"Women Don't Care About Contraception"

The Republican governor of South Carolina, Nikki Haley, does not seem to think that women care about contraception.  If that is a mainstream view among Republican leaders, I am willing to bet they are a bit out of touch with the concerns of American women.

Rick Santorum's Strange Notions of Sex and Sexuality

"One of the things I'm constantly reminding people about Rick Santorum is that he doesn't have merely an anti-gay agenda -- he has an anti-straight agenda too. He's against birth control, he's against abortion, he's against pornography, he's against all sorts of things that straight people use and enjoy frequently....You need to know, heterosexual Americans, that gay-bashing isn't his only hobby." -- Dan Savage

As long term readers of my blog know full well, I am a man of passions -- huge, towering passions -- passions that are apt to wantonly reveal themselves in my unbridled gallops through flowering fields of epistemology, in my full frontal assaults upon the castle walls of logical fallacies, in my undying lover's devotion to well-evidenced arguments.  And so forth, etc.  Still, it may come as some surprise to my readers that I am not entirely unfamiliar with sex. Especially if said readers have been listening to the bitter and scurrilous reports of my two ex-wives.

Because I have in the past been on intimate terms with sex (see, for instance, my treasure for newlyweds, Towards an Epistemology of Carnal Knowledge, by Paul Sunstone, Bust, Colorado: Charging Boar Books.) I sometimes take an understandably passionate interest in sex.  Specifically, in:

• what people are saying about sex,
• what their reasoning is,
• and how they have arrived at their conclusions about sex.

Today, two of my online friends -- Nance and the Cognitive Dissenter -- both urged me to examine the reasoning on matters sexual of the GOP presidential candidate, Rick Santorum.

I was at first reluctant to attempt such an examination, for I am nearly settled in the opinion that the man or woman who sets forth upon the task of extracting a reasonably logical and well-evidenced argument on sexual matters from a 21st Century American politician might as well indulge his or herself in trying to fornicate on the hop with a fleeing kangaroo.

Yet, Nance and CD finally aroused my interest by suggestively hinting that Rick Santorum might be downright promiscuous in both his fallacies and his falsehoods.  And, as you know, few things have the power to titillate one's interest as do logical and factual errors. 

So, one of the first things I discovered about Santorum is he seems to be best known for his opposition to gay marriage. But after a little digging, I discovered that he is also opposed to contraception.

For instance, as recently as last October, he stated in an interview with CaffeinatedThoughts.com editor Shane Vander Hart that, if elected president, he would repeal all federal funding for contraception because contraception devalues the act of procreation:

“One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country." And also, “It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.” (Source)

So, boiling that down, we might arrive at somewhat of an argument: Contraception is a license to do things that run counter to how things are supposed to be. Therefore we should repeal all federal funding for contraception.

However, as an argument, it fails to satisfy.  Perhaps it is not penetrating enough.  Or, perhaps the premiss is too vague. After all, what can you do with words like, "how things are supposed to be", besides ask for clarification?

In the same interview, Santorum also says:

[Sex] is supposed to be within marriage. It’s supposed to be for purposes that are yes, conjugal…but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen…This is special and it needs to be seen as special.

I'll wager if we squint hard, we might extract an argument from that statement!  An argument such as this one:

• Sex is supposed to be for purposes both conjugal and procreative.
• The perfect way to realize those purposes is within the context of a marriage.
• Therefore, sex should take place [only?] within the context of a marriage.

Does the conclusion follow logically from the premisses?  To my thinking, that would depend on whether Santorum believes sex should take place only within the context of a marriage.  He doesn't quite come out and say that here, so I have placed "only" in brackets.  But from everything else he's said elsewhere, I would guess he believes sex should only take place within the context of a marriage.  And if that is so, then I believe his reasoning to be invalid.

Let's grant, for the sake of demonstration, that "sex is supposed to be for purposes both conjugal and procreative."  Let's further grant that "the perfect way to realize those purposes is within the context of a marriage."  Even if we grant both premisses, the conclusion does not necessarily follow because it is conceivable that one might yet argue for sex outside of marriage as a less than perfect, but nevertheless still desirable, activity. 

TUT! TUT! MR. SANTORUM! TUT! TUT!!!


I must now beg my reader's forgiveness for my sudden, emphatic outburst.


