Jump to content

Dan McClellan

Members
  • Content Count

    105
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

77 Excellent

1 Follower

About Dan McClellan

  • Rank
    Member: Moves Upon the Waters
  • Birthday July 23

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Herriman, UT
  • Interests
    Scripture Translation Supervisor, Doctoral Candidate in Theology and Religion

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. You're suggesting the analogy should be with a woman who is at a much greater risk and for some reason suspects that her partner intends to intentionally endanger her life. That seems a rather arbitrary way to try to raise the level of the risk to make it seem like a person should know better, but sexual encounters between consenting adults don't usually involve such elevated suspicions and risks.
  2. The obvious, natural, and known male reproductive response to intercourse is to ejaculate inside a woman without her consent and against her wishes? You're intentionally parsing away context, and that's just pure and utter nonsense. I have no more time to waste on such nonsense.
  3. You're assigning exaggerated risk and prior experience with violations of trust and agency. Why?
  4. He's published some good stuff on anthropomorphism and theological correctness, and just this year there was an interesting study he published on where people perceive deities to dwell. His 2011 book, Cognitive Science, Religion & Theology, is a good intro to CSR.
  5. And risks differ. I risk being mugged every time I step outside of my house, but that doesn't mean it's my fault if someone does mug me. That risk is relatively small compared to numerous other actions that could significantly increase that risk. When that risk becomes significantly increased entirely because of the agency of another person, it's just laughable to say I am responsible because I initially accepted that much smaller risk. Take your "ride" analogy, for instance. People don't usually intentionally get into a car accident, but let's say someone's wife accepts the risk of driving in a car, but then the driver intentionally crashes the car. We have a reasonable presumption that someone giving us a ride will not crash the car. Are you still saying that because she accepted that risk, she consented to being involved in the accident because she freely decided to get into the passenger seat? Suggesting I'm insisting women don't have the intelligence to understand risk is just a ludicrous rhetorical jab.
  6. I'm sorry, I cannot continue to take the time to try to deconstruct such simple concepts when you continue to so wildly and willfully misconstrue what I'm saying just to defend a dogma.
  7. So she is equally or more responsible for a pregnancy if she didn't exercise disciplined and strict enough oversight of the activity of the man who intentionally caused the pregnancy? That strikes me as a significantly asymmetrical standard.
  8. I'm not talking exclusively about unprotected sex, but regarding STDs, you seem to be skewing to casual sex and ignoring the longterm monogamous relationships with people who know each others' sexual and health histories. No, willful participation in sex in and of itself is simply and inarguably not consent to have a man internally ejaculate.
  9. Consenting to a relatively low risk that is enormously increased based on the decisions of the man. In other words, the majority of the unwanted pregnancies are the product of the man's agency. These were your questions: Of course not. Like I said, a number of different circumstances could lead to it, like overestimating the time a man has left or just being inept. The Planned Parenthood stat you shared represents the "real world" outcomes, while they state in the same study that if the man does it right, the stats drop to about 4 out of 100. Of course not, as I have repeatedly stated. This is just a strawman. If you can twist my argument into just being that men are evil, it's easier to dismiss me as being dogmatic. That's not been my argument in any sense whatsoever and never has been, so please stop trying to put those words in my mouth. It certainly can be, but not necessarily. There are plenty of situations where, for instance, the woman thought the man had put on a condom, and he had not (for whatever reason), and interpreted her failure to raise an objection as tacit consent. There are just so many different circumstances that can contribute to this, but overwhelmingly, the agency of the man is proximate and determinative. Like I said, 4 out of 100 if the man does it right. Women are more conscious of and concerned about conception when it is not wanted than are men, so no, they do not act recklessly in ways that can lead to conception to the same degree that men do. What juvenile rhetorical questions.
  10. Two chapters of my doctoral dissertation treat the question directly, so yeah.
  11. Intercourse and internal ejaculation are not coterminous. Any one of a number of dynamics could lead to the expectation that the man will withdraw, will seek input, or at least let the woman know when things are imminent, whether previous habit, explicit instruction, or other circumstances.
  12. So if a woman consents to have sex without a condemn, she is consenting to have a man ejaculate inside her, no matter what she says or does to prevent it? That's really your contention?
  13. As a professionally trained historian, I agree with you there regarding the label, but the underlying cognitive architecture is trans-historical and trans-cultural, even if the socio-material manifestation of its influence is more historically contingent and situationally emergent. I'm absolutely not saying there is a perfect 1:1 correspondence between the underlying cognitive orientations and the behaviors. I'm suggesting the cognitive orientation is there and that there is not-insignificant overlap in some of the behavior.
×
×
  • Create New...