"The state shall make no laws regulating or impeeding the recreational use or expression of the human body"
It would be nice if progressives got off the single issues and drafted something like this, marajuana, abortion, sex ect all covered.
the decriminalization of the body
Thu, 2010-12-23 03:20
#1
the decriminalization of the body
Thu, 2010-12-23 09:28
#2
What about commercial use of your body?
How does abortion fit under "recreational"?
What about sawing off your own fingers into a bowl on a downtown street?
Just checking to see if I understand.
Thu, 2010-12-23 09:46
#3
You could say abortion concerns dealing with the consequences of recreation (most of the time, anyway).
Thu, 2010-12-23 10:00
#4
The reason I posed my questions was to indicate that there is no more than a superficial similarity between a woman's freedom to choose to abort rather than carry a foetus to term, and the right to ingest mood-altering substances, and the right to mutilate or kill oneself... Trying to subsume all these, and more, under some "I have a right to do whatever I want with my body" doesn't really capture the social, political, and historical uniqueness of these distinct kinds of issues. Moreover, I'm not sure I support all of them. If a community decides (for example) in a consultative and democratic way that [url=http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20100326/alcohol_ban_100326/]it wants to be alcohol-free[/url], you won't find me marching in the streets for individual liberty. But if the same community determines that it doesn't want abortions to be available within its borders, you'll be hearing from all of us here.
Thu, 2010-12-23 15:21
#5
Commercial is part of the equation, when I say recreational I mean everyday period, perhaps better wording is needed, as for the no alcohol thing I'm not going to fight coloqial contexts, what groups like hutterits menonites and amish do is their buisness, I'm talking about the context of a state and overarching law as opposed to costom, laws are inherently retarded and there needs to be a delegalization movement to faze them out of society, an anarchist revolution would abviously make my proposal moot in a good way but I'm giving reformist suggestions.
Thu, 2010-12-23 16:55
#6
Well, women's bodies have always been criminalized, and still are. let me know when we are free, then there may be something to celebrate.
Thu, 2010-12-23 22:32
#7
I agree stargazer, all bodily mores center on the control of women and children primarily, by men of course, which is why progressives in a reformist sphere should dig into this, to me prostitution was basically an adaptation by women in the face of loosing all economic self determination, as long as institutional patriarchy is around prostitution should be seen as a legitimate economic coping mechanism by women and men in a world of work, so again I would say as much as possible, move the agency of the human body outside of any law based discourse.
And down with all laws when the time comes.
Sat, 2010-12-25 18:21
#8
I think when it comes to bodies, we should talk about the genderification (is that even a word) of bodies. For trans people, the use of hormonesand/or surgery is another form of self determination and depending on the countries, different governemtns use different ways to regulate the gender binary system to ensure insittutional patriarchy.
Sat, 2010-12-25 19:12
#9
And we could talk about the control of pregnancy, and what that means in terms of women's autonomy.
Sun, 2010-12-26 04:58
#10
Well folks don't turn these things into single issues, mould them up take up a poltical position that copliments all of these things, all the things your talking about would be largely afressed through the decriminalization of non coerced bodily acts expression and utility, a life that is as non regulated as possible can only help such issues.
Wed, 2010-12-29 22:13
#11
Maybe it's just so you can get as much body art, face painting, tattoos and piercings as you want. And have ultimate fighting parties in the mud and stuff. Believe me, pregnancy stuff is not recreational. Neither is hormone therapy or surgically changing your genitalia. Breastfeeding can maybe be recreational. Sometimes.
Thu, 2010-12-30 01:05
#12
Maybe it's just so you can get as much body art, face painting, tattoos and piercings as you want. And have ultimate fighting parties in the mud and stuff. Believe me, pregnancy stuff is not recreational. Neither is hormone therapy or surgically changing your genitalia. Breastfeeding can maybe be recreational. Sometimes.
Breastfeeding can also be criminal. Remember that woman in the eastern U.S. who had her baby taken away because she asked her doctor about feeling aroused when she breastfed? The doc ratted her out to CFS as a child molester. This was back in the 90s, and she did get the baby back.
