Reading through The Five
Scott3x said:
My guess is that he does so in order to help ensure that behaviours that he finds acceptable shouldn't be deemed immoral.
• • •
No idea why he chose breastfeeding. It seems that he thinks that this oxytocin thing is important. Admitedly I'm not so keen on the idea that it's all that important; however, I believe me and ancientregime do agree that the whole field of sexuality seems to me to be a minefield wherein you really have to watch where you walk; I certainly respect his interest to clarify what should and shouldn't be allowed.
I group these together because they're relevant, and derive from separate considerations of diverse components of a larger point. Some of the separations you draw split the point, so occasionally I'll be rejoining two disconnected parts of the issue.
Looking to that last sentence in the quote—respecting his interest to clarify what should and shouldn't be allowed—there is something amiss about his methodology compared to
your assumption of his motives. That is, I have no moral objection to your kindly and optimistic assessment of his approach, but in the practical context it doesn't reconcile with what I'm seeing.
Perceptions, perceptions .... Insert theory about the dangers of presumption here.
I get the point that he thinks certain aspects are important, but the question of why comes back to a recurring theme in
political arguments. To take liberals and conservatives as a comparison: Each side says certain things about the other. Each side says certain things about themselves. And each side makes certain stands and undertakes certain endeavors. All three of these processes disagree with one another. The argument about what the other does is generally inaccurate for being incredibly simplistic. The argument about the self is generally inaccurate for being a sales pitch. And what they actually do gets muddled up in all those other interpretations, and rarely stands or falls completely on its own merit. In the long run, it is easier to cling to the myths about the other, as it gives the one some sense of justification. If the Democrats really are the horrible liberals, if the journalists really are in some sinister liberal conspiracy, if the conservative depiction is accurate, then it warrants according to some specific construct a form of justification for their own behavior. Joe Scarborough used to regularly provide examples of this; he would denounce the liberal media, then talk about himself as a "center-right" journalist. Well, guess what, Joe? You're either a journalist or not. And if "center-right" is that important to you, you're not a journalist. In other words, he uses the spectre of an insupportable assertion of conspiratorial bias to justify his own propaganda ambitions.
What this comes down to is the idea that we let other people—whom we do not trust in the first place—to set definitions. Acknowledging those definitions is one thing; it is essential to explaining why they are wrong. But clinging to them? Allowing them validity? This is a rhetorical trick subtle enough to defy itself. I recently gave one of our atheist neighbors some shit about letting others set the definitions. And that, too, is a good example. Most atheists I know reject Abramic gods, and apply that rejection to other assertions of deity even if the characteristics are different. In other words, they allow the object of their distrust—e.g., Christians—to define God for everyone else.
Looking to Ancientregime, and credibly considering your presumption of his motives, there is the appearance of something similar going on. Rather than making "them" demonstrate the validity of the
oxytocin=sex proposition, he is accepting the definition and demanding people disprove it. Yet, and we'll come back to this in a minute, he's also viciously rejecting the counterpoints.
Not necessarily as someone here made clear when they posted the story of a picture of a mother breastfeeding and the ordeal they went through afterwards. In the ending, as long as what happens where you live doesn't get into the hands of a cop, you're safe. If it does, all bets are off.
I'm of the opinion that presuming a specifically-framed, specifically-lit, specifically-composed photograph of a naked child on a glass table to be pornographic—while I disagree with that presumption—has greater merit than presuming a photograph of a breastfeeding child is pornographic.
Personally, I just don't see you and your brother streaking across the house as all that sexual myself. But if your pictures were to be found on the internet, child porn charges could loom. It's these ridiculous pieces of law that I hope will change in the future.
If those pictures fount their way to the internet, there's not a jury of peers in the land that would convict my parents for having taken them. The person who would be convicted would likely be whoever stole and posted the pictures.
(End
response #1.)
I have a strong feeling religions wouldn't be so keen on agreeing with you that they do such a thing, laugh 
Indeed. But it's only a matter of terminology. It would be funny listening to these religious people make the point and then deny what they said if there wasn't so much at stake.
And, yes, I'm referring to original sin. Whether or not we agree with it, the principle affects our lives.
Don't really remember those... but I think the white/bleached out part of the jones are still important ;-).
