Politics and Porn

[KimGordon67]

I think the basic argument here is about how much we think people's medical care should be the responsibility of society vs the individual (and that probably extrapolates out into a wider argument about political positions, but I'll just stick to the medical care here).

I live in a place where the vast bulk of our medical care is covered by the state, and obviously paid for by taxes. I guess you could call that a form of insurance in the broadest possible sense of the term. However, I'm more inclined to see it as a system whereby we pay into a tax base to ensure the smooth functioning of society, and I'm more than happy for that 'smooth functioning' to include helping out those less fortunate than myself.

Tryn2Bgood, for me your argument, like Nezhul's, falls into the 'slippery slope' category. I'm going to apologise in advance to anyone reading this who lives with cancer in any way, but I'm going to use cancer as a point of comparison - I'm not meaning to trivialise cancer at all, but rather make a point about responsibility of care, and the important of pregnancy.
Cancer and pregnancy are both changes in our physical state that have long term and fairly life-changing effects. In the case of pregnancy, these effects aren't always negative, but sometimes they are; obviously in the case of cancer, they're pretty much always negative. So I'm arguing here for pregnancy that's not going to enhance the life of the pregnant person.
Sometimes with cancer we can point to aspects of the person's life choices and say 'Hmmm ... maybe if you hadn't done that you wouldn't have gotten cancer' - the causal relationship is fairly solid in some instances (e.g. smoking and lung cancer), not so much in others, and in some cases it's almost impossible to say that a person's behaviour is related to their cancer. Similarly, some people have an unwanted pregnancy because of 'choices' they've made (the problematic notion of 'choice' is a whole other argument, but let's just assume here it's a pretty simple concept), sometimes it's not entirely clear (e.g. a condom broke, but were they using it correctly?), and sometimes it's entirely 'innocent'.
I'm not 100% sure how it works in the US, but here if someone gets cancer, we don't say them 'sorry, you smoked for 40 years, so we're not going to treat this'. We don't ask them to prove that the cancer wasn't 'caused' by anything they did. Similarly, I wouldn't want to see that burden of evidence being applied to free access to pregnancy terminations.

In my version of society, if someone gets pregnant for whatever reason, and they then decide they don't want to bear a child or raise another human being, I don't go 'well, you should have thought about that before - bad luck'. Nor do I go 'silly you - we'll sort that out but it's going to cost you'. I say 'bummer - shit happens, so let's fix that problem because we can and it's not that difficult, especially compared to the consequence if we don't fix it'. (I might also say 'here's some information about contraception - have a go at avoiding this in the future', but I'd probably also suggest to someone after chemotherapy that they give up smoking.)

Personally, I'm fine about 'paying' for other people's mistakes, because the safety net that they have is also my safety net. Unfortunately, our government is hell bent on removing that safety net in a whole lot of areas of our lives - luckily they haven't gotten to the medical system yet.
(As a side note, my breast reduction was also covered by the national health. )

 

[tryn2Bgood]

I think the basic argument here is about how much we think people's medical care should be the responsibility of society vs the individual (and that probably extrapolates out into a wider argument about political positions, but I'll just stick to the medical care here).

I live in a place where the vast bulk of our medical care is covered by the state, and obviously paid for by taxes. I guess you could call that a form of insurance in the broadest possible sense of the term. However, I'm more inclined to see it as a system whereby we pay into a tax base to ensure the smooth functioning of society, and I'm more than happy for that 'smooth functioning' to include helping out those less fortunate than myself.

Tryn2Bgood, for me your argument, like Nezhul's, falls into the 'slippery slope' category. I'm going to apologise in advance to anyone reading this who lives with cancer in any way, but I'm going to use cancer as a point of comparison - I'm not meaning to trivialise cancer at all, but rather make a point about responsibility of care, and the important of pregnancy.
Cancer and pregnancy are both changes in our physical state that have long term and fairly life-changing effects. In the case of pregnancy, these effects aren't always negative, but sometimes they are; obviously in the case of cancer, they're pretty much always negative. So I'm arguing here for pregnancy that's not going to enhance the life of the pregnant person.
Sometimes with cancer we can point to aspects of the person's life choices and say 'Hmmm ... maybe if you hadn't done that you wouldn't have gotten cancer' - the causal relationship is fairly solid in some instances (e.g. smoking and lung cancer), not so much in others, and in some cases it's almost impossible to say that a person's behaviour is related to their cancer. Similarly, some people have an unwanted pregnancy because of 'choices' they've made (the problematic notion of 'choice' is a whole other argument, but let's just assume here it's a pretty simple concept), sometimes it's not entirely clear (e.g. a condom broke, but were they using it correctly?), and sometimes it's entirely 'innocent'.
I'm not 100% sure how it works in the US, but here if someone gets cancer, we don't say them 'sorry, you smoked for 40 years, so we're not going to treat this'. We don't ask them to prove that the cancer wasn't 'caused' by anything they did. Similarly, I wouldn't want to see that burden of evidence being applied to free access to pregnancy terminations.