There is much else -- much else -- that could be said about Santorum's strange sexual statements. Not just the ones presented here, but statements he's made elsewhere as well.  If I were to attempt to analyze them all fully, it might take several blog posts.  But it's getting late, and I still have work to do before I can go to bed.  However, I would like to mention one last thing.

Santorum brings up the notion that sex is for procreation.  Sometime ago, I wrote on that subject. My post began:

It’s easy to believe the natural purpose of sex is reproduction.   Offspring, after all, are the single most spectacular result of sex.  Many of us seem bedazzled by that fact.  Consequently, some of us seem to have got the notion the natural purpose of sex is reproduction and that sex without the possibility of reproduction is at best selfish indulgence and, at worse, perversion.

I then sally on to bring up a few of the many reasons sex cannot be legitimately seen as solely for reproduction -- nor even as having a purpose!  I recommend reading that post if you are interested in the topic.  It can be found here.

Sex and Fallacious Reasoning

Like most people, I am keenly aware the reason you do not often see "sex" and "logical fallacies of relevance" in the same sentence together is because logical fallacies of relevance are intrinsically so exciting they do not need sex to sell them.

Merely mention one of the numerous fallacies of relevance -- say, the Ad Hominem Fallacy, the Red Herring Fallacy, or the Naturalistic Fallacy -- and you create an atmosphere of tingling anticipation.  To toss "sex" into the mix would only be overkill.
  
So it may astonish my readers that I am about to bring up both the Naturalistic Fallacy and the subject of biological reproduction -- together.

Make no mistake about it, though:  I am not mixing sex with pleasure logic merely in order to titillate you, my beloved readers.  Nor am I mixing sex with logic merely because I am a  man of passions -- strong, huge, even alarming passions.  No, there is nothing gratuitous about this.  Instead, it has simply become necessary to mention the two together.

And why is that?  Because someone -- someone! -- has made a mistake on the internet!  That is, they have committed the Naturalistic Fallacy in the all but certain presence of impressionable children. Children who might now grow up to promiscuously introduce fallacies into the very core of their reasoning.  Children who might one day run large multinational corporations, huge NGOs, entire governments, or even departments of philosophy.   DOESN'T ANYONE THINK OF THE FUTURE OF OUR SPECIES BEFORE THEY COMMIT FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE ANYMORE?

The person in question -- let us call him the "perpetrator" -- committed the fallacy in the course of arguing that we should derive our morals from "evolutionary biology".  Allow me to quote:

My position is that evolutionary biology lays on us certain [moral] absolutes. These are adaptations brought on by natural selection to make us functioning social beings. It is in this sense that I claim that morality is not subjective. [bracketed material mine]

As it happens, there is more than one way to lay out his argument. In the spirit of good sportsmanship, I shall now lay out the perpetrator's argument in the strongest possible manner I can come up with, despite the risk of giving us all the vapours:

• We evolved various behaviors ("adaptations") that make us functioning social beings.
• Because the evolved behaviors ("adaptations") make us functioning social beings, they are moral absolutes.
• We ought to behave according to moral absolutes.
• Therefore, we ought to behave according to the various behaviors ("adaptations") that make us functioning social beings.

As you see, the second premiss is the offending one.  It constitutes a mini-argument within the larger argument, for it has the form of a premiss ("our evolved behaviors make us functioning social beings") and a conclusion ("our evolved behaviors are therefore moral absolutes"). 

But that is precisely the form of the Naturalistic Fallacy, which can be described as, "An argument whose premises merely describe the way that the world is, but whose conclusion describes the way that the world ought to be...."  The Naturalistic Fallacy is a fallacy because you cannot reason from an "is" to an "ought".

If you could reason from an "is" to an "ought", you could reason all sorts of ridiculous things. "There is theft, therefore there ought to be theft." "There are wars, therefore there ought to be wars."  Even, "There are murderous fallacies of logic, therefore there ought to be murderous fallacies of logic."

Yet, for the moment, let us accept the perpetrator's reasoning, despite it's power to shock us.  What, then, might happen if we were to buy into his notion that "evolutionary biology lays on us certain [moral] absolutes?

Would not any behavior with a genetic basis that increased someone's reproductive success then become moral? I cannot see why it would not.

For instance, it appears that war has a genetic basis in territorial instincts and other such things.  But if that is so, then wars would be moral if they increased someone's reproductive success.  Again, there is a hypothesis that rape has a genetic basis.  But if that is so, then rape would be moral if it increased someone's reproductive success.

