INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

The Future of the 'The future of the..(if any)' title-meme

...on serious topics that don't fit anywhere else at present.
Message
Author
thundril
Posts: 3607
Joined: July 4th, 2008, 5:02 pm

The Future of the 'The future of the..(if any)' title-meme

#1 Post by thundril » October 19th, 2015, 1:16 am

(if any)

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The Future of the 'The future of the..(if any)' title-me

#2 Post by Alan H » October 19th, 2015, 1:22 am

That's meta...
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Altfish
Posts: 1821
Joined: March 26th, 2012, 8:46 am

Re: The Future of the 'The future of the..(if any)' title-me

#3 Post by Altfish » October 19th, 2015, 5:07 am

As The Sex Pistols sang... "There's No Future..."

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: The Future of the 'The future of the..(if any)' title-me

#4 Post by animist » October 19th, 2015, 12:50 pm

I did consider starting one called "The Future of Prostitution (if any)", but chickened out for fear of offending people

thundril
Posts: 3607
Joined: July 4th, 2008, 5:02 pm

Re: The Future of the 'The future of the..(if any)' title-me

#5 Post by thundril » October 19th, 2015, 1:10 pm

animist wrote:I did consider starting one called "The Future of Prostitution (if any)", but chickened out for fear of offending people
Only the unoriginal title would have offended me, Animist. Though some may be offended by my observation that the title would be unoriginal.
But this is a discussion site, that invites debate. If people get offended, or can't distinguish between being annoyed and being offended, they haven't grasped the concept of 'debate'.
You are a philosopher by training and profession, as well as by inclination, Animist. Don't be afraid of 'giving offence' in a debating chamber.
Have at it!

User avatar
Altfish
Posts: 1821
Joined: March 26th, 2012, 8:46 am

Re: The Future of the 'The future of the..(if any)' title-me

#6 Post by Altfish » October 19th, 2015, 5:21 pm

"The future of..." meme doesn't bother me, although it would be just as easy to have (say) an 'Education' or a 'Government' thread in which Nick could defend the Tories even if they were lining up teachers and shooting them

thundril
Posts: 3607
Joined: July 4th, 2008, 5:02 pm

Re: The Future of the 'The future of the..(if any)' title-me

#7 Post by thundril » October 20th, 2015, 12:38 am

Why would they have to line 'em up first? There are plenty of huntin an shootin folks amongst the hangem an floggem brigade. Freestyle teacher-shootin. There's a sport for real men!

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: The Future of the 'The future of the..(if any)' title-me

#8 Post by Dave B » October 20th, 2015, 5:04 pm

thundril wrote:Why would they have to line 'em up first? There are plenty of huntin an shootin folks amongst the hangem an floggem brigade. Freestyle teacher-shootin. There's a sport for real men!
Yes, more of a challenge when they are running all over the playground, moving targets sort out the goats from the sheep.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: The Future of the 'The future of the..(if any)' title-me

#9 Post by animist » October 31st, 2015, 8:59 pm

thundril wrote:
animist wrote:I did consider starting one called "The Future of Prostitution (if any)", but chickened out for fear of offending people
Only the unoriginal title would have offended me, Animist. Though some may be offended by my observation that the title would be unoriginal.
But this is a discussion site, that invites debate. If people get offended, or can't distinguish between being annoyed and being offended, they haven't grasped the concept of 'debate'.
You are a philosopher by training and profession, as well as by inclination, Animist. Don't be afraid of 'giving offence' in a debating chamber.
Have at it!
ok. My thesis is that prostitution results from a combination of two facts which tend not to be distinguished but are in fact separate. One is that the male sexual urge is stronger than the female; the other is that males, physically and socially, have always been stronger than females. So prostitutes have been the poor sisters of the legalised whores (no dissing intended) who married men, with varying degrees of willingness, in order to make some life for themselves. The more questionable deduction from this is that prostitution would be there in society even if females had been the equals, or FTM social superiors, of males; in other words, the two conditions of unequal lust and unequal power are not logically related but have worked together to create the paradigm of prostitution. Let's not exaggerate the relevance of popular knowledge about other species, eg the male-eating female spiders, but let's not ignore it completely.