In my version of society, if someone gets pregnant for whatever reason, and they then decide they don't want to bear a child or raise another human being, I don't go 'well, you should have thought about that before - bad luck'. Nor do I go 'silly you - we'll sort that out but it's going to cost you'. I say 'bummer - shit happens, so let's fix that problem because we can and it's not that difficult, especially compared to the consequence if we don't fix it'. (I might also say 'here's some information about contraception - have a go at avoiding this in the future', but I'd probably also suggest to someone after chemotherapy that they give up smoking.)

Personally, I'm fine about 'paying' for other people's mistakes, because the safety net that they have is also my safety net. Unfortunately, our government is hell bent on removing that safety net in a whole lot of areas of our lives - luckily they haven't gotten to the medical system yet.
(As a side note, my breast reduction was also covered by the national health. )

A couple of points to make:

The USA does not have the kind of healthcare your country does. (Some might argue that we should, but we don't so...)
I don't know exactly how your healthcare is set up...does the government just pay for anything someone wants to get done? Abortions, breast reductions? How about breast implants? Teeth implants? Anything you need or want? That's unfamiliar territory to me.

Secondly, we have to pay for our health insurance plans here. You get several choices (like which company to go with or deductible amount you have to meet before your coverage starts.) More expensive policies cover a greater percentage of the medical costs and have lower deductibles. The choice basically boils down to what you can afford. Since 'obamacare' if you work for a company that offers health insurance, you do not qualify for obamacare/affordable healthcare. You can take the insurance your company offers or shop independently, which is much more expensive. So, for the past 3 years, I have a $4000 deductible which means I have to spend $4000 of my own money each year before my coverage even kicks in. So, I basically don't have health insurance unless I need major medical care. And if you don't pay for insurance...well, then you don't have any coverage at all and you also get to pay a big fine when you file your taxes.

I gave you examples of what isn't covered with our public assistance healthcare in my previous post. So, the government won't pay to remove a bad appendix, but they should pay to remove an unwanted baby? Unless our healthcare was even across the board, like in your country, I can't agree with that.

And since you used the cancer example, let me just say that smoking is the main thing that you can link to something a person has purposely done to contribute to cancer. Did you know that if you are a smoker here, your insurance premiums are much higher? It's true. Because if you are a smoker you are at a greater risk for getting cancer. Well, aren't women of a childbearing age more at risk to get pregnant than a man or a woman who has had a hysterectomy? Logically, they should pay higher premiums to cover that. Also, excessive alcohol consumption can lead to liver disease. If you end up with a failing liver because of this, you may get basic medical treatment but you are not eligible for a liver transplant needed to save your life. Weird, huh...being accountable for your own actions?

You said you are fine paying for other people's 'mistakes'. So, the next time someone wants an abortion, you would be fine with paying the bill? Or maybe someone could start a foundation for 'women who want an abortion'. Then everyone who so strongly supports this could donate to the cause. And if there was such a foundation, would you just pay for every woman who walked through the door? Would it matter if this was Suzie's fourth abortion this year? Would it matter if Suzie refused to use birth control and will probably be back again in six months for another free abortion? Would your foundation be able to raise enough money to supply everyone who needed this service? If not, how would you decide how the funds were allocated? (There actually is a type of cancer policy you can purchase here where every member shares the cost of other members medical bills)

I am 100% pro-choice. Every woman should have the right to make that decision. The service is accessible. But I don't want to help Suzie pay for her abortion. I support Suzie in her decision, even if I think she's being a bit irresponsible by not doing anything to prevent further pregnancies. She has that choice. I should also have a choice if I want to spend my hard earned tax money on that.

I will, and do, spend my money on buying Christmas presents for children in underprivileged families. I donate a large amount of money for school supplies for kids that can't afford them. I have donated time and money to clothing and food drives for the needy. I have spent time and money feeding the homeless. I have opened up my home to a family that lost their jobs and home, even though I didn't exactly have the room. I have actually given a job/chore to a man holding a 'will work for food' sign. And given him a meal. When I file my state taxes, I donate part of my refund to The Literacy Foundation and Music in Schools. Those things are important to me. Those things make a difference and improve my community. Those things help make the world a better place. Suzie can pay for her own abortion.

Our world isn't perfect. The US healthcare is far from it. There may be better models we could follow. Those may have flaws too. But until something better comes along, we work with what we've got.

 

[Bramblethorn]

It doesn't sound like anyone on this thread is AGAINST abortion, but have different opinions on whether it should be covered by insurance. Personally, I don't think it should be included in basic healthcare. I feel the same about maternity coverage. Those items should still be added at an additional, optional cost. Choosing to get pregnant or choosing to terminate a pregnancy is still something you intentionally have added to your healthcare needs, thus you should bear the added cost for insurance that includes that.

The cost of abortion coverage is tiny by healthcare standards.

90% of US abortions take place in the first trimester. At that stage, abortion is not a complicated medical procedure. Even in the USA, where healthcare is absurdly expensive, the total medical costs for a first-trimester abortion are typically less than a thousand dollars. This is still enough to be a major issue for some people (hence why insurance coverage matters), but as healthcare costs go it's not a big-ticket item.

