At 1/17/14 12:53 PM, Saen wrote: You and I have completely different ideals on what classifies birth control. Planned Parenthood labels incorporates birth control into the act of sex, i.e. controlling pregnancy during sex and after conception.

That definition makes sense as far as PP is concerned, but as far as males' responsibility is concerned, abstinence is very important. If avoiding pregnancy is the goal, then the only infallable method of doing so MUST be considered.

Men on the other hand can only have the options of a condom or a vasectomy, both of which are not close to 100% effective in preventing pregnancy.

it takes two to tango. The man has the ammunition for contraception, therefore he CANNOT absolve his responsibility in the act of conception by say it's the woman's job. Sure, female contraception may work better. So what? If the man has the PERSONAL interest in not making his partner pregnant, it is HIS duty to take as many precautions as possible. Same for the woman.

If the woman wants a baby and lies, saying she's on the pill, and the man chooses not to use a condom, it is only his fault that a pregnancy results. He was the one who wanted to avoid it, so he should have taken the affirmative act himself.

The fact that the woman lied is of no consequence (lest the male's contraceptive fails) because the man had ample opportunity to protect his own interest by using his own contraception.

A woman has the ability to become pregnant, in the natural world this is a great power and comes with responsibility. It is why females of a species are so selective when choosing mates and when to mate. Human females are not excluded from this responsibility. Some female species have the ability to accept or deny sperm or even terminate a pregnancy. Human females are one example of this, and with this power comes responsibility and living with the consequences of your decisions.

Same thing for men. If a man wishes to screw every women in sight without taking any of his own precautions, he takes on the well known risk that one or more of the women will get pregnant.

How does hormonal male birth control give control to men? Simply put if a woman's purpose of sex is to have a child and the man she's planing to fuck isn't in the same boat (regardless of the man being aware of her intentions), taking male hormonal birth control effectively gives him control of the pregnancy. Furthermore, just because a woman may not want to a man wear a condom doesn't suggest to the man that she wants to become pregnant, however if she doesn't want the man to be on birth control it is clear that her intention is to become pregnant.

I have no problem with a male pill. I think it would actually be quite a good idea for one to be easily available.

Much like in our society, sex in the natural world doesn't serve the sole purpose of creating offspring. Sex may show dominance among species, simply for enjoyment (dolphins are the only other species known to have recreational sex), as a food source (I.e. widow spiders may lure a male with sex simply to eat him without the goal of impregnation), or as a tool for migration.

Sure sex has SOME ancillary uses in nature, but as a whole, the overwhelmingly primary purpose of sex is child rearing.

My stance here is that BOTH sexual partners know full well what the consequences of not protecting themselves are. Therefore, because both partners are extremely aware of a relatively highly likely result, they are BOTH 100% responsible should they fail to take affirmative acts against it. By not actively protecting oneself (and I don't mean taking the other party's insistence of birth control usage as true) the person is playing with fire and openly and willfully risks the possibility of getting burned by it.

There are exceptions here, such as intentional disruption of a contraceptive by one partner, or a post sex end run around contraceptive by one partner. In such case the party at issue DID take the affirmative act, and that act failed, not by accident or bad luck, but by intentional sabotage by the other party (e.g. poking a hole through a condom, or by flipping a recently used condom inside out to get the contents)

Since Camaro and I keep going around in circles I'll move onto my next topic, even though my various points still stand.

How the media paints men as vicious instinctual rapists, killers, pedophiles, and wife beaters and how this leads to a general perception of all men by both women and men themselves.

Pay attention to the next thriller, drama t.v. show or movie you watch. Now see if you're able to get through one episode or movie without the man being portrayed as animalistic killer, rapists, pedophile, or wife beater. I honestly don't remember the last time I've gotten through watching a thriller without a man being portrayed as one of these things, so I'm going to keep track of the movies I watch and list how many times men are labeled in anyone of these fashions.

So the question needs to be asked, "who cares it's just t.v. what difference does it make?" Whether you accept it or not the media has a profound influence on our opinions and perceptions both conscious and subconscious. For example, my sister's crime professor asked "how can we learn about crime?" The very first answers were directly related to television and movies, she finally had to answer with "uh actual criminals themselves".