My vision is that prostitution develops positively along with female equality, so that prostitutes can become respected members of society; so they need to be licensed and protected from exploitation and violence, and both they and their clients should be decriminalised and indeed destigmatised. Friendships between prostitutes and clients, which I guess do happen, should be encouraged. Prostitution needs to become a normal area of post-religious society, but it seems to be far away from it at present.

That is basically it - except to say that IMO gay sexual relationships may have contributed to the changed view which has I think taken place in recent decades about the nature of prostitution, despite what I said above; this is so since by definition commercial gay relationships do not involve discriminatory views of females vis-à-vis males. I'd also add the aspect of pornography, which I see as a sanitised form of prostitution. Again, the increasing acceptance of consensual adult porn may be changing our view of prostitution - but not fast enough IMO

thundril
Posts: 3607
Joined: July 4th, 2008, 5:02 pm

Re: The Future of the 'The future of the..(if any)' title-me

#10 Post by thundril » October 31st, 2015, 10:12 pm

All of your proposals would be fine and dandy, if not for one fact you mentioned but did not emphasise: the raising of boys to view women as instrumental; ie, not there for the value of their own lives, but for the benefits they bring to man's life.
For many centuries, both boys and girls have been conditioned, from childhood experience onward, to regard the relation between men and women to be 'naturally' a power-relation; it is the task of the woman to make herself attractive and useful to a man. Her survival depends upon it. Over the past century or so, waves of feminism have challenged this assumption. Their struggle is far from over.
We will know that the feminist movement has succeeded in achieving real equality if we ever arrive at a time when a woman can walk down a city street at night with no greater trepidation than a man would feel in the same situation. When, if we hear of the rape of a woman, we are as horrified and baffled as were currently are when we hear of the rape of a man.
Until such a time, prostitution will never be a simple transaction between equals. There will be some women, socially and educationally advantaged, who enter sex work from motives other than desperate necessity, but they betray their less fortunate sisters by doing so.
The commercialisation, and the normalisation, of this poisonous view (of woman as existing for man's purpose) will not change as long as some men continue to think of female sexuality as a commodity to be bought and sold.
(Incidentally, where do you get your idea that male sex drive is stronger than female? Evidence?).

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: The Future of the 'The future of the..(if any)' title-me

#11 Post by animist » November 1st, 2015, 4:28 pm

thundril wrote: (Incidentally, where do you get your idea that male sex drive is stronger than female? Evidence?).
I would have thought that the sex industry, which caters mainly to men, was evidence in itself. But anyway:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cu ... -sex-drive

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: The Future of the 'The future of the..(if any)' title-me

#12 Post by animist » November 1st, 2015, 7:36 pm

thundril wrote: The commercialisation, and the normalisation, of this poisonous view (of woman as existing for man's purpose) will not change as long as some men continue to think of female sexuality as a commodity to be bought and sold.
this assumes that the view that woman exists for man's purpose is bad. I don't think it is bad, as long as long as it is conducted properly - and of course, that it is also recognised that man exists for woman's purpose. This is my whole point, which you seem not to understand. There is nothing wrong with commercialised sex, IMO. I wish that as a young male I might have had the opportunity to satisfy women and get a bit of money in the meanwhile. For whatever reason, this did not occur, though the gigolo phenomenon does occur - I only wish that this too could come out of the shadows of shame, along with the vastly greater reverse phenomenon of men purchasing sex from women. Like it or not, we live a commercial society which centres on exchange of services and goods. Why is it wrong for me to purchase the services of a prostitute but OK for me to purchase those of an accountant or a teacher?

thundril
Posts: 3607
Joined: July 4th, 2008, 5:02 pm

Re: The Future of the 'The future of the..(if any)' title-me

#13 Post by thundril » November 1st, 2015, 8:19 pm

What you seem determined to ignore is the centuries (millenia?) of male domination of women. Until this is addressed and redressed, there can be no realistic scenario of equals or equivalents.
To pretend otherwise is analogous to the pretence, open to us as white males, that racism can be just forgotten, written off as if it never happened.

