The Glade 4.0

It's somewhat balanced by the fact that men who sleep around a lot receive a major increase in social (and probably professional) standing, while women who do the same get shunned and maligned.

No, no it's really not. That's balancing an inequity in pay by allowing the lower paid person to call the higher paid person an *******.

It's an unfortunate necessity that men have no control over this, but a woman must remain sovereign over her own body. But seriously, they need to add the legal ability of the father to go on record advocating an abortion or adoption, and then if she chooses to have the baby anyway, he is no longer responsible (nor does he have any access to) the child, in any form. If he agrees to help support it, he needs to be treated as a full partner in the parenting. Also, if the mother was going to give the child up for adoption, the father should have the right to keep the child himself (he may already in most places), but the mother would have no further obligation.

It's somewhat balanced by the fact that men who sleep around a lot receive a major increase in social (and probably professional) standing, while women who do the same get shunned and maligned.

Except this is also an inequity in pay. Men who sleep with a lot of women make a shitload more money on average than men who don't. While this is only a correlation and doesn't prove that one causes the other, the fact that the correlation exists can't be ignored. If you a man and you sleep around, you're a lot richer.

Are there links between income and the number of sexual partners that a person has? Table 6 finds no statistically significant correlation (see columns 3–6). Money, it seems, does not buy more sexual partners.

More detailed conclusions
include the following:
(i) The median American has sexual intercourse two to three times a
month (among people under 40 years of age, the median amount of
sex is once a week). Approximately 7% of the population report
having sex at least four times a week.
(ii) A third of American women over the age of 40 report they did not have
sexual intercourse in the previous year. The figure for men is 15%.
(iii) Homosexual and bisexual people make up 2% to 3% of the United
States population.
(iv) There is some evidence that sex has disproportionately strong effects
on the happiness of highly educated people.
(v) The happiness-maximizing number of sexual partners in the previous
year is 1.
(vi) Homosexuality has no statistically significant effects on happiness.
(vii) Married people have more sex than those who are single, divorced,
widowed or separated.
(viii) Highly educated females have fewer sexual partners.
(ix) Income has no clear effect. Money buys neither more sexual partners
nor more sex.

Except this is also an inequity in pay. Men who sleep with a lot of women make a shitload more money on average than men who don't. While this is only a correlation and doesn't prove that one causes the other, the fact that the correlation exists can't be ignored. If you a man and you sleep around, you're a lot richer.

No, no it's really not. That's balancing an inequity in pay by allowing the lower paid person to call the higher paid person an *******.

It's an unfortunate necessity that men have no control over this, but a woman must remain sovereign over her own body. But seriously, they need to add the legal ability of the father to go on record advocating an abortion or adoption, and then if she chooses to have the baby anyway, he is no longer responsible (nor does he have any access to) the child, in any form. If he agrees to help support it, he needs to be treated as a full partner in the parenting. Also, if the mother was going to give the child up for adoption, the father should have the right to keep the child himself (he may already in most places), but the mother would have no further obligation.

19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

This still leaves the issue of a woman destroying property of which 50% does not belong to her. This property already has a value established in markets and courts alike. If the woman wants to destroy this property without the consent of her co-owner she should compensate him.

Oh, he can have his property. It just needs to get off of hers.

19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

As a side note, it's interesting you're speaking of the fetus as if it were property. A person cannot be property.

(Of course, we're accepting abortion as legal here for discussion purposes, so I suppose it's a given that, if only for the purpose of this discussion, we're accepting that a fetus is not yet a person.)

19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Correct. I am accepting your assertion, for the purposes of this discussion, that a fetus does not have personhood.

I don't believe you can consider a fetus property even if it's not a person by virtue of the fact that left undisturbed, it will become a person.

19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

It can't be had both ways. It either must be considered a person with rights of it's own, or it must be considered property owned by another which can be legally destroyed by it's owner. Nothing else could be internally logically consistant.

I find the implication that everything must be property to be owned distasteful. In any event, if one does not accept the premise that a fetus is a person, one might instead consider it part of the woman incubating it.

19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Not anyone who understands human biology.

It can't be had both ways. It either must be considered a person with rights of it's own, or it must be considered property owned by another which can be legally destroyed by it's owner. Nothing else could be internally logically consistant.

That's not true. For someone with that outlook, it's not about biology, it's about location. And it extends beyond this example. Once you eat this bagel, it's part of you. Once you drink this beer, its part of you. When it comes out the other end, it ceases to be part of you.

19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

1) Internally logically consistent to what?
2) Why do we care about being internally logically consistent to whatever it is? Internal logical consistency is a means, not an end. Sometimes we have to accept a little inconsistency in order not to sacrifice people on the altar of.. well, not wanting to appear inconsistent.
3) False dilemma

19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

It exists in a category of its own. Everything does not have to fit into a larger category.

I'm still wondering what exactly it is you're wnating to be internally logically consistent to.

19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Our legal system.

We can't create new categories in our legal system?

19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.