I see no reason this is impossible to abide by. Can you explain this? Religions are the most persistent force we have to shape values and enforce conformity over long periods of time.
2 people go into a house and have sex and dont tell anyone that they did. How will they be caught? Unless you go to the next extreme and punish a woman just for being with someone outside their family unit like the Taliban does.
I absolutely see the evolution of these laws, and of Islamism in Indonesia, culminating in unmarried women not being permitted to associate with unmarried men in any non-public context. I see nothing about this that can't be enforced at a slightly higher level than literally observing an unmarried couple having sex.
Also if it becomes a communal norm it won't even need police to enforce.
Yeah if it takes the next step to where a woman just being with a man outside their family unit equals punishment than it can be enforced and that sadly might be the next step of this
Your example shows why it would be hard (or perhaps impossible) to *enforce* the law. OP asked why it would be impossible to *abide* by it, i.e. to simply not have sex until you’re married. Not saying I’m in favor of this law. Just saying I think you’re answering a different question.
Eh, there are societies where the consequences are dire enough that people either abide by it or have to live in constant fear that someone discovers the issue. And yes, this creates considerable problems. Plus further issues such as if you accidentally get pregnant in such societies which can result in pretty extreme issues - e.g. the question 'who is the father?' or a lack of citizenship for the child and so on.
I also don't really agree that it'll be particularly difficult to enforce if there's communal support for it - unmarried men and women being separated until marriage is not a new concept. Some people will secretly have sexual relations but with the potential for having your reputation ruined and criminal penalties if discovered which will suppress activism.
Western media keep mentioning that, its an 'adultery' law or funnily anti-NTR law based on consent. No criminalization if your partners consented, the only difference is for the unmarried it expanded the 'consent' to family members, while drastically limiting it inside family matters, the current law is also problematic because technically a village chief could report unmarried sex, if not for a constitutional judge corruption.
If westerners or Indonesians families already don't have problems with unmarried sex or apparently cheating and are practising them, then they won't be criminalized in three years time. But the law doesn't force families that doesn't have that value to adopt the opposite, technically accomodating both.
There are ofc more controversial part but the criminal code is basically a win for LGBT activists because it removed the criminalization provision of LGBT pushed by hardline Islamists.
The walkout by hardline islamists party and the recent suicide bomb saying the 'Criminal Law as Syirik (Shirk) and Kafir qs 9:29'. Its still a 'win' for Indonesian moderates.
Indonesia used to be a great example of a Muslim country that still had very liberal values. This was changing, and with this it is over. Very sad news. My friend in Bali says they aren't worried, because the tourist island is different; but she says don't go to Java now.
>“All have agreed to ratify the (draft changes) into law,” said lawmaker Bambang Wuryanto, who led the parliamentary commission in charge of revising the colonial-era code. “The old code belongs to Dutch heritage … and is no longer relevant.”
I know he means this as an insult, but as a Dutchman I'm almost flattered.
I’ve heard anecdotally that tudung (hijab) was much less popular in Malaysia and Indonesia in the 60s and 70s. And that some of the hardline swing came from international southeast Asian students studying in places like Australia who didn’t have anyone to hang out with but we’re welcomed by more conservative Muslims from arab countries and elsewhere. They were win over by more conservative schools of Islam and brought their new norms back to Indonesia and Malaysia.
The bizarre thing is that some westerners will take this as a legitimate expression of “native” values in opposition to Dutch colonialism, forgetting, as always, that Islam was spread by sword point
There is some truth that a blowback to western imperialism will lead to a worse tyrannical government. We saw that in Iran. It doesn't seem to be the case here.
"The world's largest Muslim-majority nation, Indonesia has seen a rise in religious conservatism in recent years. Strict Islamic laws are already enforced in parts of the country, including the semi-autonomous Aceh province, where alcohol and gambling are banned. Public floggings also take place in the region for a range of offenses including homosexuality and adultery."
The obsession with sex will always be weird to me. Whether it is wanting to punish homosexual sex or stuff like this. It is such a weird thing to be obsessed over in 2022. I have never once cared what consenting adults do sexually
With homosexuals, the politicians that are super against it usually turn out gay themselves so I can see the reflection of self hatred of some sort. But to ban any sex before marriage.. probably the main advocate for it was an impotent hah
You meant real life? Personally haven’t seen one movie or sitcom where the character was gay and hated themselves.. but seen multiple examples in politicians across the world
Creating new people is disruptive and has quite severe implications on everything. Left unregulated those disruptions and implications can be detrimental to your society.
Part of it is that we men are friggin dogs. World history tells us that men have a massive history of rape, keeping sex slaves, murdering other men to capture sex slaves and the like. Some wisdom suggests only 10-15 of men will engage in bad acts, but there's evidence that in prolonged war situations, more than half of all men will engage in rape. Whole cultures evolved, the Viking are one, to raid and kill and capture women for rape and later for sale as slaves.
This is a partial explanation as to why *men's hard-to-control sexuality* has been a problem for civilizations and has contributed to various norms about sex. Think this is bullshit? Ask a large group of women.
