Showing posts with label sex. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sex. Show all posts
Thursday, April 02, 2009
Isabella Rossillini's Green Porno
Why didn't someone tell me about Isabella Rosillini's Green Porno earlier. It's brilliant.
Monday, October 15, 2007
The Abortion Papers are Starting to Come in
I had forgotten the pains of reading student papers on abortion. The repetition of bad arguments and misinformation *hurts.* When I was at Auburn I started to create a tool that would let me drop in standardized responses to standard mistakes, sort of a FAQ I could use in paper grading. I never got as far with it as I should, because I got all caught up in researching particular scientific issues, like the so called "Post Abortion Syndrome"
With my current teaching load, I really do need to creating this FAQ quickly, without getting caught up in academic journal-level research. With that it mind, I am moving some (anonymized) comments from a student's rough draft here so I can begin to create the file.
Third Paragraph
“There are many forms of contraceptives out there for women to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancies like birth control, condoms, the shot, and absincence.”
If this is so important to the pro-life argument, why does every major pro-life group also oppose all forms of birth control? This is a major anomaly in the public debate, and if you are going to raise the contraception argument, you really need to explain it. For example, A Woman’s Concern, the pro-life pregnancy counseling group views all birth control as demeaning.
Christina Page, quoted here reports that "there is not one pro-life group in the United States that supports the use of birth control."
“Abortion is an easy way out for people who do not want to take the responsibility of taking care of a baby.”
To make this argument, do you need to assume the conclusion of the first argument, that is, assume that the fetus has moral status? Notice, you could say that birth control is a way of avoiding the responsibility of having a baby, but presumably you do not because you do not think sperm or eggs on their own have moral status.
“Overall, if women are going to have sexual relations than they should be ready to take on all the responsibilities that come along with sex.”
Is this just an argument against sex for purposes other than reproduction? You seem close to saying that a couple who wants to strengthen their relationship and have fun should not have sex unless they also want to have a baby.
Also, you misspelled “abstinence.”
Fourth Paragraph
“There are also a number of risks and dangers that could happen to the mother during the abortion procedure.”
Are these moral arguments? That is, do these dangers, if they are real, make abortion *immoral* or just risky.
“Statistics show that abortion is more dangerous than childbirth.”
What statistics? Who collected them? How where they collected?
First trimester abortions---88% of all abortions—are *much* safer than childbirth. You can sometimes make abortion look more dangerous by focusing on later term abortions, which often have complications because the pregnancy is already going badly—that is what motivated the abortion to begin with. See here
“Women who have an abortion are four times more likely to die the following year than women who carry their pregnancy to full term.”
Again, where did this statistic come from? How was it collected?
“Abortion is a risk factor for breast cancer.”
To be blunt, this is not true. The connection has been alleged for some time by pro-life groups. At first the idea had some scientific plausibility, but a study published in the 1997 New England Journal of Medicine discredited the link. Pro life groups have ignored this and subsequent studies. The Bush administration even had information about the nonlink between abortion and breast cancer removed from government web sites.
My information on the abortion breast cancer non link came from Chapter 13 of this book but I forgot to mention that to my student. I also should have noted that she didn't want to say "There are many forms of contraceptives out there like...birth control."
With my current teaching load, I really do need to creating this FAQ quickly, without getting caught up in academic journal-level research. With that it mind, I am moving some (anonymized) comments from a student's rough draft here so I can begin to create the file.
Third Paragraph
“There are many forms of contraceptives out there for women to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancies like birth control, condoms, the shot, and absincence.”
If this is so important to the pro-life argument, why does every major pro-life group also oppose all forms of birth control? This is a major anomaly in the public debate, and if you are going to raise the contraception argument, you really need to explain it. For example, A Woman’s Concern, the pro-life pregnancy counseling group views all birth control as demeaning.
Christina Page, quoted here reports that "there is not one pro-life group in the United States that supports the use of birth control."
“Abortion is an easy way out for people who do not want to take the responsibility of taking care of a baby.”
To make this argument, do you need to assume the conclusion of the first argument, that is, assume that the fetus has moral status? Notice, you could say that birth control is a way of avoiding the responsibility of having a baby, but presumably you do not because you do not think sperm or eggs on their own have moral status.