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: The Future of the 'The future of the..(if any)' title-me

#14 Post by Dave B » November 1st, 2015, 8:33 pm

thundril wrote:What you seem determined to ignore is the centuries (millenia?) of male domination of women. Until this is addressed and redressed, there can be no realistic scenario of equals or equivalents.
To pretend otherwise is analogous to the pretence, open to us as white males, that racism can be just forgotten, written off as if it never happened.
Perhaps we are some way from performing the trick of mind over matter :wink:

Sexual dimorphism was, perhaps, more common in our earliest ancestors - males were probably somewhat bigger and stronger than females. Rolescwere different, males hunted and females looked after the kids. OK, we have come a long way but are we not a long way from defeating the genetic inheritance, even with our big brains and well developed ethical framework.

I would go so far as to posit that ethics are an artifact of intellect rather than an inherent quality.Morals, on the other hand, seem to have a longer history...
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

thundril
Posts: 3607
Joined: July 4th, 2008, 5:02 pm

Re: The Future of the 'The future of the..(if any)' title-me

#15 Post by thundril » November 2nd, 2015, 7:07 pm

animist wrote:
thundril wrote: The commercialisation, and the normalisation, of this poisonous view (of woman as existing for man's purpose) will not change as long as some men continue to think of female sexuality as a commodity to be bought and sold.
this assumes that the view that woman exists for man's purpose is bad. I don't think it is bad, as long as long as it is conducted properly - and of course, that it is also recognised that man exists for woman's purpose.
This is nonsensical, unless it means that everybody exists for everybody else's purpose; which is nice in a hippyish sort of way, but doesn't mean much. The idea I was condemning - namely that 'woman exists for man's purpose' is a one-sided prejudice; prevalent in all cultures (AFAICS) and unchallenged in most - even to the point of being an unconscious 'given'.. The idea that 'it is fine as long as it is matched by an opposite prejudice' cancels out any meaning the statement could possibly have.
This is my whole point, which you seem not to understand. There is nothing wrong with commercialised sex, IMO.
This statement merely means that you cannot see what is wrong with commercialised sex. Yes, I accept you have such an inability. Now, what are you going to do about it?
Like it or not, we live a commercial society which centres on exchange of services and goods. Why is it wrong for me to purchase the services of a prostitute but OK for me to purchase those of an accountant or a teacher?

I have already dealt with this in my previous post, to which you have not yet presented any counter-arguments. But, to clarify my position further; Sexual intercourse is about as intimate and personal a relation as can possibly happen between two humans. Unlike plumbing, accounts-auditing or ballet-coaching, sexual intercourse involves an opening of the self, a sharing of personal space, which if not done on a basis of complete equality, amounts to an invasion. We are talking about the use of power to violate the personal integrity of another person. If you cannot not immediastely see this, perhaps a discussion of the relation of money and power might shed some light?

thundril
Posts: 3607
Joined: July 4th, 2008, 5:02 pm

Re: The Future of the 'The future of the..(if any)' title-me

#16 Post by thundril » November 2nd, 2015, 7:12 pm

animist wrote:
thundril wrote: (Incidentally, where do you get your idea that male sex drive is stronger than female? Evidence?).
I would have thought that the sex industry, which caters mainly to men, was evidence in itself. But anyway:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cu ... -sex-drive
OK. In our societies, it appears that a majority of men have virtually no reluctance to engage in sexual activity, and almost no embarrassment about doing so. Women, apparently, are less keen.
But if we were to consider these 'facts' as relevant to our present discussion, we would have to find some way of exploring why this difference exists. Personally, I am inclined to leave this aside.