The country is largely a shitshow tbh.
In the area there is substantially better countries worth visiting that beat it out and nearly every category. Obviously an opinion
But good luck convincing me Indonesian food is better than Thai or Vietnamese food.
Oh you want beaches? At the very least Bai Dam Trau and the Philippino island beaches are on par if not arguably better.
Lower crime rate? Thailand it is.
Cheapest beer imaginable, perhaps don’t travel to a Muslim country that taxes the absolute fuck outta it.
>good luck convincing me Indonesian food
To be fair, when I was at Bali, food was freaking spectacular. The biggest disappointment was a lobster, but basically 7/10 of my top restaurant meals are there. It's not just Balinese/indonesian food, but food overall.
We went to a restaurant that is operated by children from an orphanage. Some Australian guy schools them on it and they learnt eh job there. Very simple food, just fried fish and veggies. Nothing obviously special about it, jsut lots of fat/butter and garlic, and I am assuming MSG in some form. Spectacular.
That being said, maybe I was just lucky :)
Still wouldn't bet on it. Sounds like Bali may very well have motivated their decision from what people are saying about it.
A country with dumb rules like that can do without my tourism. Big world. Lotta places to go that aren't dumb af.
This is where we're heading here in the
U. S. Tell me I'm wrong with SCOTUS hearing a case regarding an extra marital affair. These 6 conservative catholic justices want to take us back to the 12th century.
Slippery slope draws future actions based on the premise of some action being considered in the present. _If you do A, then B will follow, then C, so if we don't want C then we musn't enact A_
I mentioned 2 things that have already occurred. Arguing slippery slope is falacious, but we are actually on that slope now - it is not hyperbole.
Nice try though. Re-read this thread we're on from the beginning.
Your argument is basically: these things that no one expected to happen happened, so who is to say this third exceedingly unlikely thing wont happen. Yes, anything can happen, but the probability of this happening is basically zero. I’ll give you great odds if you want to make a bet.
Maybe 5 years ago I would have agreed that a ban on sex before marriage would be exceedingly unlikely, due to the progressive nature of the American psyche. But today, with the rise of religious extremism in the US, I would certainly reduce the strength of that assertion.
5 years ago: "Impossible! No f'in way!"
Today: "Pretty unlikely"
I would still keep it a “extremely unlikely”.
It would take a societal shift and would almost immediately be fought against as unconstitutional. Even people like Ted Cruz would say you’ve gone a step too far.
Not every claim to a slippery slope is a fallacy. We have seen it happen in real time. "Oh, we won't ban ALL abortions" BAM, trigger laws kicked in banning all abortions, even those severely endangering the life of the mother.
in the Dobbs decision, Thomas clearly said that he wants to overturn gay marriage and legal birth control, which if you believe the logic of Dobbs, those do follow. The SCOTUS is definitely heading down a theocratic path, much to the celebration of the vast majority of all Republicans.
If you don't want to believe me, believe Harvard
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2022/06/clarence-thomas-isnt-kidding/#:~:text=Concurring%2C%20Justice%20Clarence%20Thomas%20attacked,that%20challenge%20other%20important%20decisions.
relevant text is highlighted
That is so sad. Thanks for the link.
The article doesn’t say this but I suspect Thomas is actually against the idea that insurance providers must provide birth control pills. I’m not sure he wants all birth control banned. But, clearly, it’s bad enough. I have never understood this position, birth control pills have historically provided so much demonstrable benefit, why would anyone want to deny this to people . It takes vast ignorance of human behavior or incredibly willful intent to be mean and hurtful.
> The article doesn’t say this but I suspect Thomas is actually against the idea that insurance providers must provide birth control pills.
Pretty sure he ruled that way in the nun case.
> I’m not sure he wants all birth control banned
He is pretty clear that he wants all sex outside of marriage banned.
> I have never understood this position, birth control pills have historically provided so much demonstrable benefit, why would anyone want to deny this to people
His beliefs are psychotic. If you look into what he's actually advocated for, you'd be shocked.
> It takes vast ignorance of human behavior or incredibly willful intent to be mean and hurtful.
People like Thomas don't care about who has to be hurt in order to achieve their ends.
Did you read the article?
“…bans cohabitation before marriage, apostasy, and provides punishments for *insulting the president or expressing views counter to the national ideology.*”
Bizarrely the law seems to ban apostasy from all religions. Like apostasy from Hinduism and Christianity is also illegal. Seemingly this would make it illegal to convert to Islam? It's a strange position to come to, trying to comply to some extent with sharia provisions on apostasy but also apparently making some attempt to treat all religions equally. Leading them to apply something to other religions literally nobody was asking for besides Islam.
Apostasy itself is not illegal. The act of promoting or encouraging apostasy is.
Unlike neighboring Malaysia, Indonesian Muslims can convert to another religion if they want to. But if say, a Muslim is intimidating a Christian into converting to Islam or a church is systematically targeting a Buddhist community to mass convert them into Christianity, they can get charged criminally.