• • •
I'm not sure what you're referring to as 'the one' (white part of pants?) and what you're referring to as 'the other' (darker patches, possibly in the front?).
The one and the other ... "To the one" is an older way of saying "On the one hand". I prefer it for rhythm. Thus,
We can go into detail if needed, but on the one hand ... while on the other ....
I will say that the pornographic connotation of tight jeans has to do with the contrasts. The light sections are meant to set off the dark. The dark creates a bikini or cutoff look around the hips, buttocks, and groin of the woman; the light sections draw the eye and lead to the dark. Regardless of the original intent, the look has certain attractive value in a specific subcategory of a paraphiliac pornographic classification.
Without certain knowledge, various behaviors simply provide pleasure, comfort, or security.
Were I to ask you when you first masturbated, your honest answer would most likely be incorrect, setting that event later than it really was by a number of years. That error would occur not because you are lying, but because the earlier events were never contextualized sexually.
And on that point I claim certain insight. It's awkward enough to hear in Psych 101, or whatever, about young children masturbating, but the reality generally isn't as subtle as a basic classroom overview of Freudian principles generally suggests.
In this case, wet nursing has existed in cultures in a form that may or may not be construed as sexual to the nurse, but has no such context to the child, extending well beyond infancy. And, yes, such behavior might (does) have an effect on later psychological development and reconciliation, but that was never the reason for curtailing the practice.
But in its moment, this behavior was not overtly sexual.
(End
response #2.)
How do you find him to be unyielding?
• • •
To me, unyielding is when someone sticks to an argument; in the above case, I'm thinking that perhaps ancientregime simply missed the original post or he forgot about it and it took the reminder for him to get back to it?
But it wasn't just James R. After the point was on the table, it came up repeatedly—
—and it's not like Ancientregime completely failed to respond (see
#43); but it is the case that the response manages to completely avoid the point that
one common component does not
make two things, events, or actions similar. James makes that latter point in
#44. Bells addresses the implications in
#45. Swarm makes a relevant point in
#72, the "unfounded premise of similarity", which Ancientregime almost exactly
fails to address by reiterating the thesis instead of answering the question about the thesis. Vslayer makes the point again in
#76. Indeed, Scott, you asked after the point in
#78. Ancientregime
did hedge toward the point in
#81, but that slight movement is later canceled. Bells in
#82. Ancientregime seemingly making some progress in
#83 (again, that progress is offset later); and
#84 is a curious post that suggests some deeper issue on his part, possibly including some aspect of my own wandering speculation later in the thread. And in
#85, Ancientregime suggests Bells is a child molester, leading to a digression about sexual grooming and, again, deflecting the issue as one purported by nutcases. (Not that those pushing the issue aren't psychologically unbalanced at least, but the deflection is compelling, as well, in the context of allowing other people to set the definition.) Vslayer addresses in
#87 the hedging toward the point. Ancientregime pushes a strange confusion of states of arousal in
#101. James R reiterates his point in
#109. About this time our own discussion begins, (#
111,
117). Bells replied to one of your posts with
#121, and states the case admirably:
Bells said:
What he has basically been pushing in this thread is that any activity or behaviour that results in the release of Oxytocin automatically becomes sexual because Oxytocin is released during sex. So if a parent hugs a child and Oxytocin is released in the body of either parties to the hug, it suddenly becomes sexual contact. If a woman breastfeed and Oxytocin is released, it is automatically sexual and ergo, incest. And then, to make matter worse, he comes out with insane statements that a parent hugging their children can be seen as being sexual predators who are grooming a child for sex ....
.... Now, he either believes this and keeps on pushing the point. Or he is attempting to inflame members who will take offense to such comments. Why belabour the point? Does he believe that breastfeeding is incest because of the release of Oxytocin? Does he think it should be taken that far? What is his motive in this thread? Is there something else he is trying to convey?
To Ancientregime's credit, Bells fails to consider the possibility that this is one of the most colossal communication failures ever witnessed, but even as such we're back to wondering how and why that failure occurred.
