- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Wait...wait wait....no offense, but this is a very ignorant, judgemental statement to make.
However, when people engage in it outside of the commitment of marriage, all that results is pain and hardships.
What do you have to back up this claim? Wouldn't that be a complete act of a person who had no "control" of their sexual desires...if they couldn't have a healthy sex life without marriage and have it result in pain and hardships? Furthermore, don't most marriages end in divorce? Seems marriages hold a bit more "pain and hardship" then casual sex. People create pain and hardships (often because of their own insecurities) no matter what...whether you are married or not. Sex is about communication and understanding...it has NOTHING to do with your status of being single or married. That is religious brainwashing.
I think the problem with sex is that people are not educated about it and often enter sexual encounters without real knowledge or maturity to handle some of the responsibilities that must come along with having sex. (i.e. dealing with ignorant social sterotypes of sex, understanding how one will emotionally react, risk of impregnation, risk of disease) and those people will POSSIBLY have hardships. But this idea that sex is something that needs to be controlled is narcissistic...why should anyone adhere to one person's idea of what sex is SUPPOSSED to be? Of course there are certain exceptions to this (child molestation, rape, etc.) But if sex is consentual and safe...what is the problem? It doesn't bother me in anyway that someone wants to watch someone else have sex, or wrap themselves in leather, or be whipped, or rub feces all over themselves or engage in pre-marital sex. It really doesn't effect me. If one doesn't like a certain fetish...They won't participate in it. They will look for someone who shares a common sexual preference as they do.
Ok, I see what you are saying...but I still feel like the determination of what is "degrading" to women is a function of determining equal rights. For example, A woman, who does the same work as a man and yet does not share in equal pay...isn't that degrading to women? Though, I can see the fine line that can be crossed in which you point out.
Question: Would you say the same thing about an African American deciding when using the "N" word is degrading?
I mean...isn't that the whole point of being a feminist in the first place? To make a social commentary on what is degrading or unfair for women living in a patriarchal society. Just like civil rights activists will monitor what may be degrading toward minorities.
This is a tricky subject, to me, I feel that pornography is a healthy fetish (watching others) in which all parties are consenting. Furthermore, it is closely regulated (to prevent the spread of disease) which would be another issue. To me, it is just sex, in an unconvential manner. It is difficult for me to see any problems with it...however...I am also a male. There are arguments out there (aside from religious) that pornography is degrading to women and the industry is as patriarchal in intent as anything else in the world. At the same time, there is an argument (by some feminists)that pornography actually empowers women.
Lemme start by saying, I think i would be more concerned with feminist ideas on pornography than religious. The religious debate is constantly fought on this site and often end in the same results. For someone to say that god says "pornography is an aborration" is meaningless to me and many others because we don't believe in a god. However, I have found there tends to be a two sided debate for feminists on this topic...Some being for and others being against...this is what I would like to be the focus of this debate.
As a woman, I hope that I never get a job because I am filling some quota for a company, I want the job because I am qualified!
Is that an argument against Affirmative Actions? Sadly, I would have to disagree with you then because until discrimination is close to non-existant, it is a neccessary program in our society in order to weave in minorities and women into our higher levels of workforce.
However, If you were referring to jobs that are based on a democratic voting nature...than I think you make a fantastic point about being voted in because of qualification and not looked at because you are a woman, black, OR even a mormon.
I am curious about this statement:
...communism is an organized anarchism...
You are gonna have to clarify that, because aside from being an oxymoron, I don't see how communism is anything near anarchy. Quite the opposite actually. Furthermore, don't confuse Leninism (the roots of most of the communist nations today) and Communism that Karl Marx wrote about. We have never seen true communism on a large country-wide scale. China, Cuba, and North Korea (as well as the past forms of Stalin-Russia and onward until Russia restructured it government) are not communist nations, but is more Totalitarianist regimes. And you certainly couldn't compare Communism with Facism....now Totalitarianism vs Facism...better.
(sorry, not meant to sound hostile)