Boris Johnson's Burkha Comments

pblakeney

We're a long way from home Toto.

shirley_basso

I think nickice has a good point though. Of COURSE it doesn't make it right and of COURSE it's worth fighting for that change, but it is one person's word against another in a hotel room drunk with no witnesses.

Not an easy fight to win.

rjsterry

PBlakeney wrote:

We're a long way from home Toto.

That thought had occurred to me, but one thing led to another and I'd drunk too much coffee...

rjsterry

Shirley Basso wrote:

I think nickice has a good point though. Of COURSE it doesn't make it right and of COURSE it's worth fighting for that change, but it is one person's word against another in a hotel room drunk with no witnesses.

Not an easy fight to win.

Well, sure; but we shouldn't start from the assumption that some men are incapable of controlling themselves and it's up to everyone else to prevent them from offending.

shirley_basso

I don't think it is. It's just saying that it is a bad situation to be in

Of course people understand that no means no but you can't stop what goes on inside a locked hotel room if you're not there with the drunk couple?

By no means is someone trying to victim blame here, but that's as bad a situation as you can put yourself in if you are unfortunate enough to be assaulted or worse.

rjsterry

Fair enough. I should probably drop it now or PB will be on to me.

pblakeney

No getting on at anyone. An interesting debate but laughing at the buffoon's antics is much more entertaining. But then he has been ultra trumped by Trump...

nickice

Shirley Basso wrote:

I don't think it is. It's just saying that it is a bad situation to be in

Of course people understand that no means no but you can't stop what goes on inside a locked hotel room if you're not there with the drunk couple?

By no means is someone trying to victim blame here, but that's as bad a situation as you can put yourself in if you are unfortunate enough to be assaulted or worse.

Exactly. I think it was Merseyside police who were recently criticised for victim blaming for giving sensible advice about not leaving one of your female friends alone when she's drunk. I was robbed once in Scotland when I was young and extremely drunk. The primary blame lies with the guys who did it but I shouldn't have got so drunk and my friends shouldn't have let me leave alone. I made myself an easy target as I'm not usually the kind of guy people mess with (due to my height and size even though I have no clue how to fight). There are bad people out there and we need to do our best to avoid them.

shirley_basso

Dupe

shirley_basso

What's the difference between 'victim blaming' and telling people to use their common sense to stop them being the victim of (any) crime?

Also what's the crossover of severity of incident where you're no longer allowed so say 'well it's your own stupid fault'? I seem to remember hearing that a lot as a child!

Don't wear a short skirt: victim blaming
Don't go into a hotel room when drunk with a total stranger: common sense.

Now I am slightly trying to be devils advocate here but people seem to be up in arms when the state gives advice saying stop being a nanny state but then on the flip side people male or female need to also take some responsibility that their actions may lead to a less than desirable outcome and in nickice's example, it is incredibly hard to prove that it wasn't consenting.

veronese68

Shirley Basso wrote:

What's the difference between 'victim blaming' and telling people to use their common sense to stop them being the victim of (any) crime?

Timing?

rjsterry

Shirley Basso wrote:

What's the difference between 'victim blaming' and telling people to use their common sense to stop them being the victim of (any) crime?

Also what's the crossover of severity of incident where you're no longer allowed so say 'well it's your own stupid fault'? I seem to remember hearing that a lot as a child!

Don't wear a short skirt: victim blaming
Don't go into a hotel room when drunk with a total stranger: common sense.

Now I am slightly trying to be devils advocate here but people seem to be up in arms when the state gives advice saying stop being a nanny state but then on the flip side people male or female need to also take some responsibility that their actions may lead to a less than desirable outcome and in nickice's example, it is incredibly hard to prove that it wasn't consenting.

The idea that that wearing sensible trousers or anything 'less sexy' reduces the risk of rape is something made up to excuse perpetrators. There was an exhibition in America of rape victims' clothing: not a short skirt in sight. As a precaution it is as useful as not stepping on cracks. To tie this back to Johnson's article, I'm pretty sure the niqab and burqa are ineffectual in reducing the incidence of rape.

Not getting drunk at least has some practical value but if nickice is worried about men being wrongly accused after a drunken one night stand, what about the man taking responsibility by not putting himself in that situation?

shirley_basso

rjsterry wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

What's the difference between 'victim blaming' and telling people to use their common sense to stop them being the victim of (any) crime?