By this time, Ancientregime is becoming
openly hostile: he deflects the principle onto wackos, makes a "public note" of Bells' "argument technique", suggests she isn't clever, and touts his own cleverness. And then he finally
dismisses James' longstanding argument as "unclever". And tells Lucifer's Angel that
she needs to learn how to read and
calls Bells lazy. Which brings us up to my
speculative psychological inquiry.
All of that has to do with the erroneous operating presupposition that one common component makes two things, events, or actions similar.
That's why I find him unyielding.
In bulletin board culture, the basic processes of Ancientregime's behavior are widely familiar. But this is something of an unusual case for its extremity. That extremity raises the psychological questions.
Why is this so blindingly important? Presuming the best of intentions, we might wonder at the the determined, even ferocious insistence on a clearly failing communicative approach. If it's that important according to the benevolent presuppositions, he should have shifted gears long ago, back in the forties or eighties when he came off-rhythm in such a manner as to suggest progress. But, in the end, that progress is nullified; he considers the direction he needs to go with this inquiry (according to benevolent presuppositions) unclever. That is, he's too smart to actually go in the direction he needs to go.
Trying to agree on what constitutes sexual things is, in my view, extremely difficult. I think this is something he brought up and I think that it has merit. I think that ancientregime would -agree- with you in one sense- if we define too many things as 'sexual' and then we criminalize too much as well, we're in for trouble- and it's clear that we're there now.
I see that aspect, too. But it doesn't strike me the same way his insistence on insupportable propositions of similarity. For lack of a better phrase, he's just not as into that point as he is the wacko, nutcase definition.
Holding with your proposition of noble intent, I find it a fascinating question as to why he prefers to grant the strange outlook such credibility.
There's one thing I can agree with you on- I doubt the releasing of oxytocin will ever constitute a crime .
I'm actually not as confident on that count. Not that it particularly worries me, but between defense lawyers demanding exacting interpretations of law and principle and the ongoing societal shift toward a restricted but "fulfilling" definition of freedom, it does seem possible that we could, at some point, become so ridiculous. It's a long way off, and requires catastrophic precursors, but it's not entirely impossible.
From what someone else has said in this thread, oxytocin is a precursor chemical needed for sexual arousal. That, I believe, is certainly interesting. The real issue as far as I'm concerned is why it gets released at x or y time. One doesn't have to be breastfeeding to be aroused.
Perhaps more important than why a chemical is released at any given time is what it does. Imagine feeling an urge to orgasm but not being able to get close to your lover. Eventually, one will either masturbate for release or the situation will turn desperate—e.g. rape.
Given the body's other uses of oxytocin, I'd say its function is more about bonding and intimacy than the sex itself. It well could be the difference between being scared out of one's mind and actually enjoying being so close to another person.
(End
response #3, carry over one sentence.)
Sounds good .
• • •
Not sure where you're going with this one...
• • •
Whoa there. If bonobos are closely related to us, the above argument doesn't really fly.
As to that last, actually it does. We might differ about the context of the word
similar. Regarding the larger point, it's just an attempt to illustrate that it takes
a lot more than one or two common components to establish this kind of functional similarity.
Honestly, I think the only reason there's such a fuss concerning sexuality is because of what is closely related to it- love and chidlren. For this reason, people want to somehow hermetically seal off sexuality from other things. In my view, it's rather absurd to even try; sexuality is ubiquotous and generally rebels against such treatment. I believe that instead of trying to compartamentalize our sexuality, we should simply acknowledge its existence in all its various forms and simply try to ensure that it doesn't stray towards the dark side.
I will defer to later consideration of that issue because it's just huge. I will, however, acknowledge and agree with the last sentence.
Are pictures of naked children on a beach or running around overtly sexual? Perhaps not even for the Freudian . And yet, they're virtually always labelled as 'child porn'.
The cases we hear about most are usually dependent on the question of pornography. I mean, maybe the picture itself is nothing of worry to you or I, but how is it presented? Is it in a shoebox or photo album in your mother's attic? What if it's been posted to
alt.binaries.pictures.erotic.children?
Therein lies the problem. Once the image is presented in an exploitative or sexual context, the question of pornography becomes inherent.