Accepting the idea that the media does have an influence on us, what may be some of the consequences of portraying men in these ways and have some of these consequences become reality? Personally I'm aware of this, but it's difficult for me to build an understandable, flowing idea on this. It would involve how ordinary men who are not rapists, etc. are treated or labeled as a result of media bombarding us with this depiction of the animal-like man.

I don't feel hated

At 1/19/14 06:37 PM, Entice wrote:

:Aren't these people usually stopped by other men, though?

Not necessarily, what's your point?

Also, serial killers are almost exclusively male, rape and spousal abuse are more common with males (even if you're talking about male victims).

There have been just as notorious women serial killers. Either way, serial killers male or female make up such a small percentage of our population. That being said, you bringing up serial killers as a part of your argument that men are natural born killers is exactly my point,a very small percentage of wicked men are being used to define the gender on the whole. This is what you've learned from watching television shows.

I agree that pedophiles are usually portrayed as males or gay males, which is obviously off.

That's funny, most people wouldn't even consider that women commit and are just as capable of committing pedophilia as men.

At 1/19/14 11:03 PM, Saen wrote: There have been just as notorious women serial killers. Either way, serial killers male or female make up such a small percentage of our population. That being said, you bringing up serial killers as a part of your argument that men are natural born killers is exactly my point,a very small percentage of wicked men are being used to define the gender on the whole. This is what you've learned from watching television shows.

The mere existence of female killers, rapists, and so on doesn't change that the majority of them are men.

As for TV, I think they stick to men no to enhance the belief, but precisely because of the belief. A male villain in such a role is both scarier and more believable to the average American viewer (mind you, the bar is VERY low here). In order to reel the most people in, they go with what they think will create the strongest effect. In thrillers it's fear and thrill, and naturally, men can elicit those feelings in an audience better than a woman can. It's not right, but I don't think the end effect of painting men as bad is intentional.

That's funny, most people wouldn't even consider that women commit and are just as capable of committing pedophilia as men.

They are, and while the rate isn't as high, many woman do.

At 1/19/14 11:25 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
The mere existence of female killers, rapists, and so on doesn't change that the majority of them are men.

As for TV, I think they stick to men no to enhance the belief, but precisely because of the belief. A male villain in such a role is both scarier and more believable to the average American viewer (mind you, the bar is VERY low here). In order to reel the most people in, they go with what they think will create the strongest effect. In thrillers it's fear and thrill, and naturally, men can elicit those feelings in an audience better than a woman can. It's not right, but I don't think the end effect of painting men as bad is intentional.

What's the name of that movie where a popular author is kidnapped by a crazy female admirer of his. She "cares" for him in bed while he has a broken leg/back and tortures him on a daily basis. That movie would give anyone the creeps. My point is once against women are just as capable of being violent and cruel.

At 1/19/14 11:13 PM, Entice wrote:
Usually, there's one killer and the rest of the characters (who may be male) are ordinary people. So it's not a matter of anyone saying "all men are like this".

From my experience it is usually the women who plays the ultimate part in catching, killing, or finding the serial killer, while the men seem helpless or unable to solve the case without a woman's help. That's a point I'll elaborate on later.

My point is, the "civilized men" are only limited to the rare breed of detectives within the show. All other men end up with something to hide, they're creepy, or just behave like complete animals. Meanwhile, whenever the perpetrator ends up being a woman the detectives seem shocked as if a woman wasn't capable of such a crime.

There was no such argument.

Right, then I suggest not using male serial killers to define whatever your point is.

At 1/19/14 11:36 PM, Saen wrote: What's the name of that movie where a popular author is kidnapped by a crazy female admirer of his. She "cares" for him in bed while he has a broken leg/back and tortures him on a daily basis. That movie would give anyone the creeps. My point is once against women are just as capable of being violent and cruel.

