Sunday, June 30, 2019

And Now for a Surprise...

Top of the evening to all.

And it is not just going to be a surprise to you. It is a surprise to me.

Senator Kamala Harris (D-California) is one of the candidates presently running for President of the United States. Of all of the Democrats out there, she comes across as the most intelligent, the most articulate, and the quickest on her feet. If she ends up as the candidate, the President will have a real fight on his hands.

As the Democrats go more and more off the deep end, she said something that has stuck with me for several weeks now. She believes in the decriminalization of prostitution.

And here is the surprise: I agree with her. (Hang on...let me finish...)

So many of the women involved in prostitution were once little girls. They had toys. They played with their friends. They went to school. Perhaps they planned their weddings in late-night hushed chats. Prostitution is not a lifestyle many of them even considered a possibility, let alone chose.

How does it come to pass? So many of those women who end up in prostitution have at some point been the victim of serious sexual violence. Still others have been trafficked around the world. They are slaves, in the worst possible way. Prostitution is not a choice. It is a life (if you can call it that) that has been thrust on them.

As survivors of sexual violence, as slaves, they are victims. There is no other crime in the world in which we punish the victim. We punish the perpetrators.

This crime should be no different. It should be punished not just for soliciting a prostitute, but also for attempted slavery.

My agreement with Senator Harris ends there. She states further: “(b)ut when you are talking about consenting adults, I think that you know, yes, we should really consider that we can’t criminalize consensual behavior as long as no one is being harmed."

Here is a very thorough study from the University of Chicago: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.1086/695670.

Sorry Senator, you are wrong. People are being harmed. Slaves do not consent. Survivors of violence often lose sight of who they are. And there is no way that being forced to engage in the most intimate of activities with multiple people multiple times in an evening will not cause both physical and psychological harm.

Leave these women alone. However, pimps and johns should absolutely be prosecuted, aggressively and emphatically. Theirs is the crime. Theirs should be the punishment.

Have a good evening everyone.

R/SCG

Tuesday, June 11, 2019

Disconcerting, to Say the Least....

Top of the evening everyone.

I want to thank DK and SC for their comments on my last two blog entries.

After all is said and done, it is not a problem to be called a right-wing zealot. What is disconcerting? Disconcerting is that I held off on writing those last two entries for a considerable amount of time. Why? I held off because due to the pounding that too many people suffer these days for considering things that are on the public radar in light of things that are not on the public radar.

In short, I was afraid (yes, you read it here) of the possible public excoriation I might have to endure for daring to question absolute reproductive freedom (for women). And yes, I was also afraid of that excoriation for daring to think that tobacco might be more of a health hazard than firearms. Cowards die many times before their deaths.

And it is a shame. The standard we should all be taught is that we can disagree, but we still recognize each other as human, worthy of compassion and respect. The standard these days..."you are wrong. You have always been wrong. It is a shame your parents ever met. I am putting your personal information on line."

Both sets of comments on my last two entries have been informative. With respect to both writers, there is still a piece missing in the answers. I ask the following questions:

1. Do men have reproductive freedom? What are the limitations?
2. Is tobacco more of a societal problem than firearms?

My gut feeling on #2 is that tobacco very much is more of a societal problem. I am still feeling out my thoughts on #1. Part of the reason I am still feeling those thoughts out is due to the remarkably different burden of pregnancy and childbirth on the mother. My sore thumbs after Jesse was born do not measure up to that burden. Still, regarding #1, deciding what male reproductive freedom is and deciding what the limits are also force a discussion on men's roles in the reproductive process. It is a necessary discussion.

And to those who disagree with points raised either here or in any other entry, please state your disagreement. This is friendly space.

Have a good evening everyone. I promise not to wait so long on something potentially controversial.

R/SCG

Friday, June 7, 2019

Trying Not to Become a Right-Wing Zealot, Part 2...

Good evening again everyone.

With the passing of remarkably strict laws in the United States regarding abortion, we have seen quite the outcry from the left. Within that outcry, we have heard the term 'reproductive rights.' That is interesting. What does it mean.

According to Merriam-Webster, reproductive rights means "a woman's right to choose whether or not she will have a baby."

Wow! I try not to have the reaction I am having on this. Still, I will ask the question: do men have reproductive rights? Let's be careful with the answer on this.

I get it. I really get it. No matter how loving and utterly awesome a father-to-be is, the bottom line is that the mother's body is far more involved in the pregnancy than the father's. I really get it.

Still, I am left with a question. Does Merriam-Webster's definition of reproductive rights relegate men to the role of stud? Do fathers have a part in the discussions? Is it an equal part? Is it a part only as long as mothers allow it to be? Are fathers there for the first few minutes, and then expected to show up 40 weeks later with groceries and diapers?

Do fathers have reproductive rights?

Let's complicate this. Ultimately, we all know that this question is about abortion. Looking at Merriam-Webster's definition, anyone has the right to choose whether or not to bring children into this world, biological challenges notwithstanding. No one in society is making any attempt to remove that right.

This abortion question though...it is difficult. Why? Putting aside other things that I have written about this, society has accepted that rape victims may wish to abort a pregnancy, and that the possibility should be there. So here is the question: if the rapist wishes to abort the pregnancy, but the victim does not, should the pregnancy be allowed to continue? Sure, why not. Gotcha. Look back over the question. I was very careful to avoid gender pronouns. What if the rape victim is a father who wants to keep his offspring? What if the rapist is a woman who does not wish to carry this pregnancy to term? Does a man forced into being a father have no paternal rights due to Merriam-Webster's reproductive rights?