And of course there are the places where they try to make you go in a closet to do it as if it was obscene.
Also, the fact that not everyone has sex with the intent of having a child is what makes abortion an important option.
I do agree though, that you can't boil personal liberty down to one omnibus manifesto. It is impossible to equate even all of the things that have been mentioned already. As well, there are enough cases in which one person's action affects someone else, or when a person is not capable of making a rational decision.
Thu, 2010-12-30 02:03
#13
Well folks don't turn these things into single issues, mould them up take up a poltical position that copliments all of these things, all the things your talking about would be largely afressed through the decriminalization of non coerced bodily acts expression and utility, a life that is as non regulated as possible can only help such issues.
You'd have to ask what the point of laws are before declaring them "retarded". I'm not about to defend the strategies employed by the legal system. However, as many people as there are in the world, there will be as many opinions and interpretations of that general statement that you'll get. It might be easy for one person to interpret their own law. But in a world of differences, that's not how laws play out. What exactly is the point of this law? Is it really about "decriminalising the body"? Or is this mearly ends justifying a means? I'm afraid the law you've authored would be a bad law and pretty tough to administer. Because the scope of what your trying to capture can't possibly be reflective of all experiences.
As an aside... we humans have to be regulated by something. As it is, liberty has made a farce of our obligations to this planet and our decendents' futures. Laws should be built on relationships, not personal need.
Thu, 2010-12-30 11:25
#14
@smith
It wasn't the breastfeeding that was criminal. It was the mom's pleasure at breastfeeding that the ignorant doctor thought was criminal. And ignorant child welfare authorities appeared to agree. Ditto the ignorant judge. Oh yes, breastfeed for the antibodies, breastfeed to lower your cancer risk, breastfeed for your baby's IQ and dental arch development, breastfeed so you meet your child's emotional need for attachment, and breastfeed to regain your pre-pregnancy weight faster, but don't you dare have fun with it, and what a horror if it gives you a little rush of pleasure. The moment mommy gets an endorphin and oxytocin tingle in the ole clit, it's obviously pedophilia and the milk's no good for the baby any more. How about this one: I pumped breast milk with an electric machine for my premature infant who was in NICU for three months. It felt AWESOME! It's the hormones. They are so helpful for making motherhood less of a bore. See, the prevailing medical and public welfare mindset is that women's bodies are only for reproduction, not fun. It's all about the duty to the kid, and the duty to family and society. But really, our bodies are the biggest toys we have. They don't stop being toys just because we grow up or give birth. That's why this thread interested me. Good thing that judge who signed the order to remove the baby from the mother's custody never saw the fun we used to have at La Leche League meetings.
Sun, 2011-01-02 22:22
#15
Sknguy
The reason why laws are retarded is because the reflect largely patriarchical biases, and the issues that do clash here and there can be handled by custom, you no there is a difference between law and custom right. In terms of being administered, the point is to take administrative rationality out of everyday life and alow things to be governed by contextual emergence, if the state is ever distroyed then this will not even be an issue anymore, this is really about taking the idea of the 1st amendment in the US and extending it to bodily use and expression, I shouldn't have to remind one how much of a bias there is against the body in western culture from rome onwards. There will always be marginal species level relationships that make even sanctioned things not welcome, there are things you can do in san fran that can't be done in alabama, but that's a social problem outside the realm of politics altogether.
Lastly relationships and personal need are one in the same, its also not liberty's fault that we fucked up, we fucked up because we ARE fuck ups as this current species goes.
Nutrimon
Sexual expression and preference and pregnancy stuff are not one and the same, in terms of bodily alterations that is simply a means of reorientating yourself to the world, its a pretty important part of GBLT struggles and should not even be up for discussion.
Mon, 2011-01-03 16:17
#16
Sknguy
The reason why laws are retarded is because the reflect largely patriarchical biases, and the issues that do clash here and there can be handled by custom, you no there is a difference between law and custom right.