Misery. Creepy, no doubt. But, again, one thing going against the grain doesn't mean too much. It took some very good writing and very good acting to make Misery as Creepy as it was. It is far easier to put really any manin a bad position and make it creepy. With shows looking for the most bang for their buck, the easier to accomplish tropes (such men = scary and women = damsels) tend to be used far more than they actually represent society.

Ironically, it's the woman channel that has the most shows about deadly women, that being Snapped.

Funny, because The Addams Family TV show is one of few shows that actually had men and women equal. At least within the Addams Family.

Here's an example of sexual harassment law going way over the top:

FSU's definition of sexual harassment: "conduct of a sexual nature that creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment. This includes unwanted, unwelcome, inappropriate, or irrelevant sexual behaviors, or gender based behaviors, actions or comments."

Sexual harassment in this policy even includes gender based comments, this is just completely out of control.

At 1/27/14 11:42 AM, Saen wrote: Sexual harassment in this policy even includes gender based comments, this is just completely out of control.

How is that over the top? Why shouldn't a comment by a male professor to a female TA stating "you don't belong here. Women should be at home cooking for their families" or a comment by a female teacher to a male student "you men are always screwing things up with your aggressiveness" be considered sexual harassment?

At 1/27/14 11:46 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 1/27/14 11:42 AM, Saen wrote: Sexual harassment in this policy even includes gender based comments, this is just completely out of control.

How is that over the top? Why shouldn't a comment by a male professor to a female TA stating "you don't belong here. Women should be at home cooking for their families" or a comment by a female teacher to a male student "you men are always screwing things up with your aggressiveness" be considered sexual harassment?

Because those statements aren't sexual harassment just gender slurs? I wouldn't want to enforce legal punishment on anyone simply making a gender slur, regardless of how distasteful, likewise with racial slurs. This sexual harassment policy is a gross violation of first amendment rights plain as day.

At 1/27/14 12:10 PM, Entice wrote:

At 1/27/14 11:42 AM, Saen wrote: Sexual harassment in this policy even includes gender based comments, this is just completely out of control.

"Unwanted, unwelcome, inappropriate, or irrelevant" comments. Sounds a bit less out of control if you leave those qualifiers in, doesn't it?

If a woman doesn't want you to associate her gender with an adjective she might find "unwanted" laughably even "irrelevant", she can claim sexual harassment against you. People advocating gay rights on campus may also be filed under sexual harassment if any passer-by finds talking about gay rights "inappropriate".

The diction in this policy is incredible broad and may be easily abused by anyone aware of it.

At 1/27/14 01:35 PM, Entice wrote:

At 1/27/14 01:32 PM, Saen wrote: Because those statements aren't sexual harassment just gender slurs? I wouldn't want to enforce legal punishment on anyone simply making a gender slur, regardless of how distasteful, likewise with racial slurs. This sexual harassment policy is a gross violation of first amendment rights plain as day.

Florida State University policy isn't the law.

It's campus policy that may ultimately be punishable with expulsion. Excluding this fact, this policy clearly violates federal law itself do I have to repeat myself?

At 1/27/14 01:44 PM, Entice wrote:

At 1/27/14 01:38 PM, Saen wrote: If a woman doesn't want you to associate her gender with an adjective she might find "unwanted" laughably even "irrelevant", she can claim sexual harassment against you.

What I took from it is that it's not okay to say something about someone's gender (aiming comments at a specific person) when it's not relevant to a classroom discussion, which makes perfect sense.

Maybe it would be helpful for everyone if the diction was much more specific.

People advocating gay rights on campus may also be filed under sexual harassment if any passer-by finds talking about gay rights "inappropriate".
The diction in this policy is incredible broad and may be easily abused by anyone aware of it.

Advocating gay rights is very defensibly appropriate. I agree with you somewhat about the diction but I think it's open to interpretation and that there's a low chance of it being interpreted in the way that you see it.

It's not a low chance, FSU is in the fucking deep south. Low chance or not it was interpreted and used in this fashion by any individual and that's what is wrong.

At 1/27/14 01:57 PM, Entice wrote:
Last time I checked it's not in violation of Federal law for a university to have its own sexual harassment policy.

