idea what they mean, but I'd like to know for sure.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I agree that offensiveness is in the eye of the beholder. That is why the following statement was phrased with multiple modifiers.

quote:

---

it can be fairly clear if they are being offensive.

---

Porter comes from a family that is very good about choosing not to get offended. I have appreciated his and their influence in my life!!
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Dobie: A thread that mimicks another. Often the titles are very similar and there is a related link. Or not.

Landmark: A tradition started by Papa Moose. The tradition is that when you reach 1000 posts (or not) you share something more of yourself with the community. What you share or how is up to you. Whether you repeat this at other large round numbers is also up to you.
 

---

Posted by miles_per_hour (Member # 6451) on :
 
Three points:

I think that it is very rare that a message is conveyed more effectively because of harshness/rudeness. Most of the time, I think that it cripples its effectiveness

A dobie is a thread that is made only as a play off of another thread title. For example, we recently had a thread titled "I dont mean to be rude, but", so somebody dobied it with "I don't mean to be a prude, but". Some say that to be a ture dobie you must include a link in the initial post.

A landmark is a thread that you usually create on a landmark number of posts -- usually on multiples of 1000 posts. Often times people use landmark threads as an opportunity to share something about their lives, but you can really do whatever you want. Landmark threads are archived so that they don't geet deleted.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
dobie: Once upon a time, there was a poster named Dobie. Dobie created threads where the title was a close match or a pun on an existing thread, and there was usually a link in the first post.

Example:

Original: Idiots are ruining it for everyone
Dobie: Idiots are running for everything (with a link to an election web site.)

Dobie himself was banned after creating a dobie of the I Have the 1000th Post thread. The dobie was intended to be I Have 1000 Posts, and he clicked Submit approximately a thousand times for the first reply, attempting to post 1000 times simultaneously. This screwed up the programming and brought down the board. Dobie did come back, but lay low for a while and now posts under a different name.

Some dobies are better than others. Some people consider all dobies to be lame, and every once in a while an original title will prove to be catnip for this crowd and 15 or so dobies of the same thread will appear in an hour or so. These are times of great sorrow.

Landmark: Papa Moose wrote out some of his life story for his 1000th post. This became a tradition, and at post milestones people will often write out something personal to them - often a life story. This is a way to get to know people better and way for people to talk about things people may not ever know. Some people have problems with the landmark tradition, seeing it as a plea for attention or seeing it abused, but I think it's worked out well.

[ September 15, 2004, 04:26 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
 
Katharina, but I pointed out that that's the exact opinion as portrayed by people posting in these threads. And I asked if you wanted to rewrite the opinion to exemplify what you wanted.

And instead of doing that you just tell me that it was offensive?
 

---

Posted by miles_per_hour (Member # 6451) on :
 
Curse you for beating me to the punch!
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
Hi, Stray. Welcome.

This is the Landmark Thread Archive. You can't add posts to any of the threads once they get archived, but they are available for viewing.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Mine was first, but certainly not the best.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
That's what I mean. The person comes off as the bad guy, and the defense is that they are a bad guy. That could be fairly offensive if someone chose to take it that way.

Okay, rewrite: Having sex outside of marriage results in harm to the people involved, even when there is no occurrence of unwanted pregnancy or STDs.
 

---

Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
 
Well, since your rewrite is no longer insulting and closer to beverly's rewrite, I have no strong problems with your rewrite.

I disagree, obviously, but I'm no longer annoyed.
 

---

Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
Kat - that was a great explanation of the dobie -- I didn't know the full history. I'm assuming Dobie's little problem with the 1000 post thing is also why the board's program now makes us wait a few seconds before posting back-to-back posts?

FG
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
I think it is fairly common for someone to misinterpret friendly comments as an attack. In fact, I'd say that happens more often than actual attacks.

Another similar problem is that people giving unsolicited advice often take the dismissal of their opinion as an attack. I think for many of these religious fanatics, this is the case. They are so used to people looking down on their extremism that they assume a "you are an idiot" is implied in every "I don't need your advice."
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
beverly, got a question for you. (Though anyone else should feel free to answer too.) How similar in moral codes do you really think people in the same religion are? Because I think in reality, the amount of variance of people's moral codes that are in the same religion varies as widely in nuance (though superfically appearing the same) as those that aren't.

AJ
(And yes, I mean even among the "truly devout" ones, i.e. while you might find a few more similarities in the "married in the temple LDS" I still think you'd find very divergent opinions especially if you looked on the global level of the LDS church.)

[ September 15, 2004, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
 

---

Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
 
*hugs* AJ just for the heck of it.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Farmgirl: Well, that feature of the board certainly dates from the day the board was back up after Dobie's attack.

Edit: "dates" The verb in that sentence is "dates." I always do that.

[ September 15, 2004, 04:15 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by Stray (Member # 4056) on :
 
Wow, thanks for all the answers I had the landmark concept pretty well figured out already, but had no idea of the history behind the dobie; I thought it was more of a kicking-the-anthill type deal where somebody would post something deliberately inflammatory, then sit back and watch all the howling and frothing at the mouth. (Keep in mind, the only thread I recall seeing specifically called a dobie was the "premarital sex is stupid" one, so I don't think it was an unreasonable inference.) You guys have some pretty neat customs/traditions here.
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
It's certainly convoluted. Sort of an intentional family meets state fair funhouse, meets C-Span (dull parts, pontification, occasional Action), meets graphic novel (supherheros and comic villans), meets garden club, meets advice column, meets Car Talk ...

And there are bees and beekeepers. And a lawyer, but the good kind. (See "Superhero" )
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Bannana - probably not very.