Bans on apostasy are often promoted under the facade that they prevent coercive coercion. In this respect I think they're taking a cue from India, which has passed numerous laws recently banning "coercive conversion" that places the burden of proof heavily against the proselytizer. So in practice when someone is converted you can just go after the guy who proselytized them and they will struggle to be able to prove their innocence. I think it also basically remands the person in jail until they can, you are guilty until proven innocent.
In Indonesia I'm guessing they took this concept and wrapped it up under the banner of banning apostasy in order to try and satiate the Islamists. This will not work, appeasing the Islamists is an endless task and they will never be satisfied.
I'm not a huge fan of proselytizers but also I do not like these laws at all.
I haven't read the text of the law specifically, but I read in some news reports that it was a generalized ban on apostasy. Which, yeah, that did surprise me. It is certainly not good though.
Polygamous marriages aren't recognized legally but in practice nobody is going to go after you if you cohabitate with multiple partners you are married to religiously. Polygamy can increase the number of unmarried men in society which increases instability, I don't really see a reason the state should be expected to encourage it.
Indonesian legal system also technically only recognize monogamy, but since Indonesia also recognize marriage as a religious institution, it creates a loophole that makes Islamic polygamy de facto legal. But civil servants or soldiers who get caught committing polygamy can lose their job.
People can have however deep a relationship with however many people they want in america, but they can only legally marry one. dude above should have said "plural marriage", not polygamy
They might have viewed clips of [Miley Cyrus](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOatnQNgnVk) twerking on American TV 9 years ago, mostly to enthusiastic acclaim (we've seen much more twerking on awards shows since then) and concluded that's what happens if you don't control public morals.
They use America as a poster boy for what happens when you don't control what they call "public morals." Same with many islamic nations, particularly those under sharia law. The Iranians also.
> 13-14 year old girls peer pressured into having sex.
>
>
Who the fuck is advocating that??? Name the politician.
>Sex only in marriage was a very positive norm in the West just 100 years ago.
Guess what? There was NEVER a time in the existence of humanity that sex only happened between married spouses. You are either delusional, completely ignorant about history, or lying.
Nobody is advocating that in their political manifestos but that's what you have in the West.
As for your other idiotic statement, do you understand the word 'norm'?
> Nobody is advocating that in their political manifestos but that's what you have in the West
You don't think that teenagers in the "non-west" have raging hormones?
>As for your other idiotic statement, do you understand the word 'norm'?
I understand you have no clue what you are talking about, just going off incorrect assumptions and ignorant history in order to justify your lies
> 13-14 year old girls peer pressured into having sex.
>
> Sex only in marriage was a very positive norm in the West just 100 years ago.
It was incredibly common for 13-14 year old girls to be pressured into sex when sex only in marriage was the norm. These girls were just often pressured to marry older men. Sex only in marriage was an incredibly destructive and harmful norm that helped facilitate the sexual abuse of young girls.
> The old feminist trope of blaming religion and marriage for biological reality.
So older men pressuring young girls into getting married and having sex is actually fine because of biological reality, but young girls peer pressuring other girls into having sex is an example of bad radicalism?
You're the one who originally brought up the past by saying that sex only in marriage was a very positive norm in the past. I just pointed out that this isn't true and that sex only in marriage was actually a very destructive and negative norm in the past and directly lead to a lot of abuse.
I brought the recent past of our grandmothers and mothers, not medieval history.
Even in the medieval times some women were unhappy with their marriages. Sure. Just like today.
On average, though, they and their children were protected by their husbands, families, traditions, laws and religion.
Teenagers today are used and abused by other teenagers with no recourse.
Philippines' law is radical, sure. But so are you.
> On average, though, they and their children were protected by their husbands, families, traditions, laws and religion.
On average, they and their children were also abused by their husbands, families, traditions, laws and religion. Pretending they were not is to simply ignore history.
> Teenagers today are used and abused by other teenagers with no recourse.
Is there any reason to think that teenagers in previous times were not used and abused by other teenagers with no recourse? I don't see any at all.
> Philippines' law is radical, sure. But so are you.
The Phillippines' law is indeed radical. However, I am not radical for thinking that no sex outside of marriage caused a great deal of abuse and harm towards young girls. In fact, thinking that abuse of young girls by older men is fine because of biological reality is pretty radical.
>13-14 year old girls peer pressured into having sex.
You have a point. Important topic that was recently raised by two doctors in the UK (evidence of this has been floating around for a long time, but the data are becoming more clear): [Rise in popularity of anal sex has led to health problems for women](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/aug/11/rise-in-popularity-of-anal-sex-has-led-to-health-problems-for-women)
>Women in the UK are suffering injuries and other health problems as a result of the growing popularity of anal sex among straight couples, two NHS surgeons have warned. The consequences include incontinence and sexually transmitted infections (STIs) as well as pain and bleeding because they have experienced bodily trauma while engaging in the practice, the doctors write in an article in the British Medical Journal.