Such implications must disturb even the calmest of men and women.  To permit the notion that evolutionary biology lays on us moral absolutes seems to invite a deluge of undesirable consequences.  Fortunately we need not permit it, for sound logic does not compel us to permit it. For that, and for other reasons, men and women of conscience may justifiably and emphatically wag their fingers while saying to the perpetrator in the most passionate terms, "Buffoonery! Mr. Perpetrator, your notion is buffoonery!"

What Causes Us to Think Immodest Women are the Downfall of Men?

Perhaps we can discuss once more the curious notion that immodest women are the downfall of men?  But I am not so concerned today with refuting the notion.  It seems to me an irrational notion -- and, as a friend likes to remind me, you cannot reason a person out of a notion they did not reason themselves into in the first place. So, instead of discussing its reasonableness, I would like to take a guess at its possible origins or causes.

It is a serious question why such an unwholesome notion is spread over several cultures and why it can be found in countries as diverse as India, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and America.  Taking its strangely ubiquitous nature into account, is there any universal root for the notion that would explain why it appears in both India and Israel, in both Saudi Arabia and America, and -- apparently -- in most other countries?

I know of very little science on this issue, but I seem to recall one hypotheses: At root, the notion that immodest women are the downfall of men is part of a male strategy -- a tactic, if you will -- to put men in control of women's reproductive choices.

Sometimes the hypothesis is reasoned this way: 

(1) Women, when they have the freedom to choose their own mates, typically go about that task by a process of attraction and selection.  Basically, they make themselves as attractive to men as needed -- especially as physically attractive as needed -- and then they select a mate from among the men who are attracted to them.

(2) Given that women most frequently exercise choice by a process of attraction and selection, men have a number of options if they want to control women's reproductive choices.  Those options include placing restrictions on a woman's freedom to make herself attractive.  Such restrictions might include requiring her to dress in a manner that hides her physical attractiveness; requiring her to walk with eyes downcast; requiring her to speak of herself "modestly" or dismissively; prohibiting her from asking a man for a date; etc.

(3) The notion that immodest women cause a man's downfall is thus seen to be a cover, mask, or rationalization for controlling women's reproductive choices by restricting their ability to attract mates.

(4) Men who succeed in controlling women's reproductive choices thus place themselves in a better position to make those choices for women.  And if they can make those choices for women, they will presumably make them most frequently for their (the men's) own benefit.

For the sake of discussion, let's now assume the hypothesis is sound.  That is, the notion immodest women cause the downfall of men is a tactic men employ to assist them in controlling women's reproductive choices.  Does that mean that every time we hear some man encourage some woman to "be more modest" we can be confident he is doing so to control her reproductive choices?

I don't think so.  I think the hypothesis, if it is sound at all, would at best explain why the notion ever caught on, why it persists, and why it became nearly ubiquitous in its distribution. That is, it might explain the majority of cases.  But as for explaining the behavior of any one person, I think it's quite likely that a significant minority of people who encourage women to be modest do so for reasons having nothing to do with the hypothesis.

For instance, I came across a comment left on a blog yesterday by a teenager that asked women to dress modestly for two reasons.  First, to help the comment's author avoid masturbation.  Second, to help its author avoid objectifying women.

Now, you might grin at that (as did I), but if we take his two reasons at face value, we have there a male who is asking women to "be more modest" for reasons other than to restrict women's reproductive choices.  So, I think it would take a lot of work to sort out all the reasons people might have for the belief that immodest women are the downfall of men. But what do you yourself think might be the reasons or causes of such a heavy, gloomy, and unhealthy notion?

Sexual Techniques 101: The New Austrian Sex School has Opened

The world's first practical sex school is opening in Austria this month.  The school offers five courses in both the theory and the practice of sex -- and yes, I do mean "the practice".  As the school's website puts it, "we teach you hands on".  Or, put differently, the school provides its students with free contraception -- and needs to.

Courses run from four to eight weeks.  At the end of each course, students will be tested to determine how well they have mastered the subject.  It is possible to flunk a course.

Who is behind the school?  There isn't much public information about precisely who is capitalizing the school, but the headmistress is an artist, Ylva-Maria Thompson. She is well known in Sweden both for her art and for hosting adult TV shows.  Apparently, she also has some administrative talent, but the school's website is not emphasizing that side of her.

The school is located on a secluded estate a half hour's drive from Vienna.  In addition to teaching students both the theory and practice of sex, the school also has scientists on its staff who will be doing original research into sexuality.