Christian Baptists from Georgia probably have differing values, perceptions and outlooks from Christian Baptists in, say, Iowa.

The religious values will probably be similar, but regional and therefore cultural attitudes will differ in some respect.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

beverly, got a question for you. (Though anyone else should feel free to answer too.) How similar in moral codes do you really think people in the same religion are? Because I think in reality, the amount of variance of people's moral codes that are in the same religion varies as widely in nuance (though superfically appearing the same) as those that aren't.

---

quote:

---

Unless you are willing to accept that there is no reason why killing a given person is wrong (and hence that we could just as well allow all killing)...

---

quote:

---

Incidentally, if you want to know what I believe, I'd argue a person is someone who experiences existence. A nonperson does not.

---

quote:

---

Firstly, saying someone is human because they fit a pattern is different from saying some is arbitrarily called a human. Fitting a pattern is, in fact, a nonarbitrary characteristic.

---

quote:

---

Secondly, all you are talking about here is how we decide whether we think someone is a human. That is not the issue. The issue is who actually IS a human.

You have suggested that it is impossible for what we believe about X's personhood to be false - that it is impossible to be wrong about who is a human. (...)

---

quote:

---

Or consider the possibility that someone met you and decided you are not human. Would that make you not human?

---

quote:

---

Do you accept killing in war? For if you do, then you have presumably drawn a line saying "In these circumstances killing is OK, in these it is not." And even though I agree with that line, I can't see where it is not arbitrary.

---

quote:

---

Well, that's a pretty sensible definition, but it seems to me that a chimpanzee or dolphin have at least a dim grasp of their own existence, while a one-month embryo most certainly does not. Again, experiencing existence isn't a binary set such that you can conveniently assign every object to one side or the other.

---

quote:

---

I am saying that there is no other standard to measure humanity against, that we can actually use. There may exist a Platonic Ideal Human that we could compare against; but we'll never know about it, and the concept is therefore not useful.

---

quote:

---

I have to say, I consider the possibility rather remote. Please note, I'm not talking about a conscious choice, here, in the sense of "I want his stuff, so I'm going to consider him as non-human for convenience." That just doesn't apply when you meet a human post-partum; the response is hardwired deep in our brains by evolution, and conscious thought is just a thin overlay.

---

Remote but still possibile. So, if that situation were to arise where someone thought you were not human, no matter how remote the possibility, would you agree that you cease being a person? Or would you concede that you can, in fact, be mistaken about whether a given X is a person or not?
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
It's good to have you back, Xap.
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
Muahahahahahaha....
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
I would then have to conclude that the other, apparent human's human-detection circuits were faulty. Therefore, he would be a danger not just to me but to society, and I would be fully justified in killing him. Please note, I'd never find out about his decision that I was non-human until he tried to treat me as such, presumably by killing me.

When it comes to experiencing existence, how do you know another human experiences it? The usual reasoning is by analogy : If I prick myself with a needle, it hurts and I go 'ouch.' If I prick someone else with a needle, they go 'ouch.' I conclude that they feel the same. That reasoning applies equally well to a chimpanzee. And to embryos after, say, three months. (I'm just picking an arbitrary number here, it could be six months for all I know. The point is : Not at conception.)

quote:

---

What does it matter if we can use it? My point (which you disputed) was that we could be mistaken about whether or not a fetus is a human. As long as any standard exists distinguishing the two, it means we could be mistaken, regardless of whether we could ever know what that standard is or use that standard.

---

quote:

---

I would then have to conclude that the other, apparent human's human-detection circuits were faulty.

---

quote:

---

When it comes to experiencing existence, how do you know another human experiences it?

---

quote:

---

I would then have to conclude that the other, apparent human's human-detection circuits were faulty. Therefore, he would be a danger not just to me but to society, and I would be fully justified in killing him. Please note, I'd never find out about his decision that I was non-human until he tried to treat me as such, presumably by killing me.

---

During the Age of Exploration there was a perfectly legitimate debate on what exactly a human was. Some of this, to be sure, was fueled by the desire to take people's land, but not all. On the one hand, there were arguments (wrong, but not inherently specious) that Native Americans, Africans, and so forth, might not be human. On the other, there was legitimate question whether the great apes were human--in particular, orangutans, who were regarded as human by the Malays.

Today we regard these questions as settled--it's rightly considered racist even to raise them. But at some point they did have to be honestly asked: what exactly constitutes humanity, and do these apparent humans fit that model? It's not so natural as one might expect. Some people, like you and me, are willing to believe that an apparently human robot is a person. I know a lot of people who will not concede that. There are also people who can't be convinced that simple responsive programs aren't conscious.

Times come now and then when we need to have our model of "humanity" expanded. I estimate as many as 90% of the times that the opportunity arose, doing so was the right thing to do. (Though it appears that we were right not to include the orangs.) That's one of the reasons I'm so suspicious of the pro-choice group--they seem very quick to dismiss any suggestion that their model might be too restrictive.
 

---

Posted by Zevlag (Member # 1405) on :
 
Sara, I was very much impressed with this. I appreciate you sharing it.

I would like to share this with a friend, would you mind? Did you edit the first post to your final draft? If not, would?
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
Ahhh ... praise my writing and put me in a good mood, why dontcha? Sure, I'll post an edited version here late late today, and it can be freely distributed if helpful. For the sake of my ego and copyright, just attribute correctly. Thanks!


 

---

Posted by Zevlag (Member # 1405) on :
 
Great! Thanks.

*bump as reminder*
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
Will cut and paste. Behind on work now. Will go home eventually!
 

---