Also what's the crossover of severity of incident where you're no longer allowed so say 'well it's your own stupid fault'? I seem to remember hearing that a lot as a child!

Don't wear a short skirt: victim blaming
Don't go into a hotel room when drunk with a total stranger: common sense.

Now I am slightly trying to be devils advocate here but people seem to be up in arms when the state gives advice saying stop being a nanny state but then on the flip side people male or female need to also take some responsibility that their actions may lead to a less than desirable outcome and in nickice's example, it is incredibly hard to prove that it wasn't consenting.

The idea that that wearing sensible trousers or anything 'less sexy' reduces the risk of rape is something made up to excuse perpetrators. There was an exhibition in America of rape victims' clothing: not a short skirt in sight. As a precaution it is as useful as not stepping on cracks. To tie this back to Johnson's article, I'm pretty sure the niqab and burqa are ineffectual in reducing the incidence of rape.

Not getting drunk at least has some practical value but if nickice is worried about men being wrongly accused after a drunken one night stand, what about the man taking responsibility by not putting himself in that situation?

Indeed. My interpretation of his comments were 'if you go back to a hotel room with a man you've just met, are drunk, spend the night with him then in the morning accuse him of rape, you're unlikely to win your case'

Ben6899

Shirley Basso wrote:

What's the difference between 'victim blaming' and telling people to use their common sense to stop them being the victim of (any) crime?

Delivery?

nickice

Shirley Basso wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

What's the difference between 'victim blaming' and telling people to use their common sense to stop them being the victim of (any) crime?

Also what's the crossover of severity of incident where you're no longer allowed so say 'well it's your own stupid fault'? I seem to remember hearing that a lot as a child!

Don't wear a short skirt: victim blaming
Don't go into a hotel room when drunk with a total stranger: common sense.

Now I am slightly trying to be devils advocate here but people seem to be up in arms when the state gives advice saying stop being a nanny state but then on the flip side people male or female need to also take some responsibility that their actions may lead to a less than desirable outcome and in nickice's example, it is incredibly hard to prove that it wasn't consenting.

The idea that that wearing sensible trousers or anything 'less sexy' reduces the risk of rape is something made up to excuse perpetrators. There was an exhibition in America of rape victims' clothing: not a short skirt in sight. As a precaution it is as useful as not stepping on cracks. To tie this back to Johnson's article, I'm pretty sure the niqab and burqa are ineffectual in reducing the incidence of rape.

Not getting drunk at least has some practical value but if nickice is worried about men being wrongly accused after a drunken one night stand, what about the man taking responsibility by not putting himself in that situation?

Indeed. My interpretation of his comments were 'if you go back to a hotel room with a man you've just met, are drunk, spend the night with him then in the morning accuse him of rape, you're unlikely to win your case'

Nobody has come even remotely close to saying that what a woman is wearing will provoke someone into raping her. What we are talking about is good common-sense advice. I don't know in what context what a woman was wearing will be brought up in court so I'm not prepared to condemn it fully.

And men aren't the ones being raped (not usually). There are bad men out there. I wouldn't advise any men to have a one-night-stand, either.

I'm not in favour of casual sex and believe you should only have sex with someone if you're married or in a committed relationship. All casual sex does is lead to unwanted pregnancies (which often leads to abortion which is completely morally wrong) single-parent families, STI's and general unhappiness.

shirley_basso

What!? Casual sex is great. Condoms and drugs are out there to a) stop the spread of stds and b) pregnancies.

In the vast majority of cases, casual sex does not lead to the collapse of society you are painting. Think of all the one night stands that take place at university? Hundreds every night. Yep, there are the odd ones out, but in general, casual sex is great, muslims are nice people, and not everyone from the middle east is a terrorist.

As for abortion being morally wrong, that's your opinion. Everyone has a different set of morals and while it's a can of worms, accept that some else may view otherwise.

chris_bass

nickice wrote:

I wonder if this is exactly why conservative Muslims would say men and women need to live largely separate lives. Male behaviour will never change.

no, ,they say this because it says so in the Quran and they believe this is the word of god and have to follow whatever it says (or what someone tells them it says if they are unclear)

shirley_basso

Chris Bass wrote:

nickice wrote:

I wonder if this is exactly why conservative Muslims would say men and women need to live largely separate lives. Male behaviour will never change.

no, ,they say this because it says so in the Quran and they believe this is the word of god and have to follow whatever it says (or what someone tells them it says if they are unclear)

It's simply because it is what they have been brought up to believe.