“Overall, if women are going to have sexual relations than they should be ready to take on all the responsibilities that come along with sex.”
Is this just an argument against sex for purposes other than reproduction? You seem close to saying that a couple who wants to strengthen their relationship and have fun should not have sex unless they also want to have a baby.
Also, you misspelled “abstinence.”
Fourth Paragraph
“There are also a number of risks and dangers that could happen to the mother during the abortion procedure.”
Are these moral arguments? That is, do these dangers, if they are real, make abortion *immoral* or just risky.
“Statistics show that abortion is more dangerous than childbirth.”
What statistics? Who collected them? How where they collected?
First trimester abortions---88% of all abortions—are *much* safer than childbirth. You can sometimes make abortion look more dangerous by focusing on later term abortions, which often have complications because the pregnancy is already going badly—that is what motivated the abortion to begin with. See here
“Women who have an abortion are four times more likely to die the following year than women who carry their pregnancy to full term.”
Again, where did this statistic come from? How was it collected?
“Abortion is a risk factor for breast cancer.”
To be blunt, this is not true. The connection has been alleged for some time by pro-life groups. At first the idea had some scientific plausibility, but a study published in the 1997 New England Journal of Medicine discredited the link. Pro life groups have ignored this and subsequent studies. The Bush administration even had information about the nonlink between abortion and breast cancer removed from government web sites.
My information on the abortion breast cancer non link came from Chapter 13 of this book but I forgot to mention that to my student. I also should have noted that she didn't want to say "There are many forms of contraceptives out there like...birth control."
Thursday, September 13, 2007
An alternative solution to the polygamists' dilemma
Estrogen mimicking chemicals! They are the most likely culprit behind the massive gender imbalance in babies born in Inuit communities across the arctic. According to the Guardian article. "In the communities of Greenland and eastern Russia monitored so far, the ratio was found to be two girls to one boy. In one village in Greenland only girls have been born." Women in these villages were found to have extremely high levels of estrogen mimicking chemicals in their blood, and since it is known that enough of these chemicals can alter the sex of a fetus, the case against estrogen mimickers is pretty strong. The Inuit are victims of a combination of wind and water patterns and bioaccumulation. A lot of estrogen mimickers are carried to the arctic by air and water, and accumulate as they go up the food chain, meaning that the largely meat eating Inuit are subjected to huge doses.
The article does not mention it, but I infer that a substantial number of the girls being born are chromosomally male. They have the manly Y chromosome, but its action in development has been completely undone by the estrogen mimickers. I wonder if this means there will be some cases of girls growing penises at puberty.
via
The article does not mention it, but I infer that a substantial number of the girls being born are chromosomally male. They have the manly Y chromosome, but its action in development has been completely undone by the estrogen mimickers. I wonder if this means there will be some cases of girls growing penises at puberty.
via
Monday, September 10, 2007
Doing Polygamy Badly
Reading this article on the sad fate of boys cast out from the big Fundamentalist Mormon enclave in Colorado and Utah to maintain the gender ratio at a level that allows all the men to have at least three wives, I realized that these guys simply don't know how to run a polygamous society. For most of human history, the species has been both polygamous and patriarchal, but has never had a problem with surplus boys. Most societies avoid this problem by limiting real polygamy to the very high status males and having women marry young and men wait until they are older. If I were leading a crazed religious sect and were motivated primarily by the desire to possess and dominate large numbers of women, I would be quick to impose both of those policies on my flock, just to insure that the operation is sustainable. I think this guy Warren Jeffs simply doesn't know how to be an effective cult leader.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Feminism, Gays, and Porn
Every day at this institute I find myself saying “Wow, that’s interesting. I’d like to blog it,” but of course, I never have time to blog anything. So tonight I’m going to pick the one thing most blogworthy I’ve seen so far: porn. There’s an idea that has been floating around since the 90s arrival of third wave, sex positive feminism that eras in history that are good for women are also good for gays and porn. The history of China seems to bear this out. So far I’ve heard about two eras in Chinese history in which women enjoyed more rights, and in both cases, there was also more acceptance of gays and better porn.
