Having a Girlfriend

[brimstoneSalad]

Yes, if that's the level of risk they're willing to conform to. Some would want a lower risk, and they’d be more moral. And the reverse. There’s no baseline.

In a societal context there is, though.

http://www.peta.org/living/food/making- ... ucts-food/
You've probably seen that before regarding vegan purity.

Never having sex ever might in some sense be better, but also less socially sustainable. People aren't going to look upon that as something they want to replicate, which is going to weaken the meme.

Sometimes the perfect is the enemy of the good. A spoon full of sugar helps the medicine go down, and all that. We should live examples people will want to follow. Which means there's some calculus to it.

Increase in life satisfaction will make other people more keen to follow it, but make it less useful in each case, so we have to look at the curve of how those relate to each other.

Kind of like how recommending people go vegetarian is more useful than recommending they go vegan, since they're more likely to adopt it.

Which is why while you are right that minimizing sex itself would be helpful too, it's much more conducive to favorable perception to recommend maximizing sex while minimizing partners.
This is why I don't favor the abstinence approach; I also don't think it's very realistic for people not to have sex.

Come on, few people use that word the same way you do. It’s usually not about STD risk, it’s about some sort of deontological “spiritual” impurity.

Usually it's used in the context of having a lot of sexual partners outside committed relationships (people no longer have sticks up their asses about marriage, and it's rarely used that way), which maps pretty well to what I'm talking about. Outside religious fundies.

As to what it's "about" -- While it's not knowingly about STDs, it does correlate to risk (at least in the context I explained above, where we control for amount of total sex), and the core reason it's considered slutty is because of STDs (like the reason poop is considered gross is ultimately derived from the disease risk too, even though people do not think of it in those terms but have merely passed on this cultural wisdom which evolved for pragmatic reasons).

So, I would disagree that the meme is not about STD risks in the same way I'd disagree that a Giraffe's neck isn't about trees; the memes/genes evolved because of those things, even if the subjects now propagating them don't understand them in those contexts (or understand them at all).

And the reverse: if Red lets you eat him and therefore fulfils his own will, then he is denying you your preference to be altruistic. Whoever dies is a bit selfish.

Assuming both parties are identical in will? Not if we draw straws. Nobody does anything less moral than the other.

Drawing straws doesn't work because 9 altruists get their wills to be moral denied.

No, remember: It's based on probability. You don't get special points for being lucky and getting the good straw. All ten are equally moral in that situation, as long as the chances of them each drawing the sacrifice straw are equal.

1. by considering alternative behaviors. But it's still problematic because having consensual sex is good, raping is less good, but it's still better than not getting the pleasure at all.

This works only if you judge the less good alternative as bad.

2. if you look at preferences. You don't maximize overall happiness, but the number of preferences being met.

This is slightly better (and is the case in altruism), but still doesn't solve the problem of a rapist potentially having a slightly stronger preference to rape than the victim has in not being raped, however you quantify preferences.

Unless you take the victim's projected will into consideration, since people are highly future-oriented in their preferences. That’s what makes it ‘wrong’ for both the altruist and the preference utilitarian to rape someone.

An altruist must do this, yes. But it doesn't solve the utilitarian rapist problem, as long as the rapist is really into the raping.

[inator]

In a societal context there is, though.

http://www.peta.org/living/food/making- ... ucts-food/
You've probably seen that before regarding vegan purity.

Never having sex ever might in some sense be better, but also less socially sustainable. People aren't going to look upon that as something they want to replicate, which is going to weaken the meme.

Sometimes the perfect is the enemy of the good. A spoon full of sugar helps the medicine go down, and all that. We should live examples people will want to follow. Which means there's some calculus to it.

Increase in life satisfaction will make other people more keen to follow it, but make it less useful in each case, so we have to look at the curve of how those relate to each other.

Kind of like how recommending people go vegetarian is more useful than recommending they go vegan, since they're more likely to adopt it.

Which is why while you are right that minimizing sex itself would be helpful too, it's much more conducive to favorable perception to recommend maximizing sex while minimizing partners.
This is why I don't favor the abstinence approach; I also don't think it's very realistic for people not to have sex.

Ok, that's fair in terms of advocacy.

