This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Strange, then, that she voluntarily did the pregnant-making thing.
Yeah no... Sex is not the pregnant making thing. Sex is just Sex. It can be done for any number of reasons. Pregnancy is merely a risk of Sex. Provide an actual argument that the sole telos of sex is procreation or leave your Christian-derived beliefs in your own life.
I know the "pregnancy isn't a natural result of sex!" crowd hates Christians with a white-hot passion mirroring their hatred of having consequences of their own actions more generally and so want to blame them for all the evils in the world, but it's entirely possible to come to the conclusion that pregnancy is a result of sex from a secular perspective.
"Sex is just sex" is nonsensical, like saying "Russian roulette is just Russian roulette, I didn't know I might die."
Well, I don't. Nor do I hate dealing with the consequences of my own actions. What I do hate is hypocrites and unfairness. So if all you pro-lifers want to commit to an unlimited duty to suffer every risky outcome of your actions, I'm willing to accept every risky outcome of my own. Until that happens, this has nothing to do with the straw effigy you've created in your head. From my vantage, you want your cake and to eat it too.
And Christians want everyone to use their frame of the universe while not even considering any others, again, hypocrisy.
I'm all ears, please share a non-culturally-Christian argument on the unitary telos of sex:pregnancy.
Any biologist? Yes, sex in humans doesn't result in pregnancy literally every time, but it's the regular natural outcome and the prime evolutionary purpose of its existence. It takes considerable contrivance in terms of decades of biochemistry and materials science to prevent regular sex resulting in pregnancy, and sometimes even then sometimes that contrivance fails.
It's like exploring flooded caves or BASE jumping off buildings - it's not meant to go wrong, but everyone knows it sometimes does, and the only reason you're at risk is because you enjoy the activity enough to put aside the possibility of failure. Most people don't want such high risk and consequently don't do those activities.
I mean would you extend a biological and evolutionary determinism to everything else humans do?
More than some, less than others, I don’t know. Personally I think that foetuses are pretty human by the end of the second trimester and consider it broadly more appropriate for abortion to stop somewhere around the end of the first trimester.
You asked the more specific question of whether pregnancy can be considered the primary telos of sex from any viewpoint other than a Christian one and I’m just saying that as a biologist it seems very obvious to me and did long before abortion flared up as a public flashpoint (which it mostly still hasn’t in the UK).
This is why I think biological determinism applied to Sex -> Pregnancy/Abortion is a poor argument. It's an arbitrary boundary drawing exercise. People start from the end and work backwards. We could justify a lot of morally abhorrent behaviors on the grounds of biological determinism, and several controversial ones. If you (royal) aren't applying and accepting it everything thing that stems from the bio-determ position, then you are trying to get special carve outs for things you care about. You are overfitting to a specific situation and unable create a general solution.
Primary might be better than sole, but I'd still add bonding and pleasure into the top 3 of the telos of sex. And I think there is ample historical and anthropological evidence to support that being the case throughout history and cultures.
Sure, though different cultures would certainly dispute the circumstances under which that bonding and pleasure are intended to apply.
With respect, you seem to be flattening a perfectly sensible argument, viz. "sex fairly regularly makes babies, if you are terrified of having babies then don't do the thing that regularly makes babies" into "Ha! Don't you see you're identifying biology with morality?! And if you don't accept this arbitrary list of repugnant conclusions that I have drawn up, then you must be a hypocrite."
Sex fairly regularly produces foetuses ->
Foetuses regularly develop into babies absent molestation ->
At some point in this process - opinions vary on which point - everyone agrees they acquire rights that must be taken into consideration alongside yours ->
Therefore if you are really determined to protect your freedoms, you would be best advised not to begin this chain.
One doesn't have to be a hypocrite or to swallow a dozen repugnant conclusions to see this, only able to accept the basic nature of cause and effect. From where I am standing, the only real reason I can see to deny some level of personal responsibility is a firm conviction that complete sexual freedom is such an important and wonderful thing that nothing must ever cloud or impinge it in the slightest.
If you're interested in discussing how we trade off the rights of the unborn at various ages, the pleasure and freedoms of people having sex, etc. etc. I've given some thoughts elsewhere but we certainly can.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link