It's not hard for someone in a position of power to buy into a belief system which re-affirms that power.

nickice

Chris Bass wrote:

nickice wrote:

I wonder if this is exactly why conservative Muslims would say men and women need to live largely separate lives. Male behaviour will never change.

no, ,they say this because it says so in the Quran and they believe this is the word of god and have to follow whatever it says (or what someone tells them it says if they are unclear)

There is often another reason behind religious rules. Jews and Muslims don't eat pork because of the risk it posed in desert societies.

Christianity encourages people to be married before having children as that's the best chance of avoiding unwanted pregnancies and having children grow up in a stable two-parent environment.

nickice

Shirley Basso wrote:

What!? Casual sex is great. Condoms and drugs are out there to a) stop the spread of stds and b) pregnancies.

In the vast majority of cases, casual sex does not lead to the collapse of society you are painting. Think of all the one night stands that take place at university? Hundreds every night. Yep, there are the odd ones out, but in general, casual sex is great, muslims are nice people, and not everyone from the middle east is a terrorist.

As for abortion being morally wrong, that's your opinion. Everyone has a different set of morals and while it's a can of worms, accept that some else may view otherwise.

And driving without a seat belt will probably not result in injury yet we still enforce that law (to be clear I'm not advocating monogamy as law merely a guide) If everyone were using condoms 100% of the time then I'd agree with you but they're clearly not. If they were, there would be no new STI infections except maybe herpes and syphilis (which condoms only reduce the spread of).

It might not affect all individuals but who would argue that so many single-parent families and abortions is a good thing?


As for abortion, I disagree that it's a matter of personal morals. It's the intentional taking of a human life (which begins at conception) and the right to life is one of our fundamental rights. It's certainly cheap and legal but it"s not rare. There were almost 200,000 abortions performed in the UK in 2017. That is not the sign of healthy societal attitudes to sex. Before someone says 'rape' or 'incest', they make up a tiny fraction of abortions performed.

shirley_basso

But the medical profession take a view that a life doesn't begin until 24 weeks (sorry I don't know the exact number). so again, that is your opinion.

Single parent families exist for a lot more reasons than just unplanned pregnancy. Some people want to be single parents, many split up.

That does seem like a large number of abortions, but then education is important and I'd say we should look for change in societal attitudes, not to convince people that they should only have sex with long term partners. Sex should be fun, regardless of relationship and people should be educated about it better. The UK in my experience doesn't have a very liberal attitude to sex compared to other European countries and I wonder what the comparative stats are.

Sex is not dangerous and should not in my view be discouraged at all. Like driving, everyone does it and sometimes there are accidents, sometimes fatal. Taking your analogy, the condom should be equivalent to a seatbelt, not a monogamous relationship when it comes to casual sex.

Once in a serious relationship, that is a whole different discussion. I am in no way liberal enough to consider an open relationship with someone I was settled with.

nickice

Shirley Basso wrote:

But the medical profession take a view that a life doesn't begin until 24 weeks (sorry I don't know the exact number). so again, that is your opinion.

Single parent families exist for a lot more reasons than just unplanned pregnancy. Some people want to be single parents, many split up.

That does seem like a large number of abortions, but then education is important and I'd say we should look for change in societal attitudes, not to convince people that they should only have sex with long term partners. Sex should be fun, regardless of relationship and people should be educated about it better. The UK in my experience doesn't have a very liberal attitude to sex compared to other European countries and I wonder what the comparative stats are.

Sex is not dangerous and should not in my view be discouraged at all. Like driving, everyone does it and sometimes there are accidents, sometimes fatal. Taking your analogy, the condom should be equivalent to a seatbelt, not a monogamous relationship when it comes to casual sex.

Once in a serious relationship, that is a whole different discussion. I am in no way liberal enough to consider an open relationship with someone I was settled with.

The medical profession certainly does not take the view that life begins at 24 weeks. The limit is usually set around that time because of viability. But, guess what? The time when a baby is has been decreasing over the years. Does that mean the moment when life begins has also been decreasing? Of course not. I'm not really sure what education you're referring to? The sex education I had at school (and that you can see on adverts) was pretty clear. Stopping telling girls that abortion is a reproductive right would be my first step.