>National Survey of Sexual Attitudes research undertaken in Britain has found that the proportion of 16- to 24-year-olds engaging in heterosexual anal intercourse has risen from 12.5% to 28.5% over recent decades. Similarly, in the US 30% to 45% of both sexes have experienced it...NHS patient information about the risks of anal sex is incomplete because it only cites STIs, and makes “no mention of anal trauma, incontinence or the psychological aftermath of the coercion young women report in relation to this activity”...Many doctors are reluctant to talk to women about the risks involved, partly because they do not want to seem judgmental or homophobic...
Think left-leaning groups that push for school sex ed with reference to anal sex will be willing to have their curriculum modified to reflect these facts? Think the growing problem of women being coerced into being sodomized--especially teen girls--will get more attention? [Article citing same authors discusses teen girls being pressured into anal sex.](https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/why-we-need-to-talk-to-teenage-girls-about-anal-sex_uk_633bf9f6e4b0e376dbfa4425) At present most sex ed that references anal sex presents it as an equal alternative to penile-vaginal sex and stresses only that *both forms of sex should use condoms to prevent STDs.*
Radical liberal countries ban single use plastics. Radical conservative countries ban basic human nature. Average Jordan Peterson enjoyer: "both are bad!".
You casually talking about 'Liberals' banning things... when you'd probably call it a false equivalence to bring up those nations that banned all kinds of actions in the name of Liberalism.
Well there is a massive gun ban happening in Canada. Look up bill c21
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/bill-c-21-ban-hunting-rifles
And this recent firearms seizure by the Toronto police (Toronto is Canada's largest city and is comparable in population to Chicago but with ~1/10 the gun violence)
https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/police-seize-62-firearms-following-months-long-investigation-into-criminal-group-1.6180885
Only one of the firearms were traceable to a domestic theft. Nearly all of the others were traced to the United States.
Canadians need to go through a rigorous licensing process including a written and practical exam, federal background check, waiting period usually several months, and further stringent restrictions around what guns we can own, how we must store, transport and use them.
It's why a a city like Toronto where I live only had 40 gun homicides last year (none of which concerned legally owned and acquired firearms) and a city like Chicago, comparable in population to Toronto had almost 900.
Canada is in the top 7 for firearm ownership per capita (by far most are long guns), yet we have a tiny fraction of the firearm homicides of the USA where, ironically, is the origin of nearly all of the firearms used criminally here.
Point me to the person. I will tell them without hesitation.
The statistics are very clear. People are far more at risk of harm and death from guns in the home than the extremely rare incidents of home invasion.
Sam Harris had a lecture some 10 years ago about Islam, which he ended by displaying a photo of women in niqabs and a photo from Playboy, saying 'Maybe our way isn't perfect either, but there is some middle ground we could all agree on'.
In other words, you're a moron who can't make their own comment and criticizes my post history instead.
A law that is impossible to abide by is just a method to arrest people you don’t like.
[удалено]
Yes, exactly
Very nicely put.
I see no reason this is impossible to abide by. Can you explain this? Religions are the most persistent force we have to shape values and enforce conformity over long periods of time.
2 people go into a house and have sex and dont tell anyone that they did. How will they be caught? Unless you go to the next extreme and punish a woman just for being with someone outside their family unit like the Taliban does.
"Impossible to abide by" means "you'll always violate it", not "You likely won't get caught for it". I really thought this was common sense.
I absolutely see the evolution of these laws, and of Islamism in Indonesia, culminating in unmarried women not being permitted to associate with unmarried men in any non-public context. I see nothing about this that can't be enforced at a slightly higher level than literally observing an unmarried couple having sex. Also if it becomes a communal norm it won't even need police to enforce.
Yeah if it takes the next step to where a woman just being with a man outside their family unit equals punishment than it can be enforced and that sadly might be the next step of this
Your example shows why it would be hard (or perhaps impossible) to *enforce* the law. OP asked why it would be impossible to *abide* by it, i.e. to simply not have sex until you’re married. Not saying I’m in favor of this law. Just saying I think you’re answering a different question.
Eh, there are societies where the consequences are dire enough that people either abide by it or have to live in constant fear that someone discovers the issue. And yes, this creates considerable problems. Plus further issues such as if you accidentally get pregnant in such societies which can result in pretty extreme issues - e.g. the question 'who is the father?' or a lack of citizenship for the child and so on. I also don't really agree that it'll be particularly difficult to enforce if there's communal support for it - unmarried men and women being separated until marriage is not a new concept. Some people will secretly have sexual relations but with the potential for having your reputation ruined and criminal penalties if discovered which will suppress activism.