(Later-term abortions are more expensive, but they're rare enough that they don't make a big difference to total costs.)

There are about 250 million people in the USA with health insurance. (Actually a little bit more, but I'll keep the numbers round.) The US abortion rate is roughly a million per year, depending on whose stats you take - i.e. one abortion per 250 insured people.

Even if insurance was covering the full costs of every abortion in the USA, that would work out at about 1000/250 = $4 per insuree per year. Pocket change, probably less than the admin costs of micro-managing coverage options.

Maternity costs are about 100x more, but even that is still a small-ticket item compared to the really expensive things like cancer and heart disease.

Consider a woman who desperately wants to have children but is unable to. Should she have to pay for other women to get an abortion? Religious people or other pro-life advocates...is it their responsibility to cover the cost of all those who choose abortion?

Insurance works by pooling risks between large numbers of people. It's not practical to require that all those people have exactly the same standpoint on every moral issue related to healthcare. I'm sure there are vegans who chafe at sharing costs with meat-eaters, PETA types who don't like subsidising other people's use of animal-tested medicine, anti-vaccers and pro-vaccers who don't want to subsidise one another's choices, etc. etc. But unless you accept that kind of compromise, nobody ends up with functional insurance.

There should be an exception for pregnancies resulting from rape and cases where the mother's health is at risk. Also, in the horrible cases where the baby is not developing well enough to sustain life after birth. Those examples were not a choice and should fall under regular health plans. (And in rape cases, it only needs to be reported to the police as rape. It doesn't depend on evidence or prosecution.)

Reporting rape to police can be extremely traumatic and even dangerous, especially for racial and other minorities. While false reports of rape are rare, plenty of cops treat women who report rape as liars. I've seen quite a few women state that their treatment by police after reporting rape significantly added to that trauma.

For example, here's a horrific story about a woman who reported rape and was bullied into recanting her story, charged with making a false report, fined, and shunted into mental health treatment as a result... and then a different PD investigation other cases confirmed that she had in fact been attacked by a serial rapist.

Tying abortion coverage to reporting rape forces women into additional trauma, and it makes it easier for police to dismiss those reports. Imagine having to face a defence attorney: "admit it, you weren't REALLY raped, you just made up this story to avoid paying for your abortion".

Keep in mind, government healthcare/welfare (for adults; children are different) will not cover ANY dental procedures except having a bad tooth pulled and dentures. That is considered medically necessary, but they won't cover filling a cavity, a root canal, or even a basic checkup. They will cover an eye injury, but not not corrective lenses if you need them. They will not cover a 'scheduled' surgery such as removing your apendix even if it is needed or advised. You have to wait until it gets so bad that you go to the emergency room to have it removed. A hernia...not covered unless it ruptures and is medically necessary AT THE EMERGENCY ROOM. So, where should abortion fall on that scale?

It shouldn't. The scale is screwed up and illogical - US healthcare is deeply dysfunctional and inefficient in all sorts of ways - so why would we want to make the treatment of abortion consistent with all the other stuff that we already know is catastrophically broken?

 

[KimGordon67]

A couple of points to make:

The USA does not have the kind of healthcare your country does. (Some might argue that we should, but we don't so...)
I don't know exactly how your healthcare is set up...does the government just pay for anything someone wants to get done? Abortions, breast reductions? How about breast implants? Teeth implants? Anything you need or want? That's unfamiliar territory to me.

Secondly, we have to pay for our health insurance plans here. You get several choices (like which company to go with or deductible amount you have to meet before your coverage starts.) More expensive policies cover a greater percentage of the medical costs and have lower deductibles. The choice basically boils down to what you can afford. Since 'obamacare' if you work for a company that offers health insurance, you do not qualify for obamacare/affordable healthcare. You can take the insurance your company offers or shop independently, which is much more expensive. So, for the past 3 years, I have a $4000 deductible which means I have to spend $4000 of my own money each year before my coverage even kicks in. So, I basically don't have health insurance unless I need major medical care. And if you don't pay for insurance...well, then you don't have any coverage at all and you also get to pay a big fine when you file your taxes.

I gave you examples of what isn't covered with our public assistance healthcare in my previous post. So, the government won't pay to remove a bad appendix, but they should pay to remove an unwanted baby? Unless our healthcare was even across the board, like in your country, I can't agree with that.

And since you used the cancer example, let me just say that smoking is the main thing that you can link to something a person has purposely done to contribute to cancer. Did you know that if you are a smoker here, your insurance premiums are much higher? It's true. Because if you are a smoker you are at a greater risk for getting cancer. Well, aren't women of a childbearing age more at risk to get pregnant than a man or a woman who has had a hysterectomy? Logically, they should pay higher premiums to cover that. Also, excessive alcohol consumption can lead to liver disease. If you end up with a failing liver because of this, you may get basic medical treatment but you are not eligible for a liver transplant needed to save your life. Weird, huh...being accountable for your own actions?