I mean, look at the nut jobs. Both the immigrant photography student I mentioned and the breastfeeding mother in this case were busted by photo lab employees. We cannot pretend that these are the only such pictures to come through processing labs. Not every lab technician sees such images as pornographic. Yet we never see headline, "Lab technician develops child nude, rightly decides it's not pornography". Or anything close to that. It's simply
not news. Maybe a screaming front-page headline, "Three quarters of women not sexually assaulted!" People complain that there's not enough good news in the media, but even putting aside concerns about sensationalism, is it really news? Here's a headline you'll never see: "Things working well, approximately how it should be".
If we stop to celebrate the fact that
X meets expectations, well, how many people will be raped, murdered, robbed, or otherwise while we pat ourselves on the back? A baseball lands three seats away from me, and I kind of regret I wasn't in position to intercept it. A bullet strikes three seats away from me? I'm glad a ten year-old kid caught the home run. I wouldn't be so happy to see him get shot. The bullet is far more relevant than my favorite baseball team occasionally actually doing its job.
The possibilities sound interesting; I personally think that he's afraid that the laws are encroaching on areas where they have no right to be, something I can certainly agree with. I think the bottom line here, ofcourse, is that revealing why he brought it up might well get him throttled by his lawyer, if he had one at any rate. Put simply, when it comes to issues like these, it's generally best to speak of them one step removed, as he's trying to do.
It's the stake that I find fascinating. Something compels his method. It may simply be, as I noted, a colossal failure to communicate. Or it may be that he's somehow wrapped up in the issue and seeking either justification or an exit. Given my druthers, I'd prefer to help. But neither am I a professional in this regard.
Interesting questions; perhaps he simply found the term 'oxytocin' and began to think that it was a catch all for sexuality. In any case, perhaps ancientregime will clarify on one or both of the questions you pose. I myself am interested in sexuality issues in general for many reasons, most of which I've outlined in this thread and others.
I'm usually a bit cynical about the latter, but it's beside the point for now.
And perhaps our neighbor
will clarify, so all this tragic misunderstanding can be cleared up.
Perhaps. I personally would like to encourage people to talk about sexuality in a civil manner. While I'm sure that some may have been deeply offended by some of the things he's said, the fact that when he has probably caused the most offense he was actually speaking of what the people he's -against- believe is, I think, the most important point to remember.
Something about definitions of civility, but that also is beside the point. The proposition is strange, in and of itself, but incredulity turned to offense largely because of his insistence, and also the diversion of the burden of proof. This
oxytocin=sex formula underlying the conflict is a
very extraordinary assertion, and yet he determinedly assigns the burden of extraordinary proof elsewhere.
We might consider the following needs:
(1) Demonstration of the significance of this whacked sector of society making such claims. How many are there, really?
(2) Consideration of the context of oxytocin.
(3) Proof that the assigned context is valid, or at least arguable. As the conflict over similar components suggests, there isn't much for a prima facie argument in favor of the oxytocin=sex/breastfeeding-as-abuse proposition.
In other words, that some basket case somewhere makes an assertion doesn't mean the assertion is valid or credible. The presumption of credibility underlying the conflict is simply not credible.
Lol . Embarassing mother-son moments; I have a story myself; I think I'll keep it to myself though .
Yeah, they're difficult moments. There are a few paragraphs that go with that quote, but it gets massive if I throw them all together. The larger point of the digression that begins with recounting that episode is the point about guilt, its misplacement, and the expectation of differentiation. And it seems we have little to disagree about.
In ancient times, incest was at times quite common. Today, while most people acknowledge that incest (especially if it occurs in more then one generation) can be genetically dangerous, books have been written that disagree with the general view that it has to be a bad thing, such as On the Incest Taboo - The Offspring of Aeolus (I just found the link right now, the wonders of google )
The purpose of marriage, for instance, seems to be the acquisition of in-laws. Or, stated more academically, the development of one's familial social network.
At least, that's how it used to be. By the twentieth century, all that was turned on its head.
Certainly, the nine-headed children argument has some value in the historical consideration, but it's also subordinate to broader social concerns. The more you cloister a family, the less significant it becomes in its social context.
But the broader consideration of the source of one's criteria for differentiation has to do with the possibility that this discussion is originally motivated by an internal conflict.
(End
response #4.)
