Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Machjo

Members
  • Content Count

    4,228
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Machjo last won the day on December 3 2018

Machjo had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

66 Excellent

1 Follower

About Machjo

  • Rank
    Full Member

Recent Profile Visitors

9,711 profile views
  1. I'll also add that there's a reason it's extremely important to not shame promiscuous women either. They too might be acting compulsively as a maladaptive behaviour to trauma in some cases, they too might feel too ashamed to seek help, and they too might not even know that help exists and where to find it. Perhaps this is a problem sex ed classes could address, to help students with compulsive sexual behaviours to understand better what might be going on and how they can remedy the situation rather than just teach them that all sex is good and to just put a condom on it.
  2. How do men learn to become really stupid and out of control men? I learnt first from my babysitter for well over a year when I was around seven and eight and then my ex wife for a few years, both sexually far more aggressive than I was even to the point of being aggressively coersive. That, combined with my own character weaknesses, is what finally made me stop caring about my boundaries and I won't deny that I then started to become more sexually coersive myself in turn. The part that I lament the most was being too ashamed to tell anyone about my problem and not knowing where to turn for help. That's what I meant by not being too judgmental. If a person who suffers such a problem fears being judged or doesn't know where to find help, then how is he to get help? It was sheer luck that finally led me to find help. Also, it is false to assume that a trauma victim is necessarily self-aware. Though I recognized that my behaviours were compulsive and couldn't understand why, I somehow never made the connection between my behaviour and my childhood sexual abuse and the abusive relationship with my ex wife until a therapist pointed it out to me years later. I shamefully told him about my behaviour and shamefully asked him to help me with it. At first, he asked whether my behaviour bothered me since none of what I was describing was criminal in any way, so I had to explain how I was acting compulsively seemingly against my own will. He then started to dig into my past and helped me understand the link between it and my compulsive sexual behaviours. At first, I protested saying that my behaviour was due to my own weak character. He agreed, but then helped me understand how my past experienes contributed to my failing to learn the necessary character traits I needed to adequately defend my boundaries and how repeated failures finally led me to give up trying to defend my boundaries and to then just seek out the physical pleasures of life to fill the void left by the realization of my inability to defend those boundaries. He himself was somewhat surprized at the degree to which I'd failed to recognize the link and the degree to which shame kept me from seeking help sooner. Apparently though common in other patients, that shame and lack of self-awareness seemed greater in me than most. As for not seeking help sooner, I had had poor experiences with incompetent therapists prior, so that might have contributed to my not seeking help sooner too. That's why I think it is important to ensure men can feel comfortable seeking help and more importantly, know that help exists and where to find it.
  3. Yes, society is letting our men down. When society promotes sexual liberation as some fundamental human right, you end up with hosts of irresponsible men sleeping around with no understanding of the consequences. It's time we stop teaching men about rights and start teaching them about responsibility but in a non-judgmental way. This must include also teaching men how to recognize problems and where to turn for help when they need it. For example, some men may turn to compulsive promiscuity (a potential source of unwanted pregnancies) as a maladaptive coping mechanism for trauma yet might not recognize it since we're taught that that's just how men are. I was lucky in one regard. Prior to meeting my ex-wife, I suffered compulsive masochistic auto-sexual behaviours that I struggled with (which I learnt with the help of a therapist many years later probably stemmed from my childhood abuse). I initially thought the behaviour was just a biological need ingrained in my mind (though I still didn't discuss it with anyone and preferred to keep it to myself) but recognized that it might not be such a need as I seemed to gradually 'need' it less over time. At least I was mostly in control of my intersexual behaviours as long as I avoided situations that could make me vulnerable to coercion (since even the mildest coercion could trigger panic attacks that tempted me to submit to the aggressor just to escape those nauseating emotions). I knew my weakness so took appropriate precautions like refusing to meet a woman alone and especially in private until she gained my trust that she would respect my boundaries. I let my guard down with my now ex-wife one day and that led to an extremely abusive relationship