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: The Future of the 'The future of the..(if any)' title-me

#17 Post by animist » November 3rd, 2015, 9:28 pm

thundril wrote:
animist wrote:
thundril wrote: (Incidentally, where do you get your idea that male sex drive is stronger than female? Evidence?).
I would have thought that the sex industry, which caters mainly to men, was evidence in itself. But anyway:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cu ... -sex-drive
OK. In our societies, it appears that a majority of men have virtually no reluctance to engage in sexual activity, and almost no embarrassment about doing so. Women, apparently, are less keen.
But if we were to consider these 'facts' as relevant to our present discussion, we would have to find some way of exploring why this difference exists. Personally, I am inclined to leave this aside.
these facts are central to our discussion, since they constitute my original post. You demanded proof of these facts, and I gave it to you, so you cannot simply decide to leave them aside; we need not search for the biological causes of these facts, although I would have thought it pretty predictable that the sex which has to penetrate, in some way, the other sex in order to achieve procreation would have the stronger sex drive

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: The Future of the 'The future of the..(if any)' title-me

#18 Post by animist » November 3rd, 2015, 9:34 pm

thundril wrote:
animist wrote:Like it or not, we live a commercial society which centres on exchange of services and goods. Why is it wrong for me to purchase the services of a prostitute but OK for me to purchase those of an accountant or a teacher?

I have already dealt with this in my previous post, to which you have not yet presented any counter-arguments. But, to clarify my position further; Sexual intercourse is about as intimate and personal a relation as can possibly happen between two humans. Unlike plumbing, accounts-auditing or ballet-coaching, sexual intercourse involves an opening of the self, a sharing of personal space, which if not done on a basis of complete equality, amounts to an invasion. We are talking about the use of power to violate the personal integrity of another person. If you cannot not immediastely see this, perhaps a discussion of the relation of money and power might shed some light?
you need to remind me what you said which apparently dealt with what I said. You are sadly simply wrong, but romantically and creditably so, about what sexual intercourse is: in itself it is just the necessary precursor to reproduction among animals, including humans. It does not entail opening up of the self any more than the other activities you mention, though clearly you think it should do. But I agree about equality; if sex happens under false pretences, then yes it is kind of an invasion. just as other types of fraud are an invasion - of "personal integrity", if that is the phrase you like

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: The Future of the 'The future of the..(if any)' title-me

#19 Post by animist » November 3rd, 2015, 9:39 pm

thundril wrote:
animist wrote:e[/i]' cancels out any meaning the statement could possibly have.
This is my whole point, which you seem not to understand. There is nothing wrong with commercialised sex, IMO.
This statement merely means that you cannot see what is wrong with commercialised sex. Yes, I accept you have such an inability. Now, what are you going to do about it?
right, imagine that you are in discussion with a homophobic evangelical Xian. You say that you cannot see anything wrong with gay sex, and s/he replies: "Yes, I accept you have such an inability. Now, what are you going to do about it?" Would you consider this a reasonable response?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: The Future of the 'The future of the..(if any)' title-me

#20 Post by animist » November 3rd, 2015, 9:46 pm

thundril wrote:
animist wrote:
thundril wrote: The commercialisation, and the normalisation, of this poisonous view (of woman as existing for man's purpose) will not change as long as some men continue to think of female sexuality as a commodity to be bought and sold.
this assumes that the view that woman exists for man's purpose is bad. I don't think it is bad, as long as long as it is conducted properly - and of course, that it is also recognised that man exists for woman's purpose.
This is nonsensical, unless it means that everybody exists for everybody else's purpose; which is nice in a hippyish sort of way, but doesn't mean much. The idea I was condemning - namely that 'woman exists for man's purpose' is a one-sided prejudice; prevalent in all cultures (AFAICS) and unchallenged in most - even to the point of being an unconscious 'given'.. The idea that 'it is fine as long as it is matched by an opposite prejudice' cancels out any meaning the statement could possibly have.
I am really not sure how the word "prejudice" got in here. I was not talking about anything remotely resembling prejudice. I am frankly amazed that you fail to understand my meaning here, particularly since many of your past posts, IIRC, have stressed the essentially social nature of the human animal. Yes, call me hippyish if you like - whatever is wrong with that? I exist for you to an extent, and vice versa; our relationship is a kind of friendship based on a large number of shared values (but clearly on differences as well, which spice up our relationship). It is of course not sexual, but if it were, this would be an extra ingredient, not one which transformed the relationship

Post Reply