You said you are fine paying for other people's 'mistakes'. So, the next time someone wants an abortion, you would be fine with paying the bill? Or maybe someone could start a foundation for 'women who want an abortion'. Then everyone who so strongly supports this could donate to the cause. And if there was such a foundation, would you just pay for every woman who walked through the door? Would it matter if this was Suzie's fourth abortion this year? Would it matter if Suzie refused to use birth control and will probably be back again in six months for another free abortion? Would your foundation be able to raise enough money to supply everyone who needed this service? If not, how would you decide how the funds were allocated? (There actually is a type of cancer policy you can purchase here where every member shares the cost of other members medical bills)

I am 100% pro-choice. Every woman should have the right to make that decision. The service is accessible. But I don't want to help Suzie pay for her abortion. I support Suzie in her decision, even if I think she's being a bit irresponsible by not doing anything to prevent further pregnancies. She has that choice. I should also have a choice if I want to spend my hard earned tax money on that.

I will, and do, spend my money on buying Christmas presents for children in underprivileged families. I donate a large amount of money for school supplies for kids that can't afford them. I have donated time and money to clothing and food drives for the needy. I have spent time and money feeding the homeless. I have opened up my home to a family that lost their jobs and home, even though I didn't exactly have the room. I have actually given a job/chore to a man holding a 'will work for food' sign. And given him a meal. When I file my state taxes, I donate part of my refund to The Literacy Foundation and Music in Schools. Those things are important to me. Those things make a difference and improve my community. Those things help make the world a better place. Suzie can pay for her own abortion.

Our world isn't perfect. The US healthcare is far from it. There may be better models we could follow. Those may have flaws too. But until something better comes along, we work with what we've got.

Yeah, basically what BT said - the American healthcare system is fundamentally flawed (here, for example, are suggestions that tens of thousands of people die every year because of lack of insurance: http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/sto...s-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/). But the country seems so wedded to the system that rather than just dismantle it and starts again, politicians keep tinkering around the edges.
Here the state pays for abortions. Breast reductions are available on the national health if they're medically indicated (although because it's 'non-essential' surgery, you do need to fulfill a couple of criteria around smoking and BMI). Maternity care is entirely free, and you get the option of a dedicated midwife. Children's healthcare, including dental, is pretty much entirely free across the board. Adults pay for GP visits, although they're subsidised, and heavily subsidised for people on low incomes. Dental care, admittedly, isn't free, although there are ways of accessing cheap dental care. So, no, not anything you WANT, but I don't think anyone ever WANTS an abortion - they're generally seen as necessary on the part of the person involved.
Suzie is a red herring. You're suggesting women would use 'free abortions' as a form of contraception. I don't know if you've ever had a termination or not, but I've seen them enough to know that you wouldn't say 'woo hoo - what an awesome means of contraception'.

So ultimately I guess the 'providing for those less fortunate' approach actually has two arms. I understand your argument, but again, I think in a society where those who have plenty decide who 'deserves' help is potentially flawed - and also, pretty Victorian (the 'provision of charity to the deserving poor' model was pretty strong in Victorian England and elsewhere). It's also just way more efficient if the means for redistributing resources to those in need is centralised ... yes, I"m talking about something pretty close to socialism. Where I am has a bedrock of social democracy, which is sort of 'socialism-lite', and more palatable to most people. Basically, the argument is that as a society, we have the means to ensure everyone has a decent quality of life, and the responsibility to make that happen. 'A decent quality of life' would, in my books, include free and ready access to safe pregnancy terminations.

Again, the argument here will fundamentally come down to your philosophical position - nothing anyone in this thread says is likely to alter someone else's fundamental philosophical position.

 

[tryn2Bgood]

Yeah, basically what BT said - the American healthcare system is fundamentally flawed (here, for example, are suggestions that tens of thousands of people die every year because of lack of insurance: http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/sto...s-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/). But the country seems so wedded to the system that rather than just dismantle it and starts again, politicians keep tinkering around the edges.

I completely agree with the above quote. In fact, I listed many of those flaws in my previous posts. I, personally, would have no idea how to restructure our healthcare system to be beneficial for everyone, including healthcare providers, and affordable for our government...I'm just not that smart. But I'm pretty sure there isn't a quick fix. No matter...at the moment, we have to PAY for our health insurance; its not covered by the taxes we pay. (Unless you are below poverty level and getting public assistance) I'm not saying insurance shouldn't cover abortions at all; I'm saying that I don't think it should be attached to everyone's basic health plan. Nor should maternity if that does not apply to you at all. Previous to the Affordable Healthcare Act, those were 'options'. (I paid roughly $2400 a year for my insurance and only had to meet a $250 deductible. I could go to almost any doctor or hospital I wanted. It was excellent coverage. Now I pay $6000 a year for a policy with a $4000 deductible with fewer available doctors. That means I have to spend $10000 a year in order to have coverage.) Maybe if I lived where you do I would have a different opinion.

Also, I don't think Suzie is a red herring. I know several people who have had more than one or two abortions. I searched the internet a bit for more info. Most results I found show that about 36% of women getting an abortion have had one or two previously, and about 9% had had three or more. I'm not saying they are using abortion as a form of contraception, but they're certainly not doing a very good job of preventing pregnancies.