The presence of a policy itself is not the violation here, but rather the free speech violations within the policy.

I'll try to explain it to other way.

FSU's definition of sexual harassment: "conduct of a sexual nature that creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment. This includes unwanted, unwelcome, inappropriate, or irrelevant sexual behaviors, or gender based behaviors, actions or comments."

The policy includes "unwanted, unwelcome, inappropriate, or irrelevant comments", but only if they create "an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment". This clearly does not mean that all gender based behaviors qualify as sexual harassment. They are simply included as examples of behaviors that could create the sort of environment that the university doesn't desire.

All of those things are purely objective to the "victim". It would be fine if this policy was only limited to actions, but it isn't.

How is this part of your original argument anyways? The wording is clearly gender and orientation neutral. You're probably going to say something like "you know no one will take the policy seriously unless the victim is a woman and the straight man is the bad guy" but you have yet to demonstrate that.

How many sexual harassment accusations do you think I'd get if I marched around campus with a sign that said "women are pigs, blah blah blah"? How about women picketing "men are pigs, blah"? You would expect the men to get kicked off of campus and the women either tolerated or encouraged. Male discrimination in the majority of gender-related or women's rights legislation appears gender neutral on the surface of it.

Hell, this being a university in the south, this sexual harassment policy could just as easily be used to persecute gays.

At 1/27/14 01:32 PM, Saen wrote: Because those statements aren't sexual harassment just gender slurs? I wouldn't want to enforce legal punishment on anyone simply making a gender slur, regardless of how distasteful, likewise with racial slurs. This sexual harassment policy is a gross violation of first amendment rights plain as day.

The EEOC says otherwise. Per their website:

"Harassment does not have to be of a sexual nature, however, and can include offensive remarks about a person’s sex. For example, it is illegal to harass a woman by making offensive comments about women in general."

If you say gender slurs are a violation of the First Amendment, why is a proposition for sex not?

At 1/27/14 02:42 PM, Entice wrote:
That's just a classic example of the right to free speech not protecting the consequences of your free speech, which in this case can go as far as being expelled from school.

The consequences of free speech? Unless if any threats pertaining to rape are made there absolutely shouldn't be any consequences under a sexual harassment policy.

Sexual harassment can include mere statements or comments though, which is why they're explicitly included in the policy.

All of the wording in this policy is open to abuse simply because it is way to vague and broad.

That's the kind of response I predicted exactly. You still haven't demonstrated that this happens though, all things equal.

It doesn't have to happen, it never does, what matters is the policy itself can be abused in this fashion.

Not unless their sexual behavior is inappropriate. You're really stretching what this policy could possibly apply to.

Someone simply stating that he is gay in public will make a lot of people uncomfortable, and if those people were educated on this policy some might abuse it and find someone who says he's gay highly "inappropriate". This is not a stretch when concerning gay rights and women contraceptive rights, it may be an explanation for why there are anti-abortion posters and preachers protesting frequently while I have yet to see even a gay or women rights info booth.

At 1/27/14 03:30 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
The EEOC says otherwise. Per their website:

Well this is a huge problem, filing actual sexual harassment and then gender slurs under the same policy. What's next, racial slurs (racial harassment) are going to be illegal as well? Wouldn't a mere "harassment policy" suffice for actual incidences of harassment? This is beyond me.

"Harassment does not have to be of a sexual nature, however, and can include offensive remarks about a person’s sex. For example, it is illegal to harass a woman by making offensive comments about women in general."

If you say gender slurs are a violation of the First Amendment, why is a proposition for sex not?

I never said gender slurs violate the first amendment what are you talking about? Gender slurs and asking for sex are (or should be) protected under the first amendment.

At 1/28/14 12:36 PM, Saen wrote: The consequences of free speech? Unless if any threats pertaining to rape are made there absolutely shouldn't be any consequences under a sexual harassment policy.

So you're saying it's A-OK for a professor to give a girl an F because she rebuffed his sexual advances? Or it's A-OK for a professor to give all the best TA assignments to women because she thinks men are inferior workers?