for a few years after which I did turn to compulsive promiscuity as a maladaptive coping mechanism for trauma. Now here's why I was lucky. I remembered how prior to meeting her, not only could I manage my intersexual behaviours but was slowly learning to manage my more violently masochistic compulsive autosexual behaviours too. In other words, even though I hadn't yet made the connection between my childhood experiences and my compusive masochistic sexual behaviours and even though I didn't understand their source, I could see that my behaviour was slowly improving. My self-confidence was slowly improving along with it. I was aware that I was healing even if I didn't understand the disease. After that abusive relationship, I started to participate in ever more compulsive masochistic sexual behaviours with different women. Though I failed to link that behaviour to the abusive relationship, to recognize that I was suffering trauma (that I understood only years later with the help of a therapist), and to understand why I was behaving that way, I could at least recognize that it was not normal behaviour by contrasting it to my behaviour before I'd met my now ex-wife, and that at least gave me hope that I could change. My main obstacles were shame and ignorance. I felt shame at my behaviour so didn't tell anyone close to me and my ignorance prevented me from understanding the source of the behaviour, that I was not alone, and that help did exist. I eventually found help purely by accident. Had I ended up in an abusive relationship with my ex-wife immediately after leaving my parents, I would never have experienced the brief healing period between leaving home and meeting my now ex wife and so would have had nothing positive to contrast my later behaviours with. This could potentially had led me to believe that my compulsive sexual behaviours were just normal. It was that brief healing period after leaving my childhood home that helped me understand the pathology of my later behaviour and so at least recognize that I needed help even if I didn't yet understand the disease and where to turn for help, but that awareness made me recognize and seek help once I finally found it. A man who'd never experienced a brief healing period prior might not even recognize that he has a problem at all. Compulsive promiscuity is not normal, healthy, well-adjusted behaviour and generally reveals an underlying problem. Unfortunately, our society teaches it as perfectly normal and healthy behavour under the name of sexual liberalization. That's why I think instead of banning abortion, we should focus instead on addressing the causes of unwanted pregnancies in the first place.
  4. Sodomy was illegal in Canada until the 1960's, yet not one person was ever charged, let alone convicted, whenever it involved two consenting adults in a private room with neither reporting the other to the police. Why do you think that was? I'm under no ilkusion that a law against fornication would end it. Just like in the case of the old sodomy laws, the police would have no way of knowing whenever it involves two consenting adults neither of whom reports it to the police. I'm also under no illusion that it would end abortions. However, I do believe that it would greatly reduce rates of sexual coercion and assault. If one parrner reports the other, the police would only need to prove he consented, not that the other didn't consent, so a stronger deterrent and that would at least reduce the commonality of abortions. Also, I'd have no problwm with scanning my ID card and fingerprint at a casino if it could keep a gambling addict out of prostitution and so again reduce the rate of abortions. Even if abortions remain legal, we should still try to at least reduce their occurrence.
  5. So why so many single moms? If it's because of too many cases of sexual coercion (whether men coercing women or vice versa), then making fornication an offence punishable by a heavy fine that doubles for each repetition of the offence could serve as a more effective deterrent given how much easier it is to prove than assault and other forms of coercion. Such a law might deter some cases of careless sex too. If it's because of too many addicts selling sex, then more effective regulation of the gambling, alcohol, and nicotine industries could help people out of addiction. And for the record, I do believe that even if a woman coerces a man into sex or even sexually assaults him, he should still accept responsibility for the child not because the assault was his fault, but just because he's the father. Like I said, I'm less concerned with banning abortion and more concerned with reducing the rate of unwanted pregnancies in the first place. Sexual assaults and other forms of coercion are too difficult to prove on their own. Given the social harms of promiscuity (STI's, unwanted pregnancies, trauma from assaults, divorce, brokenn families, distressed children, etc.(it would make sence to toughen our sex laws. I disagree with the idea that sex is a fundamental right. Our laws treat it as equal to a walk in the park. Sex has consequences and so our laws should reflect that.