Hypotheticals abound; however, the only thing that I think is confirmed is that he read the wiki article on erotic lactation and thought extremists might decide that breastfeeding is a sexual act; that question has been brought up elsewhere ....
But
why? That is, yes, we're all subject to being suspicious of certain among our neighbors, but this looks like a fixation. I mean, I'm convinced that the homophobes, for instance, are simply expressing sexuality through their own deep repression. (Really, even prudes
like to express their sexuality.)
The overwhelming response against the prosecution suggests something about the marginal dimensions of this
oxytocin=sex/breastfeeding-as-abuse crowd.
Think of phrenology. It's thoroughly discredited, as are those who really believe dark-skinned humans are evolutionarily inferior and sub-human. Now, there are more of those folks out there than I'm comfortable with—and, likely, more than those who believe
oxytocin=sex—but they're not particularly influential. The racism I worry about is far more subtle. It's the racism that saw law enforcement focus its crack campaign against black communities when the vast majority of users were white. It's the racism that compels respectable people to lash out against suggestions of background or latent racism; it's as if they think history has no connection to the present. These people prefer to justify and excuse themselves instead of address the problem. And there's a hell of a lot more of them than there are Sandpoint Neo-Nazis and the like. Or homophobes. I wouldn't worry so much about the assertion that gay sex is equal to raping a dog or a child if it didn't keep coming up, and wasn't treated with the deference due respectability. But people are marching forward on an oppressive campaign against their fellow human beings, with fairly consistent results, based on idiotic superstitions.
The question has arisen; that is beyond doubt. But the credibility Ancientregime gives this anti-breastfeeding faction is grotesque in its disproportion. Sure, it's best to address stupidity before it gets out of hand, but in doing so we must be careful to not overstate the credibility of the stupid. Unfortunately, this overstatement is at the heart of Ancientregime's role in the discussion.
We see this sort of exaggeration taking place all the time. Watch the pundits on the 24/7 news channels. I mean, there was a debate about the fact that Barack Obama took his jacket off in the Oval Office, for heaven's sake. Compared to the economy, the wars, and even the president's trouble filling his cabinet,
why did pundits spend days arguing over his goddamn jacket? Sure, there are partisans grasping after any opportunity to criticize a particular politician, but why give them any credibility?
To the other, I don't recall that anyone spent weeks on the issue, so that credibility seems to have evaporated pretty quickly. Still, though, it was pretty stupid.
I believe that ancientregime is concerned that governments are encroaching too much on our liberties, a concern I certainly share.
I will make the point here that there is a strange coincidence between certain concerns about the reach of government and locales in which government becomes intrusive in certain contexts. For instance, Texas. I mean, the
joke is to simply say, "Yeah, this is Texas, so what do you expect?"
But in conservative climes, where people worry about the government telling them that they can't be racist in the schools, or in hiring, they also seem to think that who you sleep with is the government's business. Indeed, up in Pennsylvania, it was this very assertion that caused a former U.S. Senator's name to
become a profane word. Well, roundabout.
First-world societies are constantly struggling to overcome such conflicts. I would be much more worried about this sad tale as an example of government intrusion if prosecutors hadn't been able to recognize how badly they'd gotten it wrong, or if nobody at all stood up against the ludicrous injustice.
In the meantime, there are those who would say children should be allowed to manufacture, possess, and distribute child pornography simply because they're children. Oh, the intrusive government! Of course, solving this twenty-first century problem will require even more exacting, more detailed laws. Which equals more government.
In any case, it's a matter of proportion. The oxytocin argument is fairly obscure, and ought have no credibility whatsoever among reasonably-educated people. Still, if we pitch enough of a fit about it, the proposition gains credibility. Give any insanity a week on FOX News, and somehow it becomes credible.
(End
response #5.)
In the meantime, in more realistic quarters, the Washington state legislature is
considering a bill to officially protect public breastfeeding. The bill has
moved through committee, and faces no serious opposition.
____________________
Notes:
Associated Press. "Washington bill to OK mothers' breast-feeding". The Olympian. February 6, 2009. http://www.theolympian.com/legislature/story/750440.html
Barnett, Erica C. "WA Breastfeeding Bill Moves Forward". Shakesville. February 13, 2009. http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/02/wa-breastfeeding-bill-moves-forward.html