 

[KimGordon67]

I completely agree with the above quote. In fact, I listed many of those flaws in my previous posts. I, personally, would have no idea how to restructure our healthcare system to be beneficial for everyone, including healthcare providers, and affordable for our government...I'm just not that smart. But I'm pretty sure there isn't a quick fix. No matter...at the moment, we have to PAY for our health insurance; its not covered by the taxes we pay. (Unless you are below poverty level and getting public assistance) I'm not saying insurance shouldn't cover abortions at all; I'm saying that I don't think it should be attached to everyone's basic health plan. Nor should maternity if that does not apply to you at all. Previous to the Affordable Healthcare Act, those were 'options'. (I paid roughly $2400 a year for my insurance and only had to meet a $250 deductible. I could go to almost any doctor or hospital I wanted. It was excellent coverage. Now I pay $6000 a year for a policy with a $4000 deductible with fewer available doctors. That means I have to spend $10000 a year in order to have coverage.) Maybe if I lived where you do I would have a different opinion.

Also, I don't think Suzie is a red herring. I know several people who have had more than one or two abortions. I searched the internet a bit for more info. Most results I found show that about 36% of women getting an abortion have had one or two previously, and about 9% had had three or more. I'm not saying they are using abortion as a form of contraception, but they're certainly not doing a very good job of preventing pregnancies.

*Faint* ... someone in a discussion on a Lit board did some research? Those are interesting stats and I'd have to look into them a bit more ... but I suspect there's a number of factors contributing to the plural terminations - including the fact that two (or three) abortions across a lifetime isn't really that many. Among many other things.

The US healthcare system makes my head hurt, and I really can't comment on it with any degree of knowledge other than nothing it looks like a total mess. I'm sort of puzzled as to how it ever ended up that way, but I'm sure there's some good historical reason. You can actually have health insurance here, but it's only really the preserve of the (upper) middle classes, and means that things considered unnecessary under the state system are covered, you don't have to sit on waiting lists, and you get to go to fancy private hospitals. However, I've been in the public hospital system a couple of times, and I think it's pretty good, and I was happy to wait a while for my surgery.

 

[tryn2Bgood]

Tying abortion coverage to reporting rape forces women into additional trauma, and it makes it easier for police to dismiss those reports. Imagine having to face a defence attorney: "admit it, you weren't REALLY raped, you just made up this story to avoid paying for your abortion".

Yes, well...that has been and still is the Federal guideline. Federal funds for abortion are only for cases of incest, rape, and when the mother's life is at risk. Each state has their own guidelines for funding abortion. That's just the way it is right now...

 

[Bramblethorn]

Also, I don't think Suzie is a red herring. I know several people who have had more than one or two abortions. I searched the internet a bit for more info. Most results I found show that about 36% of women getting an abortion have had one or two previously, and about 9% had had three or more. I'm not saying they are using abortion as a form of contraception, but they're certainly not doing a very good job of preventing pregnancies.

Guttmacher has a report on this issue. It confirms that many women having an abortion have had at least one previously, but this bit is very important:

Just as with women having their first abortion, however, the majority of women having their second or even their third abortion were using contraceptives during the time period in which they became pregnant. In fact, women having a repeat abortion are slightly more likely to have been using a highly effective hormonal method (e.g., the pill or an injectable). This finding refutes the notion that large numbers of women are relying on abortion as their primary method of birth control. Rather, it suggests that women having abortions—especially those having more than one—are trying hard to avoid unintended pregnancy, but are having trouble doing so.

It goes on to discuss some reasons for that. One point it makes is that pressure to separate federally-funded contraception work from non-federally-funded abortion means that when a woman's contraception DOES fail and she goes to get an abortion, the clinic is not in a good position to review what went wrong with her birth control and prevent it happening again.

 

[Blue]

Personally I think we need to assassinate every single republican in the US federal government so you can finally get out of the 19th century on healthcare.
Who's with me?

~ ~ ~ ~

So, apparently the NSA is spying on me now.

 

[Bramblethorn]

You don't have to jail 90% of people; you don't have to jail anybody. Here's how it can go:
...
Only, your law is vague enough that it's hard to determine what counts as "child porn". Nobody wants to be the test case, so ISPs and payment services play it safe by avoiding anything that could be remotely considered at risk. Badly-designed filters mean that any site that discusses under-age sex (like, say, an abuse survivors support site) is at risk of being blocked; this has happened over and over again around the world. If people get angry about it, the government can say: well, we didn't ban your support site, that was the ISP's fault! without acknowledging that they put the ISP in an impossible position.

Sites dealing with non-standard sexuality (LGBT, BDSM etc.) are especially at risk, because a lot of people work under a double standard that considers "I'm John and this is my boyfriend" to be more "sexual" than "I'm Jane and this is my boyfriend". (See recent UK filtering for some examples of this.)
...

This means the government doesn't have to go after every porn user individually; they just have to go after a few ISPs and payment providers and pressure them to block stuff. The ISPs will err on the side of caution, and they can choose to censor stuff that the US government would not be allowed to censor under the First Amendment. Mission accomplished without needing to send ANYBODY to jail.