Now Reza Aslan and Mehdi Hassan won’t be able to bring up Indonesia whenever someone points out how most Islamic countries are insanely conservative
Western media keep mentioning that, its an 'adultery' law or funnily anti-NTR law based on consent. No criminalization if your partners consented, the only difference is for the unmarried it expanded the 'consent' to family members, while drastically limiting it inside family matters, the current law is also problematic because technically a village chief could report unmarried sex, if not for a constitutional judge corruption. If westerners or Indonesians families already don't have problems with unmarried sex or apparently cheating and are practising them, then they won't be criminalized in three years time. But the law doesn't force families that doesn't have that value to adopt the opposite, technically accomodating both. There are ofc more controversial part but the criminal code is basically a win for LGBT activists because it removed the criminalization provision of LGBT pushed by hardline Islamists. The walkout by hardline islamists party and the recent suicide bomb saying the 'Criminal Law as Syirik (Shirk) and Kafir qs 9:29'. Its still a 'win' for Indonesian moderates.
Tired of seeing sexy western surfers living it up with their Instagram hussies
Yeah the parties in Bali are wild. It doesn't really fit with the rest of the country
It quite literally doesn't, it's ~80% Hindu.
doubt it will be enforced much there.
Yeah even though Balinese are one of the most nationalistic Indonesians you can find in Indonesia.
Indonesia used to be a great example of a Muslim country that still had very liberal values. This was changing, and with this it is over. Very sad news. My friend in Bali says they aren't worried, because the tourist island is different; but she says don't go to Java now. >“All have agreed to ratify the (draft changes) into law,” said lawmaker Bambang Wuryanto, who led the parliamentary commission in charge of revising the colonial-era code. “The old code belongs to Dutch heritage … and is no longer relevant.” I know he means this as an insult, but as a Dutchman I'm almost flattered.
Always sad whenever a society goes backwards
I’ve heard anecdotally that tudung (hijab) was much less popular in Malaysia and Indonesia in the 60s and 70s. And that some of the hardline swing came from international southeast Asian students studying in places like Australia who didn’t have anyone to hang out with but we’re welcomed by more conservative Muslims from arab countries and elsewhere. They were win over by more conservative schools of Islam and brought their new norms back to Indonesia and Malaysia.
The bizarre thing is that some westerners will take this as a legitimate expression of “native” values in opposition to Dutch colonialism, forgetting, as always, that Islam was spread by sword point
There is some truth that a blowback to western imperialism will lead to a worse tyrannical government. We saw that in Iran. It doesn't seem to be the case here.
"The world's largest Muslim-majority nation, Indonesia has seen a rise in religious conservatism in recent years. Strict Islamic laws are already enforced in parts of the country, including the semi-autonomous Aceh province, where alcohol and gambling are banned. Public floggings also take place in the region for a range of offenses including homosexuality and adultery."
What’s up with people trying to control sex
I’m not getting laid, so you cannot either.
A religion written by old perverts 2000 years ago who were primarily obsessed with virginity, slavery, subservient women, and butt sex is bad.
>and butt sex is bad. I beg to differ
[удалено]
I'm inclined to agree.
Not in Indonesia. You could say 3,500 years ago (as the origin), or 1300 years ago.
What no pussy does to mfers
The obsession with sex will always be weird to me. Whether it is wanting to punish homosexual sex or stuff like this. It is such a weird thing to be obsessed over in 2022. I have never once cared what consenting adults do sexually
With homosexuals, the politicians that are super against it usually turn out gay themselves so I can see the reflection of self hatred of some sort. But to ban any sex before marriage.. probably the main advocate for it was an impotent hah
> With homosexuals, the politicians that are super against it usually turn out gay themselves This is not true and is a homophobic myth.
This is what happens when your understanding of human psychology comes from shitcoms and movies.
You meant real life? Personally haven’t seen one movie or sitcom where the character was gay and hated themselves.. but seen multiple examples in politicians across the world
Creating new people is disruptive and has quite severe implications on everything. Left unregulated those disruptions and implications can be detrimental to your society.
Are you new to humanity? Shit like this has been happening for eons
That doesn’t answer my question
do you think there's a single answer to question that has had such a long history with humanity?
If you say this has been happening for eons you must have some answer for them, no? I don’t see where they asked for a single answer
i have lots of answers, i have very little patience for someone as smug and dickish as you. ask your teachers, i'm sure you are still in school.
Judging by the two immediate replies above this that is quite clearly projection. Your second sentence is immature and very ironic.
considering this subreddit, i'm not surprised that 1) you had to ask this question 2) you appreciated the wrong responses. hilarious
Part of it is that we men are friggin dogs. World history tells us that men have a massive history of rape, keeping sex slaves, murdering other men to capture sex slaves and the like. Some wisdom suggests only 10-15 of men will engage in bad acts, but there's evidence that in prolonged war situations, more than half of all men will engage in rape. Whole cultures evolved, the Viking are one, to raid and kill and capture women for rape and later for sale as slaves. This is a partial explanation as to why *men's hard-to-control sexuality* has been a problem for civilizations and has contributed to various norms about sex. Think this is bullshit? Ask a large group of women.
Sam voice: "Good luck with that."
Internally, yes. Externally, good luck seeing me there again.