And of course there are single-parent families for reasons other than girls getting pregnant from casual sex. I know life is complicated. Like I said, it's just a guide, not a rule.

rjsterry

I'm not a doctor, but I'm pretty sure being married is not effective at preventing unwanted pregnancies.

chris_bass

nickice wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

nickice wrote:

I wonder if this is exactly why conservative Muslims would say men and women need to live largely separate lives. Male behaviour will never change.

no, ,they say this because it says so in the Quran and they believe this is the word of god and have to follow whatever it says (or what someone tells them it says if they are unclear)

There is often another reason behind religious rules. Jews and Muslims don't eat pork because of the risk it posed in desert societies.

Christianity encourages people to be married before having children as that's the best chance of avoiding unwanted pregnancies and having children grow up in a stable two-parent environment.

But it is told to them by god, or sow (sic for the pun!) they believe, i'm not saying god didn't give them reasons for stuff, some of it is good advice, some not good at all, some just bizarre!

out of curiosity what makes pork more dangerous in deserts than other meat?

rjsterry

nickice wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

But the medical profession take a view that a life doesn't begin until 24 weeks (sorry I don't know the exact number). so again, that is your opinion.

Single parent families exist for a lot more reasons than just unplanned pregnancy. Some people want to be single parents, many split up.

That does seem like a large number of abortions, but then education is important and I'd say we should look for change in societal attitudes, not to convince people that they should only have sex with long term partners. Sex should be fun, regardless of relationship and people should be educated about it better. The UK in my experience doesn't have a very liberal attitude to sex compared to other European countries and I wonder what the comparative stats are.

Sex is not dangerous and should not in my view be discouraged at all. Like driving, everyone does it and sometimes there are accidents, sometimes fatal. Taking your analogy, the condom should be equivalent to a seatbelt, not a monogamous relationship when it comes to casual sex.

Once in a serious relationship, that is a whole different discussion. I am in no way liberal enough to consider an open relationship with someone I was settled with.

The medical profession certainly does not take the view that life begins at 24 weeks. The limit is usually set around that time because of viability. But, guess what? The time when a baby is has been decreasing over the years. Does that mean the moment when life begins has also been decreasing? Of course not. I'm not really sure what education you're referring to? The sex education I had at school (and that you can see on adverts) was pretty clear. Stopping telling girls that abortion is a reproductive right would be my first step.

And of course there are single-parent families for reasons other than girls getting pregnant from casual sex. I know life is complicated. Like I said, it's just a guide, not a rule.

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but why do you, as someone who is never going to have to make that decision, have any say in the matter? It's not a reproductive right, it is autonomy over the woman's own body.

I must say I'm struggling to fit these latest posts alongside your earlier thoughts on harassment in the workplace.

nickice

rjsterry wrote:

nickice wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

But the medical profession take a view that a life doesn't begin until 24 weeks (sorry I don't know the exact number). so again, that is your opinion.

Single parent families exist for a lot more reasons than just unplanned pregnancy. Some people want to be single parents, many split up.

That does seem like a large number of abortions, but then education is important and I'd say we should look for change in societal attitudes, not to convince people that they should only have sex with long term partners. Sex should be fun, regardless of relationship and people should be educated about it better. The UK in my experience doesn't have a very liberal attitude to sex compared to other European countries and I wonder what the comparative stats are.

Sex is not dangerous and should not in my view be discouraged at all. Like driving, everyone does it and sometimes there are accidents, sometimes fatal. Taking your analogy, the condom should be equivalent to a seatbelt, not a monogamous relationship when it comes to casual sex.

Once in a serious relationship, that is a whole different discussion. I am in no way liberal enough to consider an open relationship with someone I was settled with.

The medical profession certainly does not take the view that life begins at 24 weeks. The limit is usually set around that time because of viability. But, guess what? The time when a baby is has been decreasing over the years. Does that mean the moment when life begins has also been decreasing? Of course not. I'm not really sure what education you're referring to? The sex education I had at school (and that you can see on adverts) was pretty clear. Stopping telling girls that abortion is a reproductive right would be my first step.