All of the wording in this policy is open to abuse simply because it is way to vague and broad.

No. Sexual harassment is open to abuse because of the loose nature of the evidence required to make a prima facie sexual harassment case, not because the boundaries are too fuzzy.

Someone simply stating that he is gay in public will make a lot of people uncomfortable, and if those people were educated on this policy some might abuse it and find someone who says he's gay highly "inappropriate".

Innapropriate is an objective, not a subjective standard. The mere statement of one being gay not only is ot objectively innapropriate, it's not even an assertive act. The mere statement of one's status is not harassment in any sense of the word. Acting or reacting upon that stuts can be considered harassment.

This is not a stretch when concerning gay rights and women contraceptive rights, it may be an explanation for why there are anti-abortion posters and preachers protesting frequently while I have yet to see even a gay or women rights info booth.

Those statements are overtly political and thus are very protected by the First Amendment. The allowance of sexual based sentiments in a setting used to either denigrate or elevate one sex over the other is an equal protection violation. The punishment of a person for not giving up their body to a government official is a vioaltion of the 4th Amendment.

At 1/28/14 12:53 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
So you're saying it's A-OK for a professor to give a girl an F because she rebuffed his sexual advances? Or it's A-OK for a professor to give all the best TA assignments to women because she thinks men are inferior workers?

A "physical advance" is defined as an action, if you stuck to your own arguments you have been aware that I already made a comments exactly pertaining to this. The second scenario is deliberate discrimination, which is not actually harassment, but I'm sure is currently categorized under harassment.

No. Sexual harassment is open to abuse because of the loose nature of the evidence required to make a prima facie sexual harassment case, not because the boundaries are too fuzzy.

Because the boundaries of this policy "are too fuzzy" this policy can generate a documented sexual harassment incident from anything involving gender or sex itself that someone may find "unnecessary".

Innapropriate is an objective, not a subjective standard. The mere statement of one being gay not only is ot objectively innapropriate, it's not even an assertive act. The mere statement of one's status is not harassment in any sense of the word. Acting or reacting upon that stuts can be considered harassment.

It depends on where you live. In the south people don't want to be aware of whether or not a person is gay. With this policy there's no requirement of action, merely labels deemed "inapropriate".

At 1/28/14 12:47 PM, Saen wrote: I never said gender slurs violate the first amendment what are you talking about? Gender slurs and asking for sex are (or should be) protected under the first amendment.

That was a typo. I missed a "not" in there.

At 1/28/14 07:39 PM, Saen wrote: A "physical advance" is defined as an action, if you stuck to your own arguments you have been aware that I already made a comments exactly pertaining to this. The second scenario is deliberate discrimination, which is not actually harassment, but I'm sure is currently categorized under harassment.

So it's OK for a professor to repeatedly call girls inhis class "sexy" or "bimbos" and OK for a female teacher to call men in her calss "ogres" and "brutes"?

Because the boundaries of this policy "are too fuzzy" this policy can generate a documented sexual harassment incident from anything involving gender or sex itself that someone may find "unnecessary".

No What one random person finds "unnecessary" would not be objective, unless the person who made the statement knew of this and intentionally targetted it.

It depends on where you live. In the south people don't want to be aware of whether or not a person is gay. With this policy there's no requirement of action, merely labels deemed "inapropriate".

That's only true if a community or local standard is used. However, as the laws that grant protection from such treatment are natonal (i.e. they come from the Constitution), I would bet a national standard is used. Meaning that the West Coast version of gender roles would likely be used even in the South.

At 1/30/14 10:55 PM, RacistBassist wrote: Forgive me if I'm wrong because it might not have been that show, but isn't the male often portrayed in a less than favorable light, maybe even going so far as to justify the killing?

The show is snapped. Pretty sure that's what you're talking about.

I'd venture to say that at most 1/4 of the episode paint the man as bad. Usually there's a love triangle or something. And the usual show has the man painted as near saintly and the woman like a stone cold killer.

It isn't perfect, but it's far better than you'll find most anywhere else.