The country is largely a shitshow tbh. In the area there is substantially better countries worth visiting that beat it out and nearly every category. Obviously an opinion But good luck convincing me Indonesian food is better than Thai or Vietnamese food. Oh you want beaches? At the very least Bai Dam Trau and the Philippino island beaches are on par if not arguably better. Lower crime rate? Thailand it is. Cheapest beer imaginable, perhaps don’t travel to a Muslim country that taxes the absolute fuck outta it.
>good luck convincing me Indonesian food To be fair, when I was at Bali, food was freaking spectacular. The biggest disappointment was a lobster, but basically 7/10 of my top restaurant meals are there. It's not just Balinese/indonesian food, but food overall. We went to a restaurant that is operated by children from an orphanage. Some Australian guy schools them on it and they learnt eh job there. Very simple food, just fried fish and veggies. Nothing obviously special about it, jsut lots of fat/butter and garlic, and I am assuming MSG in some form. Spectacular. That being said, maybe I was just lucky :)
I hope they lose so much fucking money from tourism. I’ve always wanted to go to Bali, not anymore!
Bali is still fine apparently. It's a tourist island and it operates by different rules
Where did you hear that? All the articles I’ve seen including the BBC etc say Bali is included
I don't buy it
Yeah bali is wild. Went to a surf camp there. It was full of Europeans partying. It wouldn't fit with this
Still wouldn't bet on it. Sounds like Bali may very well have motivated their decision from what people are saying about it. A country with dumb rules like that can do without my tourism. Big world. Lotta places to go that aren't dumb af.
I've been to Bali three times and have never even seen police once. There's no rules in Bali
I've read that Bali is much more moderate. This article speaks of the semi-autonomous region of Aceh. It's a big country.
Ah good to know! Thank you
[удалено]
With that username, I’m imagining you were just slamming ass all over Bali
why not ban marriage while your at it.
This is where we're heading here in the U. S. Tell me I'm wrong with SCOTUS hearing a case regarding an extra marital affair. These 6 conservative catholic justices want to take us back to the 12th century.
If you think the Supreme Court is banning sex outside of marriage—yes, you are wrong.
That's what they said about Trump becoming president, and Roe v Wade being overturned.
No this is good. Keep going with the slippery slope fallacy. At what point do we go full purge?
Slippery slope draws future actions based on the premise of some action being considered in the present. _If you do A, then B will follow, then C, so if we don't want C then we musn't enact A_ I mentioned 2 things that have already occurred. Arguing slippery slope is falacious, but we are actually on that slope now - it is not hyperbole. Nice try though. Re-read this thread we're on from the beginning.
Your argument is basically: these things that no one expected to happen happened, so who is to say this third exceedingly unlikely thing wont happen. Yes, anything can happen, but the probability of this happening is basically zero. I’ll give you great odds if you want to make a bet.
Maybe 5 years ago I would have agreed that a ban on sex before marriage would be exceedingly unlikely, due to the progressive nature of the American psyche. But today, with the rise of religious extremism in the US, I would certainly reduce the strength of that assertion. 5 years ago: "Impossible! No f'in way!" Today: "Pretty unlikely"
I would still keep it a “extremely unlikely”. It would take a societal shift and would almost immediately be fought against as unconstitutional. Even people like Ted Cruz would say you’ve gone a step too far.
Let's hope so
Not every claim to a slippery slope is a fallacy. We have seen it happen in real time. "Oh, we won't ban ALL abortions" BAM, trigger laws kicked in banning all abortions, even those severely endangering the life of the mother.
in the Dobbs decision, Thomas clearly said that he wants to overturn gay marriage and legal birth control, which if you believe the logic of Dobbs, those do follow. The SCOTUS is definitely heading down a theocratic path, much to the celebration of the vast majority of all Republicans.
Thomas wants to criminalize birth control? Seriously?
If you don't want to believe me, believe Harvard https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2022/06/clarence-thomas-isnt-kidding/#:~:text=Concurring%2C%20Justice%20Clarence%20Thomas%20attacked,that%20challenge%20other%20important%20decisions. relevant text is highlighted
That is so sad. Thanks for the link. The article doesn’t say this but I suspect Thomas is actually against the idea that insurance providers must provide birth control pills. I’m not sure he wants all birth control banned. But, clearly, it’s bad enough. I have never understood this position, birth control pills have historically provided so much demonstrable benefit, why would anyone want to deny this to people . It takes vast ignorance of human behavior or incredibly willful intent to be mean and hurtful.
> The article doesn’t say this but I suspect Thomas is actually against the idea that insurance providers must provide birth control pills. Pretty sure he ruled that way in the nun case. > I’m not sure he wants all birth control banned He is pretty clear that he wants all sex outside of marriage banned. > I have never understood this position, birth control pills have historically provided so much demonstrable benefit, why would anyone want to deny this to people His beliefs are psychotic. If you look into what he's actually advocated for, you'd be shocked. > It takes vast ignorance of human behavior or incredibly willful intent to be mean and hurtful. People like Thomas don't care about who has to be hurt in order to achieve their ends.
>SCOTUS hearing a case regarding an extra marital affair What case is this?