Oh look, just like I said: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/payment-processors-are-still-policing-your-sex-life

 

[MeekMe]

Oh look, just like I said: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/payment-processors-are-still-policing-your-sex-life

This is what my OP was based on. In the thread I linked there's more discussion on it. As for there being no evidence of FL having illegal content, they've been really terrible about eliminating the groups discussing illegal activities in blatant code. There were a lot of groups discussing "family picnics" and "earning" puppy paw tattoos that even when alerted they did nothing about. Part of me thinks FL brought it on themselves with bad management and allowing problematic things to continue. The financial processors were a named reason for the crack down. They've just recently announced that they will start allowing private groups. We can only speculate what that will do in the long run.

 

[Bramblethorn]

This is what my OP was based on. In the thread I linked there's more discussion on it. As for there being no evidence of FL having illegal content, they've been really terrible about eliminating the groups discussing illegal activities in blatant code. There were a lot of groups discussing "family picnics" and "earning" puppy paw tattoos that even when alerted they did nothing about. Part of me thinks FL brought it on themselves with bad management and allowing problematic things to continue. The financial processors were a named reason for the crack down. They've just recently announced that they will start allowing private groups. We can only speculate what that will do in the long run.

Whoops, right you are - I remembered you'd posted about FL but missed that you'd already been discussing payment stuff.

 

[Netzach]

Keep in mind, government healthcare/welfare (for adults; children are different) will not cover ANY dental procedures except having a bad tooth pulled and dentures. That is considered medically necessary, but they won't cover filling a cavity, a root canal, or even a basic checkup.

So much nope. You've never talked to anyone who navigated this, much as you claim to be all for the sign-holding set.

They will cover the pull in an ER. That's it.

So then you have missing teeth. And try going on a job interview missing any of the "social six" and getting a job while worthless clueless assholes tell you to "pull yourself up by your boostraps, get a JOB loser"

How much is a partial or a full, Einstein? Priced one ever? Every met someone paying rent and unable to afford a "flipper" for a few hundred bucks?
Nah.


Seriously, it's time for a lot of people to shut up and go away on this subject, which they know nothing of. I used to never wish catastrophic illness on people but now I do every single day, because they lack the fucking imagination otherwise.

 

[Netzach]

Whoops, right you are - I remembered you'd posted about FL but missed that you'd already been discussing payment stuff.

Nasty pornographers and prodommes have been trying to tell y'all about this for about 15 years, the deal with payment processors and "forbidden terms" but....

 

[MeekMe]

So much nope. You've never talked to anyone who navigated this, much as you claim to be all for the sign-holding set.

They will cover the pull in an ER. That's it.

So then you have missing teeth. And try going on a job interview missing any of the "social six" and getting a job while worthless clueless assholes tell you to "pull yourself up by your boostraps, get a JOB loser"

How much is a partial or a full, Einstein? Priced one ever? Every met someone paying rent and unable to afford a "flipper" for a few hundred bucks?
Nah.


Seriously, it's time for a lot of people to shut up and go away on this subject, which they know nothing of. I used to never wish catastrophic illness on people but now I do every single day, because they lack the fucking imagination otherwise.

I get this. When I finally went to a dentist they were amazed my teeth were in the shape they were in. I come from a poor family that couldn't afford the copay on simple visits. Anything that went wrong set my mother into a panic. I started to hide my illnesses because I thought if I could just get better I wouldn't need to tell her and we wouldn't have to visit a doctor we couldn't afford.

I never had dental care because it just didn't exist for us. I almost died when my appendix went bad because a stomach ache wasn't worth a doctors visit. I still fear medical bills even though I'm in a better place to handle them.

 

[MeekMe]

Whoops, right you are - I remembered you'd posted about FL but missed that you'd already been discussing payment stuff.

It is all good. I merely wanted to say that it was the whole reason for the start of the thread. I found the link and reporting interesting really. I've never been in on something that made the news later.

 

[tryn2Bgood]

So much nope. You've never talked to anyone who navigated this, much as you claim to be all for the sign-holding set.

They will cover the pull in an ER. That's it.

So then you have missing teeth. And try going on a job interview missing any of the "social six" and getting a job while worthless clueless assholes tell you to "pull yourself up by your boostraps, get a JOB loser"

How much is a partial or a full, Einstein? Priced one ever? Every met someone paying rent and unable to afford a "flipper" for a few hundred bucks?
Nah.


Seriously, it's time for a lot of people to shut up and go away on this subject, which they know nothing of. I used to never wish catastrophic illness on people but now I do every single day, because they lack the fucking imagination otherwise.

WTF? I don't understand how you quoted two sentences from me, interpreted them however you did, and decided it warranted the type of response you posted...

I have most definitely talked to people who have navigated this. I work very closely with people in need and social services. I assist people in navigating this.