  6. Though I'm pro-life, I'm not pro-life in the conventional sense of necessarily wanting to ban abortions, but rather in the sense of wanting to deter unwanted pregnancies in the first place. From a male perspective in a country in which banning abortions is out of the question for most, male reproductive rights apply only before conception (unlike female reproductive rights that apply both before and after conception). For that reason, if men truly want to better protect their reproductive rights without banning abortion, it makes more sense to focus on laws around sexual intercourse itself (the final cause of unwanted pregnancies). I do think that many of our laws ignore the complexities of sexual coercion (a potential source of unwanted pregnancies) especially when a male is the victim and a woman the aggressor due to ignorance about the fact that sexual coercion is over 90% psychological and less than 10% physical; so yes, a woman can easily subdue a stronger man. Sexual coercion (whether verbal or emotional, whether involving unwanted touching or blackmail, whether involving a weapon, alcohol or other drugs, or the use of physical force) are at epidemic levels when you look at the stats. As for the comment about men suffering coercion being wimpy that French Patriot made above, consider the impact of childhood sexual abuse on the adult. Some think the effects magically disappear at maturity. Even the stats for childhood sexual abuse are surprisingly high and a victim of childhood abuse will not always have learnt how to defend his boundaries in adulthood, which in turn can make him more vulnerable to coercion in adulthood too Also, while coercion in adulthood can sometimes sit on the' low' end of the spectrum (begging, nagging, pouting, unwanted touching, which can trigger panic attacks in an adult victim of childhood abuse), I've experienced it on the medium end (sexual assault through the use of physical force, though I admit I'd contributed negligently to makiing myself vulnerable to it) and even on the high end too (threat of suicide with a knife to the stomach) as an adult. As strange as it might seem, I actually found the low-end coercion more traumatic than the sexual assault through the use of physical force probably because I was already emotionally numbed by the time I'd experienced the physical assault a few years later. My two greatest fears from the sexual assault through the use of physical force were contracting an STI and impregnation. Just because a man is physically stronger than a woman, he still doesn't normally expect a woman to sexually assault him, so she can exploit the element of surprise if he negligently makes himself vulnerahble. It takes more than a few seconds to recognize what's happening, decide whether to give consent going forward and if not, then to resist, acknowledge counter-resistance, and then decide how much force he's prepared to use, how much he's prepared to risk causing physical injury to the woman, and how to proceed to fight a woman so as to cause her minimal injury while she is fighting back. Ironcially, had she punched or kicked me, I might have reacted sooner and with more force; but because she was not trying to inflict any physical injury on me, I needed more time to process what was happening and decide how much force was appropriate. In hindsight, given the risk of impregnation and of contracting an STI, I probably had every legal right to use lethal force if necessary; but at the time, I was stunned by what was happening. I was confused since I'd never experienced anything like it before. The assault could all be over within seconds before a man even has the time to process all of that information, especially if he's sleep-deprived for example. And yes, a man can experience arousal, an erection, orgasm, and ejaculation without consent. The threat of suicide by stabbing herself in the stomach was the worst form I'd ever experienced in my life even if the woman was pointing the knife at her own stomach. It's a cruel mind game to think that your refusal to do something that's well within your right to refuse could cause another person's death, especially if she's acting like she actually could do it. No I would not have been to blame, but it's still a terrible mind game to experience. In that particular case, she was not coercing me into sex but rather to keep me in a sexually and emotionally abusive relatinship. Then there's the issue of sexual assault being difficult to prove when everything surrounding the assault other than the assault itself is legal. Furthermore, once a male victim impregnates a female aggressor, he will have no say in the pregnancy from that point on. That means that male reproductive rights must start before conception, not after conception. I'll take the example of Canada's laws against sodomy up until the 1960s. Not one charge ever involved an act of sodomy between two consenting adults in a private room with neither reporting the other to the police even though it was still technically illegal. I presume that the reason has to do with the fact that such incidences would never have even made it onto the police radar. Each and every case involved an act in public or one in which either participant reported the other to the police. Some US states still have fornication in the books as a misdemeanor offence punishable by a small fine of a few hundred