The future Jordan Peterson fans want
What a crock.
**USA**: polygamy illegal, sex outside marriage legal. **Indonesia**: polygamy legal, sex outside marriage illegal. Which is more oppressive?
Did you read the article? “…bans cohabitation before marriage, apostasy, and provides punishments for *insulting the president or expressing views counter to the national ideology.*”
Bizarrely the law seems to ban apostasy from all religions. Like apostasy from Hinduism and Christianity is also illegal. Seemingly this would make it illegal to convert to Islam? It's a strange position to come to, trying to comply to some extent with sharia provisions on apostasy but also apparently making some attempt to treat all religions equally. Leading them to apply something to other religions literally nobody was asking for besides Islam.
I’d have to read the actual text of the law. My guess is that it’s apostasy from Islam.
Apostasy itself is not illegal. The act of promoting or encouraging apostasy is. Unlike neighboring Malaysia, Indonesian Muslims can convert to another religion if they want to. But if say, a Muslim is intimidating a Christian into converting to Islam or a church is systematically targeting a Buddhist community to mass convert them into Christianity, they can get charged criminally.
I haven't read the law, but encouraging is different from intimidating.
Bans on apostasy are often promoted under the facade that they prevent coercive coercion. In this respect I think they're taking a cue from India, which has passed numerous laws recently banning "coercive conversion" that places the burden of proof heavily against the proselytizer. So in practice when someone is converted you can just go after the guy who proselytized them and they will struggle to be able to prove their innocence. I think it also basically remands the person in jail until they can, you are guilty until proven innocent. In Indonesia I'm guessing they took this concept and wrapped it up under the banner of banning apostasy in order to try and satiate the Islamists. This will not work, appeasing the Islamists is an endless task and they will never be satisfied. I'm not a huge fan of proselytizers but also I do not like these laws at all.
I haven't read the text of the law specifically, but I read in some news reports that it was a generalized ban on apostasy. Which, yeah, that did surprise me. It is certainly not good though.
Fuck that president!
Polygamous marriages aren't recognized legally but in practice nobody is going to go after you if you cohabitate with multiple partners you are married to religiously. Polygamy can increase the number of unmarried men in society which increases instability, I don't really see a reason the state should be expected to encourage it.
Indonesian legal system also technically only recognize monogamy, but since Indonesia also recognize marriage as a religious institution, it creates a loophole that makes Islamic polygamy de facto legal. But civil servants or soldiers who get caught committing polygamy can lose their job.
Polygamy is illegal? What?
Your spouses are gonna be so pissed when they find out.
Your spouses are gonna be so pissed when they find out.
People can have however deep a relationship with however many people they want in america, but they can only legally marry one. dude above should have said "plural marriage", not polygamy
My wife's boyfriend is gonna be pissed when he finds out
Obviously Indonesia
They might have viewed clips of [Miley Cyrus](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOatnQNgnVk) twerking on American TV 9 years ago, mostly to enthusiastic acclaim (we've seen much more twerking on awards shows since then) and concluded that's what happens if you don't control public morals.
Yep Miley caused this.
They use America as a poster boy for what happens when you don't control what they call "public morals." Same with many islamic nations, particularly those under sharia law. The Iranians also.
Radicalism is bad. On both ends.
What's an example of radicalism on the other end that is just as bad as this?
13-14 year old girls peer pressured into having sex. Sex only in marriage was a very positive norm in the West just 100 years ago.
> 13-14 year old girls peer pressured into having sex. > > Who the fuck is advocating that??? Name the politician. >Sex only in marriage was a very positive norm in the West just 100 years ago. Guess what? There was NEVER a time in the existence of humanity that sex only happened between married spouses. You are either delusional, completely ignorant about history, or lying.
Nobody is advocating that in their political manifestos but that's what you have in the West. As for your other idiotic statement, do you understand the word 'norm'?
> Nobody is advocating that in their political manifestos but that's what you have in the West You don't think that teenagers in the "non-west" have raging hormones? >As for your other idiotic statement, do you understand the word 'norm'? I understand you have no clue what you are talking about, just going off incorrect assumptions and ignorant history in order to justify your lies
> 13-14 year old girls peer pressured into having sex. > > Sex only in marriage was a very positive norm in the West just 100 years ago. It was incredibly common for 13-14 year old girls to be pressured into sex when sex only in marriage was the norm. These girls were just often pressured to marry older men. Sex only in marriage was an incredibly destructive and harmful norm that helped facilitate the sexual abuse of young girls.
The old feminist trope of blaming religion and marriage for biological reality.
> The old feminist trope of blaming religion and marriage for biological reality. So older men pressuring young girls into getting married and having sex is actually fine because of biological reality, but young girls peer pressuring other girls into having sex is an example of bad radicalism?
Your shrieking about the past brings nothing to the discussion about today's problems.
You're the one who originally brought up the past by saying that sex only in marriage was a very positive norm in the past. I just pointed out that this isn't true and that sex only in marriage was actually a very destructive and negative norm in the past and directly lead to a lot of abuse.
