Sorry to say

dscott8 wrote:

Michael Riddell wrote:Naturally, the best way for a woman/girl to avoid an unwanted pregnancy is to not get pregnant in the first place.

Easier said (or typed) than done, of course.

Mike.

But the people who want to shut down women's reproductive rights are the same people who oppose realistic sex education. Go figure.

No really? What an absolutely amazing surprise...

Or not.

Quite pathetic.

dscott8 wrote: But the people who want to shut down women's reproductive rights are the same people who oppose realistic sex education. Go figure.

Very true. Religion based intransigence is very difficult to overcome.

Tenshinai wrote:Beacuse obviously it is just the woman´s "fault"?

Amazing that...

I had a feeling you'd bite on that one, Tens!

There's a reason why I typed that last line. After all, the bloke only sticks his penis in, squirts, withdraws and doesn't have to worry about lugging a developing fetus around in their body. Human reproductive biology doesn't work as a deterrent to the male of the species, especially once puberty kicks in. Properly explained, it should do to girls/women - it's their body that's going to be most affected. Designing a sex education course that will work with both sexes in their teenage years will go a long way, but I think a little extra focus on the male and what their actions can lead to wouldn't go amiss either.

However, cultural biases, even in western nations, will be difficult to overcome.

Mike.

Michael, your post reminds me of the slut vs stud dichotomy, wrt how we as a society still tend to think about male sexuality vs female sexuality. Of course, it's all part of a much broader conflict or debate regarding women's subjugation to men at all levels of daily life.

Wrt abortion, those who oppose it claim that conception marks the beginningof life, and that abortion tthere for is murder. One of the posters reminded us that both the ovum and the sperm were alive prior to conception. That leads me to wonder, is masturbation murder?

dscott8 wrote:

PeterZ wrote:True, but national defense has been a well defined Constitutional responsibility of the federal Government. I am all for pacifists screaming bloody murder when our military is misused and the responsibility for defending our nation turns into something else a bit more aggressive.

Yet I, an atheist, pay more taxes than I should because religious organizations get tax exemptions, in defiance of the First Amendment. Exempting a multimillion dollar building from real estate taxes just because people use it to shout "hosannah!" means that I pay for the roads they use to drive there, and they don't. Religions should only be tax exempt on the money they actually spend on charitable purposes, and promoting the religion is not a charity.

Well, even the True Believers have to pay extra to make up for all those other wrong-headed false religions. The relevant expression from the First Amendment is:

The United States Constitution, Amendment 1 wrote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Congress may not have made any such laws, but they weaseled around it by giving the IRS the power to grant tax-exempt status to some religions, and deny it to others. This gives those favored religions a huge market advantage and sure seems to push the boundary of "establishment of religion". Who decided that the IRS is qualified to determine which religions are valid, and which are not? Do they have a bunch of staff theologians to sort it out?

Why can't I declare my house the Church of the Gray Cat and get out of paying property tax? Unlike all those other religions, I can actually prove that there is a Gray Cat, and he certainly thinks he's God. That must count for something.
-------------------
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here - this is the War Room!

Imaginos1892 wrote:Congress may not have made any such laws, but they weaseled around it by giving the IRS the power to grant tax-exempt status to some religions, and deny it to others. This gives those favored religions a huge market advantage and sure seems to push the boundary of "establishment of religion". Who decided that the IRS is qualified to determine which religions are valid, and which are not? Do they have a bunch of staff theologians to sort it out?

Why can't I declare my house the Church of the Gray Cat and get out of paying property tax?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y1xJAVZxXg

The entire segment is priceless, but if you want to skip to the part that is especially relevant to that comment... 14:40.


I'm betting with a little effort you could actually pull off the Church of the Gray Cat.

gcomeau wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y1xJAVZxXg

The entire segment is priceless, but if you want to skip to the part that is especially relevant to that comment... 14:40.


I'm betting with a little effort you could actually pull off the Church of the Gray Cat.

Probably!

I wanted to post a link to an opinion piece on Fox News' website, which laments Playboy's decision to stop showing nude photos of women, but either it's been removed since yesterday or my navigation skills have taken a nosedive.

Anyways, in that article the author writes about how Playboy's decision is symptomatic of a much broader liberal assault against men and what it means to be a man.

Now, I enjoy porn as much as the next person, and I have great respect for those individuals who choose to work in the sex industry, given the hypocritical scorn that society and the media often heaps on them.

Still, I think that, given Fox News' status as the premier news source and political opinionmaker for conservative Americans, this kind of opinion really does show how conservatives think about women and their proper place in society. It shows that, for conservatives, women are nothing but objects, and that any denial of access to those 'objects' should be regarded as outrageous.

hanuman wrote:I wanted to post a link to an opinion piece on Fox News' website, which laments Playboy's decision to stop showing nude photos of women, but either it's been removed since yesterday or my navigation skills have taken a nosedive.

Anyways, in that article the author writes about how Playboy's decision is symptomatic of a much broader liberal assault against men and what it means to be a man.

Actually, it's market forces at work: When the Playboy website cut its softcore porn, its traffic quadrupled and the average age of its viewers dropped considerably. Porn, as a commodity, has lost most of its commercial value in an age of unlimited free porn available over the internet; Cutting it, and its attendant issues (payment for models, reduced market potential) out of the equation is the prudent business decision to make.

The E wrote:

hanuman wrote:I wanted to post a link to an opinion piece on Fox News' website, which laments Playboy's decision to stop showing nude photos of women, but either it's been removed since yesterday or my navigation skills have taken a nosedive.

Anyways, in that article the author writes about how Playboy's decision is symptomatic of a much broader liberal assault against men and what it means to be a man.

Actually, it's market forces at work: When the Playboy website cut its softcore porn, its traffic quadrupled and the average age of its viewers dropped considerably. Porn, as a commodity, has lost most of its commercial value in an age of unlimited free porn available over the internet; Cutting it, and its attendant issues (payment for models, reduced market potential) out of the equation is the prudent business decision to make.

...so people now actually do read it for the articles?

The E wrote:

hanuman wrote:I wanted to post a link to an opinion piece on Fox News' website, which laments Playboy's decision to stop showing nude photos of women, but either it's been removed since yesterday or my navigation skills have taken a nosedive.

Anyways, in that article the author writes about how Playboy's decision is symptomatic of a much broader liberal assault against men and what it means to be a man.

Actually, it's market forces at work: When the Playboy website cut its softcore porn, its traffic quadrupled and the average age of its viewers dropped considerably. Porn, as a commodity, has lost most of its commercial value in an age of unlimited free porn available over the internet; Cutting it, and its attendant issues (payment for models, reduced market potential) out of the equation is the prudent business decision to make.

Sure, I understand the business rationale for Playboy's decision, but the way Fox News presented the decision was that somehow it is men's right to have access to nude pictures of women, and that taking that access away is part of an onslaught against men.

And Michael, even though I am gay, Playboy actually features some very interesting and informative articles. My straight buds always tease me when I read their copies, that I'm not really gay...