The two examples I've heard about of times that were good for women, gays and porn, are the six dynasties period and the late Ming/early Qing. The latter, being more recent is better documented. It saw a flowering of writing by women and the novel The Golden Lotus, which is listed with Journey to the West and Dream of the Western Chamber as one of the great novels of late imperial China, and is also full of weird sex. Not all of it seems to be happy sex. Apparently towards the end [SPOILER]the main character is fucked to death by one of his concubines. I can't find a free version of the whole thing on line, but here's a sample of a scene where the lead character is trying to ingratiate himself with one of his wives, Yüeh-niang, whom he has been fighting with:
Also reported to be good: The Prayer Mat of Flesh, which features a monk getting a tool transplant from some animal (I don't remember which). John Berthrong said the book begins with a warning to the reader "A real monk who reads this will not be aroused" and ends with a similar reminder "If you are a true monk, you will not have been aroused by this." I can't find any content from it online, though.
The benefits accorded to women, homos, and porn during periods like these all come from a loosening of traditional sex roles. It is not clear, though, that a general loosening actually counts as being good for women. By the late Qing, footbinding became a serious problem. The woman who has written the most about the flowering of women's writing in the early Qing is also, weirdly, an apologist for late Qing footbinding. As far as gays go, I have nothing but the assurance of the institute leaders to go on that this was a better time. This is something I'd like to read more on.
The two examples I've heard about of times that were good for women, gays and porn, are the six dynasties period and the late Ming/early Qing. The latter, being more recent is better documented. It saw a flowering of writing by women and the novel The Golden Lotus, which is listed with Journey to the West and Dream of the Western Chamber as one of the great novels of late imperial China, and is also full of weird sex. Not all of it seems to be happy sex. Apparently towards the end [SPOILER]the main character is fucked to death by one of his concubines. I can't find a free version of the whole thing on line, but here's a sample of a scene where the lead character is trying to ingratiate himself with one of his wives, Yüeh-niang, whom he has been fighting with:
"Whether you go there or not is no concern of mine," said Yüeh-niang. "I wouldn't presume to tell such a simpleton what to do. But as long as you're shelling out the hard cash to maintain her as your mistress, if you don't even bother to visit her, you can be sure she'll manage to take on someone else. Where people in that profession are concerned:The subsequent sex scene seems consensual, but the emotional tension is serious. The whole thing seems like a nice combination of eroticism, humor and emotional tension.You can tie up their bodies, butDo you really think you can put your seal on her and make it stick?" "What you say is true enough," said Hsi-men Ch'ing.
You can't tie up their hearts.
Thereupon, he started to undress, sent the maids out of the room, and proposed to go to bed with Yüeh-niang and seek his pleasure with her."If I let you into the kitchen,said Yüeh-niang. "It's concession enough if I allow you into my bed tonight. If you've got anything else in mind, forget it."
You'll only make a pig of yourself,"Hsi-men Ch'ing responded by exposing his organ to Yüeh-niang.
"It's all your doing," he joked. "You've made him so angry he's having a dumbstruck fit."
"What do you mean 'he's having a dumbstruck fit'?" demanded Yüeh-niang.
"If he's not having a dumbstruck fit," said Hsi-men Ch'ing, "how come his eye is bulging so wide, but he can't get a word out?""You must be delirious," responded Yüeh-niang. "What makes you think I've got even half an eye for the likes of you?" At this point Hsi-men Ch'ing:
Without permitting any further explanation,lifted Yüeh-niang's two fresh white legs onto his shoulders, inserted his organ into her vagina,13 and gave free rein to:The oriole's abandon and the butterfly's pursuit.
Entranced by the clouds and intoxicated by the rain,
They are not yet willing to call a halt.14
Also reported to be good: The Prayer Mat of Flesh, which features a monk getting a tool transplant from some animal (I don't remember which). John Berthrong said the book begins with a warning to the reader "A real monk who reads this will not be aroused" and ends with a similar reminder "If you are a true monk, you will not have been aroused by this." I can't find any content from it online, though.
The benefits accorded to women, homos, and porn during periods like these all come from a loosening of traditional sex roles. It is not clear, though, that a general loosening actually counts as being good for women. By the late Qing, footbinding became a serious problem. The woman who has written the most about the flowering of women's writing in the early Qing is also, weirdly, an apologist for late Qing footbinding. As far as gays go, I have nothing but the assurance of the institute leaders to go on that this was a better time. This is something I'd like to read more on.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