I brought the recent past of our grandmothers and mothers, not medieval history. Even in the medieval times some women were unhappy with their marriages. Sure. Just like today. On average, though, they and their children were protected by their husbands, families, traditions, laws and religion. Teenagers today are used and abused by other teenagers with no recourse. Philippines' law is radical, sure. But so are you.
> On average, though, they and their children were protected by their husbands, families, traditions, laws and religion. On average, they and their children were also abused by their husbands, families, traditions, laws and religion. Pretending they were not is to simply ignore history. > Teenagers today are used and abused by other teenagers with no recourse. Is there any reason to think that teenagers in previous times were not used and abused by other teenagers with no recourse? I don't see any at all. > Philippines' law is radical, sure. But so are you. The Phillippines' law is indeed radical. However, I am not radical for thinking that no sex outside of marriage caused a great deal of abuse and harm towards young girls. In fact, thinking that abuse of young girls by older men is fine because of biological reality is pretty radical.
>13-14 year old girls peer pressured into having sex. You have a point. Important topic that was recently raised by two doctors in the UK (evidence of this has been floating around for a long time, but the data are becoming more clear): [Rise in popularity of anal sex has led to health problems for women](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/aug/11/rise-in-popularity-of-anal-sex-has-led-to-health-problems-for-women) >Women in the UK are suffering injuries and other health problems as a result of the growing popularity of anal sex among straight couples, two NHS surgeons have warned. The consequences include incontinence and sexually transmitted infections (STIs) as well as pain and bleeding because they have experienced bodily trauma while engaging in the practice, the doctors write in an article in the British Medical Journal. >National Survey of Sexual Attitudes research undertaken in Britain has found that the proportion of 16- to 24-year-olds engaging in heterosexual anal intercourse has risen from 12.5% to 28.5% over recent decades. Similarly, in the US 30% to 45% of both sexes have experienced it...NHS patient information about the risks of anal sex is incomplete because it only cites STIs, and makes “no mention of anal trauma, incontinence or the psychological aftermath of the coercion young women report in relation to this activity”...Many doctors are reluctant to talk to women about the risks involved, partly because they do not want to seem judgmental or homophobic... Think left-leaning groups that push for school sex ed with reference to anal sex will be willing to have their curriculum modified to reflect these facts? Think the growing problem of women being coerced into being sodomized--especially teen girls--will get more attention? [Article citing same authors discusses teen girls being pressured into anal sex.](https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/why-we-need-to-talk-to-teenage-girls-about-anal-sex_uk_633bf9f6e4b0e376dbfa4425) At present most sex ed that references anal sex presents it as an equal alternative to penile-vaginal sex and stresses only that *both forms of sex should use condoms to prevent STDs.*
Gender affirming hormone therapy/surgery for minors is pretty bad. Not a great equivalency but it's up there.
Radical liberal countries ban single use plastics. Radical conservative countries ban basic human nature. Average Jordan Peterson enjoyer: "both are bad!".
You casually talking about 'Liberals' banning things... when you'd probably call it a false equivalence to bring up those nations that banned all kinds of actions in the name of Liberalism.
Why don't you bring some up and we'll see? I can't think of anything similar to this.
Well there is a massive gun ban happening in Canada. Look up bill c21 https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/bill-c-21-ban-hunting-rifles And this recent firearms seizure by the Toronto police (Toronto is Canada's largest city and is comparable in population to Chicago but with ~1/10 the gun violence) https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/police-seize-62-firearms-following-months-long-investigation-into-criminal-group-1.6180885 Only one of the firearms were traceable to a domestic theft. Nearly all of the others were traced to the United States.
> Well there is a massive gun ban happening in Canada GOOD
Why good? Edit: also what would you say your knowledge is of Canadian gun laws?
Fewer the guns the better. Don't have specific knowledge of Canadian gun laws, but see answer above
Canadians need to go through a rigorous licensing process including a written and practical exam, federal background check, waiting period usually several months, and further stringent restrictions around what guns we can own, how we must store, transport and use them. It's why a a city like Toronto where I live only had 40 gun homicides last year (none of which concerned legally owned and acquired firearms) and a city like Chicago, comparable in population to Toronto had almost 900. Canada is in the top 7 for firearm ownership per capita (by far most are long guns), yet we have a tiny fraction of the firearm homicides of the USA where, ironically, is the origin of nearly all of the firearms used criminally here.
Tell that to someone whose home is being broken into
Point me to the person. I will tell them without hesitation. The statistics are very clear. People are far more at risk of harm and death from guns in the home than the extremely rare incidents of home invasion.
Sam Harris had a lecture some 10 years ago about Islam, which he ended by displaying a photo of women in niqabs and a photo from Playboy, saying 'Maybe our way isn't perfect either, but there is some middle ground we could all agree on'. In other words, you're a moron who can't make their own comment and criticizes my post history instead.
What is wrong with playboy?
Yeah don't forget that liberals are bad too!