Before you jump at me, take note of this article from Scientific American: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sexual-victimization-by-women-is-more-common-than-previously-known/.

Read the third paragraph of the article. "Men were equally likely to experience non-consensual sex." It happens, and pregnancy happens as a result. There was even a case in the United States in which a judge went so far as to require a rape victim to pay child support to the rapist mother.

Bottom line? Less than two percent of abortions are about rape. Like abortions in the third trimester, the societal uproar over this is much ado about next to nothing. This blog entry though has been on my mind for a while. Again, I get it that women's bodies are far more involved in this endeavour. But it is simply wrong to limit discussions of reproductive rights to women.

My friends, I really would like some input from you on this entry and the last entry. I may end up pulling the entries down. I really do not know. As mentioned, something is missing in my reasoning. Help me figure out what it is.

Thank you all.

R/SCG

Thursday, June 6, 2019

Trying Not to Become a Right-Wing Zealot, Part 1...

Hi everyone...

It has been a difficult year. The reason it has been difficult is because I have been asking questions about a couple of societal concerns. I have concluded that I am either missing a piece of the equation, or I am losing some sense of compassion. Both prospects are frightening.

Your thoughts are most welcome. If I am missing something, please tell me. Please note that this is a smattering of different issues, considered in ways that may well be the equivalent of comparing not apples and oranges, but passionfruit and dingos.

So what has been on my mind lately? I am so glad that you asked. The first thing is the outcry against the prevalence of personal firearms in the United States. It has been declared a health crisis by some running for higher office. Others running for higher office are threatening to make it virtually impossible to acquire a weapon. Those in higher office seem reluctant to respond in any meaningful way.

In the United States, approximately 393 million firearms are personally owned. That is enough for every citizen to have one, and for 60 million people to have a second. That is a huge amount. With those guns, there were approximately 41000 deaths in 2016. Of those deaths, only a third were homicides. This is not insignificant. You should not interpret in any way that this is not a problem. It is. Furthermore, suicide and accidental death can be limited, if not prevented.

Furthermore, the hated NRA, scourge of the country, spent 10 million dollars in 2017 in pursuit of its nefarious goals. And last, gun companies took in over $28 billion of revenue last year.

Are they horrible people? Could be. Let's examine the next set of facts.

The American Lung Association reports that secondhand smoke causes over 41000 deaths a year. There is no safe exposure. Only 7300 of those deaths were from cancer. The rest were from things like heart attack and stroke. Thus far, things are equal.

249 billion cigarettes are sold each year in the United States. That averages out to two cigarettes per person per day. The tobacco lobby spent over 21 million dollars in pursuit of its nefarious goals. Total revenue for tobacco last year was 125 billion. Oh, and one of the biggest pollutants is cigarette butts.

When comparing these two, we have two powerful lobbying groups. The similarities end there. It seems that tobacco is the far more urgent problem. I have often thought about learning to shoot. It is a great skill to develop as we age, requiring focus, balance, and hand-eye coordination. I have never even given a hint of considering smoking. It is dangerous to me and to others.

The dynamics of society are such that we cannot say that if we solve one particular social challenge, everything else will fall into place. However, that automatically means that no one issue gets sole blame for being an intractable problem given voice by intractable people.

One note on mass shootings: there have been approximately 100 mass shootings in the United States. Of that number, men were the sole perpetrators of all but two. A couple did one of them, and a woman did one of them. Is it at all possible that instead of having a conversation about limiting access to weapons, maybe we should talk about men's mental health? And if we can do so without the APA's guidelines mentioned in an earlier blog, that would be even better.

I still have another issue I wish to discuss. This has been a long entry. The other issue will appear shortly.

Good night.

R/SCG

Wednesday, June 5, 2019

Updated Cliche...

Good evening Ladies and Gentlemen...

I write this blog entry from sunny, warm Naval Air Station Pensacola. It was amazing to watch the Blue Angels practice yesterday.

For reasons that continue to elude me, I read the comments after many articles on the news. Between the horrible attitudes and the horrible grammar, that I keep going back to those comments suggests that I would also wiggle a loose tooth, even though it hurts.

Why do I mention this? I mention this because one of the articles I read this evening is about an interview with one of the Duggar family (look it up...I am not going to bother to explain). Jill Duggar recommends that for marital health, wives (I do not like that term) should prepare for and hopefully have sex with their husbands (don't like that term either) three to four times a week.

It is good advice. Gentlemen, while not in her article, the advice is similar for us.

Husband...wife...I do not like these terms. They are not exactly human. They are animal terms. I like spouse. As well, when realistic, it is worth it to make the effort to avoid gender-specific language. When I speak publicly, which I do from time to time, such language can shut out half of the congregation. Now, when our world is suddenly, strangely, no longer binary, it can exclude even more people.

It is rather odd to say this, given that the PC culture that has yielded such shifts in language is generally abhorrent to me.

Anyway, what is my point? One of the comments in this article is an old but true cliche: happy wife, happy life. It is true. However, I have seen the effects in a home where the husband is not such a happy camper. Trust me. That unhappiness does not end with him. It will have an impact on everyone.

And so, off the top of my head one morning after minyan a few months back, I corrected someone. Our new cliche is more accurate and less gender-focused. It is nice to know that the men of the house can now receive some priority.

Happy spouse, happy house.

Have a good evening everyone.

R/SCG