I stated government assisted healthcare/welfare only covered pulling a bad tooth or dentures, which is true. They will cover the pull in the ER, but most often it is done during free clinic times with a scheduled appointment. If it is deemed that most of a person's teeth are bad and need to be pulled, they will cover dentures. I never said anything about partials, flippers, bridges, implants, crowns, or even fillings being covered. I do know the cost of those things and I do know plenty of people who can't afford them. Your point?

You are very rude and quick to attack someone when you don't even understand the words you read. If you are the type of person that needs to search for any potential opportunity to spew your disgust and hatred, then feel free to use me as a target. I truly feel bad for you.

 

[Primalex]

What you should be arguing for is reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies. By means of more accessible contraception, for example, rising public awareness, etcetra etcetra.

More accessible than just buying it at Walmart?

If a smoker smokes in bed and sets his home on fire - who is to blame? It's not like fire becomes less unwanted because he ignored all the safety measures. But at the same time, it's not like the insurance company has to pay for his stupidity.

Actually they do. The distinction is "intention". Why would a forgotten christmas candle be better or worse than a forgotten cigarette in the first place?

Is that an insurance case? No. I don't think so. Why should insurance companies pay for that?

Because they offered to cover it, signed a contract and took your fucking money. That's why.

 

[cascadiabound]

I realize the thread has moved past this quite awhile ago, but the discussion bugged me quite a bit as I read it in real time and I ran across a rather good article that seems to me to be on point with women's lived experience (at least in the United States; perhaps Russia is a utopia for women's egalitarian experiences with men - cause I seem to have missed the cit-able studies so far of this effect.)

https://byrslf.co/to-men-i-love-about-men-who-scare-me-dd816cd02e33#.yqqlcbxln

I am very much inclined to post the entire brief article, but instead I will encourage you to read it for yourself. I will instead only quote the final paragraph here.

"Decent male humans, this is not your fault, but it also does not have nothing to do with you. If a woman is frosty or standoffish or doesn’t laugh at your joke, consider the notion that maybe she is not an uptight, humorless bitch, but rather has had experiences that are outside your realm of understanding, and have adversely colored her perception of the world. Consider that while you’re just joking around, a woman might actually be doing some quick mental math to see if she’s going to have to hide in a fucking bathroom stall and call someone to come help her, like I did three days ago.

Please adjust your mindset and your words accordingly."

Laura Munoz​

I would say that my experience and the experience of the women I know (and I know a lot of women across a wide set of ages, life experiences, work life, and social class, and I have lived in cities, suburbs and rural communities) matches what women on this thread have said about risk assessment and what the woman in the blog post that I provided the link for said.

I recognize that if you are a "good guy" and your intentions are without malice as you compliment etc, it may be hard for you to understand the truth of our lived experience, however to discount our truth, is to tell us that our experience is not valid and to undermine our very worth as people. Therefore... it does become incumbent upon you to adjust your mindset and words accordingly if you do indeed care about not being continually assessed as a possible risk (even as the women in question nod and smile and laugh politely at your compliments and jokes. These are our coping mechanisms, not evidence of your charm.

my, late to the party, 2 cents​

I told you every single woman I know works on the basis of engaging in risk assessment every time a random guy approaches you. Every. Single. One of them. And I know a fair few women. Why don't we trust that what they all do is, in fact, how many women react to this stuff (except, apparently, the ones in Russia for some reason that you probably know better than me). There's a whole online 'movement' dedicated to explaining to men how telling us we're pretty when you don't know us doesn't really do a whole for us (except, apparently, in Russia). Why do you find this so difficult to believe?

Strange guys approaching us freaks most of us out. There's so much evidence to supports this, it's ridiculous. If you truly love women as much as you say you do, just smile at them ... we can pretty much mostly handle that. Anything else is a potential risk as far as we're concerned, so it would be awesome if you could keep your thoughts about people's prettiness to yourself.

Here's my original post:
I don't use the word "pretty", I use the word "I like you and would like to know you better".

"Pretty" is the word Bramblethorn used when twisting my suggestion so it could sound as creepy as possible.

If that's too bad for you too, then, well, yeah. I guess people are just not built to start new relationships anywhere outside their social circle (or specifically dedicated places), because it apparently freaks people out.

'I like you' when that's based on solely seeing her in the street is actually more creepy.
I don't seem to have had any problem starting relationships and NONE of them have been based on approaching or being approached by strangers in public places.

I've had 5 relationships and 4 of them I started in public places.
I studied (and work) in a predominantly male environment, so I can only meet people outdoors.

I've asked a few of my woman friends and the consensus was that it depends on how the guy looks and how he approaches.
Which is the case with every approach to any person, really. Goes without saying you should work on presenting yourself before going out to meet people.

But it's perfectly fine to start a relationship on the street.

I stand by my words. I've been given a cold shoulder more than a few times, but I've never saw someone scared or creeped out by me. And I'm a good judge of emotions.
This approach works, so I'm going to keep using it. I can't account for everyone's perspective.

I've read through this entire thread for the first time this morning.

Wow.

Nezhul is right - this is the way its been done for hundreds of years.

Probably thousands of years.

My first thought on reading Kim Gordon was to wonder what we're becoming if she/he is in any way representative of society as a whole.