dollars, usually applied when the prosecutor suspects sexual assault, prostitution, or solicitation for sex but can't prove that beyond reasonable doubt. Now imagine a hypothetical scenario in which fornication were an offence in Canada punishable by a heavy fine (let's say maximum 2000.00 dollars (to double for each repetition of the offence)). It would probably end up working like the old sodomy laws. In other words, whenever it would involve two consenting adults in private, the police would have no way to even know about it. However, this would keep people on their toes. The moment one partner seems hesitant or even mildly resistant, the other would now have a reason to think twice about pushing the matter because if she reports him (or he her), he could pay a heavy fine if they can prove even just fornication. Sure a woman could make a false accusation, but the man would be getting involved knowing the rules ahead of time. For good measure, we could even guarantee the accused the right to an inquisitorial trial without rape-shield protection so as to ensure adequate due process against the falsely accused. Even if a woman sexually assaulted a man and then accused him of assault, he'd have little to worry about since a prosecutor would still need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he'd at least consented to the act. If a man fears that a woman could make a false accusation, then don't consent to sleeping with her: Sex isn't a fundamental human right. The same would apply in reverse if a woman tries to pressure a man into sex. Also, stricter laws around different addictions could help too. For example, some studies have shown that gambling addicts face a higher risk of entering prostitution (a risk factor in unwanted pregnancies obviously). Adopting stricter self-exclusion laws requiring a casino to scan ID cards and fingerprints could help to keep the self-excluded out. This in turn could reduce the risk of a gambling addict gambling her way to prostitution and so increase the risk of an unwanted pregnancy. Of course I'm writing this from a male perspective (reproductive rights prior to intercourse) rather than from the female one (reproductive rights both before and after iintercourse); but I do think that stricter laws around sex itself would deter more sexual assaults and other forms of sexual trauma and this in turn would probably calm relations between the sexes in our modern Western culture. It would also reduce the need to ban abortions since fewer unwanted pregnancies would occur in the first place.
  7. You can consider the Canadian sodomy laws up until the 1960's. Even though it was illegal, not one charge was ever laid in cases involving two consenting adults in private, probably because the police had no way to know abou it. Fornication essentially works the same way in jurisdictions where it's illegal. As long as it's done in private between two consenting adults, the police would never know about it anyway. Only if done in public or one reports the other to the police or if cought in a prostitution sting would the police actually find out about it. If they can't prove sexual assault or prostitution, then fornication becomes their next bet if they can prove at least that beyond reasonable doubt.
  8. From my understanding, fornication at least in the US states is usually used in a plea bargain in cases of paying for sex or sexual assault or rape when the latter can't be proved but fornication can be, as a deterrent. From my understanding, it's usually just a few hundred dollars. It still serves as a deterrent against assaults and such though. If you know that all your partner has to do is report you for assault and you could pay a fine for fornication, you'll be careful not to pressure her and ensure you get appropriate consent and clear consent too, no?
  9. That's one route to follow if we do decide to recognize a feotus as a human life at conception. An alternative sotution to criminalizing abortion is to try to reduce the occurrence of unwanted pregnancies in the first place. For example, stricter gambling rules could help keep a problem gambler out of prostitution. More effective deterrents against sexual assault could help too. For example, what about a heavy fine if a person is found guilty of coercion on a balance of probabilities and fornication beyond reasonable doubt. Let's call it aggravated fornication. If he's innocent, well, he would have slept with her (or she with him) knowing the risks. As a society, we need to stop thinking of sex as a fundamental right: it isn't. For those who believe in science, sex produces babies, can spread STI's, can destry marriages and traumatize children, and other problems. Just look at the stats. Even the stats of female-on-male coercion are much higher than many realize: 'A total of 43 percent of high school boys and young college men reported they had an unwanted sexual experience and of those, 95 percent said a female acquaintance was the aggressor, according to a study published online in the APA journal Psychology of Men and Masculinity®.' https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2014/03/coerced-sex The rate for male-on-female coercion is probably comparable and from my understanding, when we break it down, has a higher rate of use of force too. Figures that high reach epidemic proportions in my opinion. Sex is not a plaything and the law should not treat it as such.