I can't disagree that most social institutions like government, legal system, economy, were all male dominated creations. And that this, in and of itself, is a problem. However, I'm from the perspective that there is no disconnect between laws and customs. Laws are closely linked to such things, and aren't monolithic, nor are they the real problem. If you change society, then you change their laws. That's where I was coming from.
In terms of being administered, the point is to take administrative rationality out of everyday life and alow things to be governed by contextual emergence, if the state is ever distroyed then this will not even be an issue anymore, this is really about taking the idea of the 1st amendment in the US and extending it to bodily use and expression,
Sorry, my simply saying "relationships" was far too vague. What I meant by that was that we need to understand what compels us and motivates us in our relationships towards everything and each other. Are our relationships self centric, or more altruistic? The basis of our worldviews form the foundation of our laws. It's what motivates the core of our ideas on Justice, and is the concept we "try" to express and capture in our laws.
I shouldn't have to remind one how much of a bias there is against the body in western culture from rome onwards. There will always be marginal species level relationships that make even sanctioned things not welcome, there are things you can do in san fran that can't be done in alabama, but that's a social problem outside the realm of politics altogether.
Lastly relationships and personal need are one in the same, its also not liberty's fault that we fucked up, we fucked up because we ARE fuck ups as this current species goes.
Again, I apologize for using the term relationship loosely. Liberty, to me, represents a specific cultural worldview. As an example, I've spoken to many Indigenous knowledge keepers who've insisted that ideas like rights, liberty and sovereignty are concepts that are outside the principles of Indigenous thought... at least Anishnabek anyway. And, we should be open to the idea that there are cultures that rely upon other values as the basis of their relationships. Only in western thought are western principles universal. Regardless, you have to admit that even these western concepts are also constructs of a male dominated and competitive society.
To your last comment: I agree that every person has the responsibility to be who they feel they need to be. I would be remiss in not recognizing and respecting that. And it would also be harmful and destructive if I didn't. I think laws would be better if they worked towards promoting and maintaining healthy relationships rather than determining conformity to a specific type of relationship. But I do think that laws, and their social institutions, are more fundamental than you are making them out to be. With or without government (state), they reflect something fundamental about the society that creates them.
Tue, 2011-01-04 00:47
#17
""However, I'm from the perspective that there is no disconnect between laws and customs."
You think so huh, technically laws are outgrowths of custums in the same way a nation is the outgrowth of a band, but there is definately a disconnect. There is a sense of context in customs that do not exist in laws.
I'll just link part of a great ebook on specifically on the differences
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/Bob_Black__Nightmares_of_Reason.html...
bascically just read 9 and 10, if that doesn't make the differences clear I don't know what will, some quotes
"Custom is recurrent social behavior. Custom is collective habit. Custom is not something apart from social organization. Custom is implicit in social organization, any social organization. And “even in supposedly advanced societies, behavior is governed more by custom than by law in the usual sense of that word.”[465] Custom is not something we could choose to do without, not without reversion to that state of nature in which the ex-Director disbelieves. Like some of the ex-Director’s other anthropological insights, the notion of custom as quasi-instinctual seems to have been gleaned from the Tarzan movies where, usually egged on by witch-doctors, the natives act out insane rituals like zombies. The Director Emeritus is the only person who believes it is literally true that “Custom is King.” But that is precisely what it is not.
The difference between custom and law, as everybody else knows, is coercion.[466] Bookchin conceives custom to be as coercive as command, if not more so. But whatever the force of custom is in modern states, that is not how it is in primitive societies, according to the Bookchin-vetted anthropologist, Paul Radin: “But customs are an integral part of the life of primitive peoples. There is no compulsive submission to them. They are not followed because the weight of tradition overwhelms a man. That takes place in our culture, not in that of aboriginal man. A custom is obeyed there because it is intertwined with a vast living network of interrelations, arranged in a meticulous and ordered manner.” There is no society in which rules are automatically followed. Thus anthropologist Edmund R. Leach scoffs at “the classic anthropological fiction that ‘the native is a slave to custom.’”[467]"
Hell is it says later ancient law codes were not big on discriptive crimes and left things to custom which of course varied from town to town, I'm actually advocating a sort of progressive return to how things were done in athenian times or better.