Irrespective of sexual preference labelling, we're in trouble as a species when one gender "engages in risk management" when simply approached by the other gender.

Sad is the only word I can think of to describe this.

It IS sad. But I can tell you straight, it's not the fault of women. Obviously 'not all men' either. But the only people who have groped me on public transport or pulled me off the steet at night have been men who have started by 'complimenting ' me on my appearance. If I'm missing out on awesome relationships in the process of mitigating the risk of being sexually assaulted again, I'm ok with that.

Why do you and Nezhul find it so hard to believe me and the mytiad women who say the same thing?

 

[KimGordon67]

I realize the thread has moved past this quite awhile ago, but the discussion bugged me quite a bit as I read it in real time and I ran across a rather good article that seems to me to be on point with women's lived experience (at least in the United States; perhaps Russia is a utopia for women's egalitarian experiences with men - cause I seem to have missed the cit-able studies so far of this effect.)

https://byrslf.co/to-men-i-love-about-men-who-scare-me-dd816cd02e33#.yqqlcbxln

I am very much inclined to post the entire brief article, but instead I will encourage you to read it for yourself. I will instead only quote the final paragraph here.

"Decent male humans, this is not your fault, but it also does not have nothing to do with you. If a woman is frosty or standoffish or doesn’t laugh at your joke, consider the notion that maybe she is not an uptight, humorless bitch, but rather has had experiences that are outside your realm of understanding, and have adversely colored her perception of the world. Consider that while you’re just joking around, a woman might actually be doing some quick mental math to see if she’s going to have to hide in a fucking bathroom stall and call someone to come help her, like I did three days ago.

Please adjust your mindset and your words accordingly."

Laura Munoz​

I would say that my experience and the experience of the women I know (and I know a lot of women across a wide set of ages, life experiences, work life, and social class, and I have lived in cities, suburbs and rural communities) matches what women on this thread have said about risk assessment and what the woman in the blog post that I provided the link for said.

I recognize that if you are a "good guy" and your intentions are without malice as you compliment etc, it may be hard for you to understand the truth of our lived experience, however to discount our truth, is to tell us that our experience is not valid and to undermine our very worth as people. Therefore... it does become incumbent upon you to adjust your mindset and words accordingly if you do indeed care about not being continually assessed as a possible risk (even as the women in question nod and smile and laugh politely at your compliments and jokes. These are our coping mechanisms, not evidence of your charm.

my, late to the party, 2 cents​

Thanks CB.
from an uptight, humorless bitch

 

[MeekMe]

Appreciated, CB.

 

[tryn2Bgood]

I realize the thread has moved past this quite awhile ago, but the discussion bugged me quite a bit as I read it in real time and I ran across a rather good article that seems to me to be on point with women's lived experience (at least in the United States; perhaps Russia is a utopia for women's egalitarian experiences with men - cause I seem to have missed the cit-able studies so far of this effect.)

https://byrslf.co/to-men-i-love-about-men-who-scare-me-dd816cd02e33#.yqqlcbxln

I am very much inclined to post the entire brief article, but instead I will encourage you to read it for yourself. I will instead only quote the final paragraph here.

"Decent male humans, this is not your fault, but it also does not have nothing to do with you. If a woman is frosty or standoffish or doesn’t laugh at your joke, consider the notion that maybe she is not an uptight, humorless bitch, but rather has had experiences that are outside your realm of understanding, and have adversely colored her perception of the world. Consider that while you’re just joking around, a woman might actually be doing some quick mental math to see if she’s going to have to hide in a fucking bathroom stall and call someone to come help her, like I did three days ago.

Please adjust your mindset and your words accordingly."

Laura Munoz​

I would say that my experience and the experience of the women I know (and I know a lot of women across a wide set of ages, life experiences, work life, and social class, and I have lived in cities, suburbs and rural communities) matches what women on this thread have said about risk assessment and what the woman in the blog post that I provided the link for said.

I recognize that if you are a "good guy" and your intentions are without malice as you compliment etc, it may be hard for you to understand the truth of our lived experience, however to discount our truth, is to tell us that our experience is not valid and to undermine our very worth as people. Therefore... it does become incumbent upon you to adjust your mindset and words accordingly if you do indeed care about not being continually assessed as a possible risk (even as the women in question nod and smile and laugh politely at your compliments and jokes. These are our coping mechanisms, not evidence of your charm.

my, late to the party, 2 cents​

Here is the follow up article by that same author:

https://byrslf.co/girls-are-mean-too-though-9885b45f55fe#.qvur3uj98

FYI: I reached out to the author for clarification of what she was trying to say. It took a while to get a response, but basically she was complaining about rude and inappropriate comments, approaches, and 'cat-calling'. Her purpose was to make men aware of how this affects women and to urge them to censor their comments, jokes, or teasing remarks that could be taken as inappropriate or sexist to many females. It's good advice that i think most wold agreen on. However, she is not discouraging perfectly polite men with good intentions from approaching women they are interested in getting to know. She doesn't get offended being approached by someone who is nice and respectful of her response.