The legal age of consent in Austria is 14, but you must be at least 16 to enroll in the school.

As you might imagine, not everyone is happy about this.  One prudish website criticized the school for all sorts of stuff, some of them quite petty things.  I suppose if the school succeeds and student enrollment climbs we will sooner or later see the professional fear mongers slink from beneath their rocks to declare the end of civilization.

As for me, I think this is one the best new things of the year.   Sex is not everything, but it is a huge part of life. So far as I can tell, this school intends to treat it with an importance it deserves.

Sexual Modesty and Adolescence

(H/T: Life as a Reader)

A while back, I was sitting in a coffee shop when I noticed -- just beyond the window -- a girl of about 14 or 16 dressed in a highly sexualized manner.  That is, her clothing was flamboyantly sexual even for an adolescent.  Moverover, she was flirting with a boy, who appeared a bit older than her, and she very soon straddled his lap in order to grind against him.  I couldn't recall when I had last seen in public such an overt display of sexuality -- outside of an erotic dance club.

Now, the girl was not physically attractive by American conventions. For one thing, she was much too fat to be fashionable (but see this post by Dr. Klein to get a refreshing perspective on our American notions of what's fashionable).  For another thing, she had a rather plain face thickly coated with cosmetics.  And, though her clothing was notable for being revealing, it did not seem that she had put much thought into the combination she'd chosen. 

So, it wasn't long before I began to wonder whether the poor girl might be suffering from low self-esteem.  That is, it seemed possible that she thought of herself as not having much to offer the boys besides sex.

I was thinking along those sad lines when I heard a male voice at the table behind me say, "God! Look at that slut!"

Of course, I don't know whether he was talking about the girl, or about someone else.  I didn't ask.  Yet, I assumed he was indeed talking about the girl -- and that made me feel old.  Old and tired. 

You see, the one attractive thing I had noticed about the girl in the few minutes I'd been watching her was that she seemed so full of life.  Even if her dress and mannerisms were motivated by low self-esteem -- and I didn't know that for certain -- she appeared at the moment happy.  She was, if only for a while, the queen of her universe.  It wearied me to think anyone would simply dismiss her as a slut.

As the above "poster" suggests, we need to decide as a society which gender bears the primary responsibility for controlling sexual desires. Are women responsible for men's desires?  Or are men responsible for their own desires?

Put differently, was the girl within her rights to dress in an overtly sexual manner?

Now, I'm one of those insufferable people who is of the opinion that men should take full responsibility for their own desires. I see no reason why men cannot.  That is, I simply do not buy into the notion that men are so weak they cannot control their sexual desires without the help of women.  And I suspect many readers will agree with me.

Where some of my readers might not agree with me is that I also happen to think women should be largely free to dress any damn way they please -- including as sexy as they please.  I would only specify that they dress appropriate to whatever venue they're in.  For example, I don't think it's appropriate for a fire fighter to dress in nothing but a corset and fishnet stockings (Unless she's responding to a call at my house, that is).

It seems to me that freedom and liberty should be maximized when doing so harms no one.  And I just don't get the notion that a provocatively dressed woman endangers me.  In fact, she's more likely to make my day.

For those and other reasons, I think that girl was more or less within her rights to dress as she did.  I say "more or less" because I think that, at 14 or 16, her parents should have the final decision.  But if she had been a little older, then I believe the final decision should be hers.

At the very least, she should not have been condemned as a slut.  That's just sick.  She was only being a kid.


It's no secret that kids -- both boys and girls -- experiment with what makes them sexually attractive. Many girls, for instance, go through a phase when they paint their faces in enough colors to give a gaudy sunrise an identify crisis.  And most of us, during our adolescence, have worn clothing intended to sexually arouse the gender of our choice.  Maybe the effect of that clothing wasn't always what we intended (much to our embarrassment), but that doesn't change the fact we wore it.  Yet, how well does anyone learn about these things without experimentation?  And when is a better time for experimentation than during adolescence?

Our society comes down too hard on adolescents while at the same time emulating them.  We should tolerate their foibles and blunders more than we do while refusing to follow in their footsteps as much as we do.  But it is a strange thing: We have a cult of youth going on at the same time we grow less and less tolerant as a society of youth. Nevertheless, it is a fact that adolescents quite often overstate things, very much including their sexuality.  Understatement -- and perhaps sexual modesty itself -- seems to be an adult taste.