And of course there are single-parent families for reasons other than girls getting pregnant from casual sex. I know life is complicated. Like I said, it's just a guide, not a rule.

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but why do you, as someone who is never going to have to make that decision, have any say in the matter? It's not a reproductive right, it is autonomy over the woman's own body.

I must say I'm struggling to fit these latest posts alongside your earlier thoughts on harassment in the workplace.

Society should have a say for the same reason as why society doesn't allow us to kill our neglect our own children. And if it's about female bodily autonomy, why set any limits on it? The only way that makes sense is if you believe life begins at birth (very few people tend to hold this position).

nickice

Chris Bass wrote:

nickice wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

nickice wrote:

I wonder if this is exactly why conservative Muslims would say men and women need to live largely separate lives. Male behaviour will never change.

no, ,they say this because it says so in the Quran and they believe this is the word of god and have to follow whatever it says (or what someone tells them it says if they are unclear)

There is often another reason behind religious rules. Jews and Muslims don't eat pork because of the risk it posed in desert societies.

Christianity encourages people to be married before having children as that's the best chance of avoiding unwanted pregnancies and having children grow up in a stable two-parent environment.

But it is told to them by god, or sow (sic for the pun!) they believe, i'm not saying god didn't give them reasons for stuff, some of it is good advice, some not good at all, some just bizarre!

out of curiosity what makes pork more dangerous in deserts than other meat?

I remember reading about it. It was something to do with parasites or spoiled pork being particularly dangerous. I've heard that strong sunlight is also one of the reasons for a full body covering (though black would only make sense if the woman was permanently inside which would negate the need for it...)

nickice

rjsterry wrote:

I'm not a doctor, but I'm pretty sure being married is not effective at preventing unwanted pregnancies.

Being married will eliminate many (but not all) of the reasons for people getting abortions.

shirley_basso

nickice wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

nickice wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

But the medical profession take a view that a life doesn't begin until 24 weeks (sorry I don't know the exact number). so again, that is your opinion.

Single parent families exist for a lot more reasons than just unplanned pregnancy. Some people want to be single parents, many split up.

That does seem like a large number of abortions, but then education is important and I'd say we should look for change in societal attitudes, not to convince people that they should only have sex with long term partners. Sex should be fun, regardless of relationship and people should be educated about it better. The UK in my experience doesn't have a very liberal attitude to sex compared to other European countries and I wonder what the comparative stats are.

Sex is not dangerous and should not in my view be discouraged at all. Like driving, everyone does it and sometimes there are accidents, sometimes fatal. Taking your analogy, the condom should be equivalent to a seatbelt, not a monogamous relationship when it comes to casual sex.

Once in a serious relationship, that is a whole different discussion. I am in no way liberal enough to consider an open relationship with someone I was settled with.

The medical profession certainly does not take the view that life begins at 24 weeks. The limit is usually set around that time because of viability. But, guess what? The time when a baby is has been decreasing over the years. Does that mean the moment when life begins has also been decreasing? Of course not. I'm not really sure what education you're referring to? The sex education I had at school (and that you can see on adverts) was pretty clear. Stopping telling girls that abortion is a reproductive right would be my first step.

And of course there are single-parent families for reasons other than girls getting pregnant from casual sex. I know life is complicated. Like I said, it's just a guide, not a rule.

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but why do you, as someone who is never going to have to make that decision, have any say in the matter? It's not a reproductive right, it is autonomy over the woman's own body.

I must say I'm struggling to fit these latest posts alongside your earlier thoughts on harassment in the workplace.

Society should have a say for the same reason as why society doesn't allow us to kill our neglect our own children. And if it's about female bodily autonomy, why set any limits on it? The only way that makes sense is if you believe life begins at birth (very few people tend to hold this position).

While I totally disagree with nickice's position on abortion, it is consistent.

On one hand I think marriage is seriously out of date, but on the other I can't think of a better way (in general) to raise a child than with loving parents who demonstrate all the qualities to each other that are required to stay happily married. Compromise, compassion, patience.

TheBigBean

rjsterry wrote:

It's not a reproductive right, it is autonomy over the woman's own body.

Not a debate I like to get involved in, but the rad fem position on this always puzzles me. A woman has autonomy over her body, but not after 24 weeks of pregnancy, not for the purposes of prostitution and not for purpose of kidney selling.