  10. Another point concerns male reproductive rights: 'A total of 43 percent of high school boys and young college men reported they had an unwanted sexual experience and of those, 95 percent said a female acquaintance was the aggressor, according to a study published online in the APA journal Psychology of Men and Masculinity®.' https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2014/03/coerced-sex If a man impregnates a woman while she sexually assaults him, he can be held responsible for the child. Given the implications of this and that sexual assault is difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt, should a man not be allowed to opt for stricter sexual laws to apply to himself and others in relation to him as a way to deter that person from assaulting or otherwise coercing him? Or do reproductive rights apply to women only? Consider too that even today, reules exist to ban certain sexual interactions. For example, you can't have sex with a minor, a physician or psychiatrist can't have sex with a patient, a professor can't have sex with a student, you can't have sex with a person who is too mentally ill to consent, etc. With the above in mind, it wouldn't be that far-fetched for a person to conclude that self-exclusion from fornication could better protect that person from themselves and others, depending on their mental health for example. Then the onus would be on others to determine that person's status. If in doubt, then marry the person.
  11. You might not be aware of historical laws. Historically (and still today in some US states even), fornication if an offence. In some US states, you can pay a fine for it (misdemeanor). The advantage is that if a prosecutor can't prove sexual assault, they can still charge him with fornication as a deterrent against sexual aggressors.
  12. I don't think you understand the political reality in Canada. Abortion will not be criminalized in the forseeable future. In other words, when I say I'm pro-life, I mean it within the present poltical reality, that we should toughen our sexual-assault laws to deter unwanted pregnancies in the first place. For example, we could consider imposing a heavy fine if it's proved on a balance of probabilities that a person coerced another into sex and beyond reasonable doubt that they had sex.
  13. Wouldn't tougher laws against sexual coercion reduce the cost of abortion itself? What? You think abortions are free?
  14. Fine. I'll use the more convoluted term 'sex outside of marriage.' No wonder English is a mess. Can't use a 4-syllable term because of some silly connotation. Now though I'm pro-life, let's put that aside for a moment and suppose that I were pro-choice on the matter. Given the whole #metoo movement, the constant complaiints of sexual assault acquittals and sexual assault being so difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt, and rape shield laws to lower the burden of proof even if it could lead to wrongful convictions, would it not make sense to let a person decide for him or herself how much sexual freedom that person might rather trade in for more sexual deterrence under the law? It would then be up to others to just not sleep with that person. How else do you propose fixing the dilemma between sexual freedom and sexual protection under the law without lowering the burden of proof?
  15. One dilemma society seems to be facing is that between sexual freedom and deterrence under the law. If every sexual act between two consenting adults in a private room are legal, then assault and coercion become extremely difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt. This greatly reduces the deterrent effect of the law against rapists and even lesser agressors who use more subtle means of coercion which can be just as traumatic. One solution is to lower the burden of proof through rape-shield laws, but then they increase the risk of a wrongful conviction. One hypothetical solution I remember reading somewhere (though I can't remember where now) was to give the individual the freedom to choose for himself how much sexual freedom he wants under the law. For example, just as a person can self-exclude from gambling in some jurisdictions, why not allow a person to self-exclude from fornication? This would mean that if he fornicates, he could face a heavy fine for fornication; but anyone who encourages him to do so could face a heavy fine for incitement to fornicate. The details of such a law would need to be worked out such as how a self-excluded person could formally inform another of his status as a way to warn the person away, etc. Details aside, though, the principle of it seems reasonable. After all, a person who has no interest in exercising their legal freedom to sleep around would naturally see that freedom as a disadvantage when facing rape or other forms of coercion since that freedom just removes deterrence against such actions. So for a person for whom that legal freedom is more of a disadvantage than an advantage, why not allow that person to forfeit that freedom in exchange for more legal protection?
×
×
  • Create New...