This is why I prefer not recommending teenagers to be abstinent in general. If someone asks for your honest advice on how they can be as moral as possible (least risk) though, it's different...
Aspiring moral people usually hold themselves to higher standards than what they promote, also concerning vegan purity.

But the image you give off also affects your advocacy, it's true.

Usually it's used in the context of having a lot of sexual partners outside committed relationships (people no longer have sticks up their asses about marriage, and it's rarely used that way), which maps pretty well to what I'm talking about. Outside religious fundies.

As to what it's "about" -- While it's not knowingly about STDs, it does correlate to risk (at least in the context I explained above, where we control for amount of total sex), and the core reason it's considered slutty is because of STDs (like the reason poop is considered gross is ultimately derived from the disease risk too, even though people do not think of it in those terms but have merely passed on this cultural wisdom which evolved for pragmatic reasons).

So, I would disagree that the meme is not about STD risks in the same way I'd disagree that a Giraffe's neck isn't about trees; the memes/genes evolved because of those things, even if the subjects now propagating them don't understand them in those contexts (or understand them at all).

If that were the case, then the word 'slut' would apply to both men and women equally today. That's how you use it, but society shames women and congratulates men for having sex. I think evolutionarily it has more to do with pregnancy than disease.

The pre-modern man faced the problem of paternity uncertainty. If his female partner had borne children that he took to be his, but they were really fathered by some other man, he would've wasted a lot of resources for nothing. But if a man was promiscuous, there'd be no evidence and he would have expended minimal resources.
The "purity" of the female probably became even more important in later agrarian/patriarchal societies, where women were prized primarily for their reproductive ability, while men were required to pass down their property to their biological offspring through one woman.

Today sex and reproduction are no longer the same thing due to birth control, but in many ways we still have Pleistocene minds.

No, remember: It's based on probability. You don't get special points for being lucky and getting the good straw. All ten are equally moral in that situation, as long as the chances of them each drawing the sacrifice straw are equal.

Then the same could be said about egoists. But egoists would rather fight than follow the straw rule, since their whole universe is "me"-centered. It's similar for altruists.

This is slightly better (and is the case in altruism), but still doesn't solve the problem of a rapist potentially having a slightly stronger preference to rape than the victim has in not being raped, however you quantify preferences.

You don't quantify preferences themselves, only their number.
Each counts for one. In other words, the interests of every individual affected by an action are to be taken into account and given the same weight as the like interests of any other individual. The good of any one is of no more importance than the good of any other.

Beings can have different preference complexity, but this doesn't come into play when we're talking about two human adults.

[brimstoneSalad]

This is why I prefer not recommending teenagers to be abstinent in general.

Teenagers are particularly problematic, since so few of them are rational or interested in doing the right thing.

If they weren't so irrational at that age (not all, but most), then it would be easier to recommend that they enter into stable relationships to have sex.
It's tough to make recommendations to teenagers as it is, because they're unlikely to listen to anything anybody says.

Coming across a rational teenager, though, the same advice would hold as for adults, except for they're usually in an unfortunate situation of being unable to find a rational partner for a longer term relationship.

If that were the case, then the word 'slut' would apply to both men and women equally today.

It did apply to men a bit more until more recently; not 'slut', but the shame of having intercourse outside a marriage, except with a mistress (who was like a second wife).
In the old days, it was marriage or execution.

It's a rather newer trend, it seems, for men to openly be 'players' and try to have as many conquests as possible.

Also, there is some precedent on double standard regarding STDs for men vs. women, since women are more likely to contract from men than the other way around. I think it's something like four times more likely for many STDs. I think risk is expressed as an average for the overall event.

Men are more likely to spread STDs, and women more likely to contract them.

society [...] congratulates men for having sex.

I think this is not so old, though, and comes with the liberalization of sexual attitudes for men.

I think evolutionarily it has more to do with pregnancy than disease.

This could be a minor factor, and was probably another issue with marriage. But purity for paternal certainty only requires a short quarantine -- people have understood this for a very long time. This is more the cause of our insistence on strict monogamy (which serves two purposes).

The 'dirtiness' of sluttiness can only significantly be attributed to disease risk.

But egoists would rather fight than follow the straw rule, since their whole universe is "me"-centered.

No, rational egoists will accept the straw rule, because they realize that fighting will be more likely to result in more harm to them than just going along with the straw.

Straw: 10% chance of death by selection, 90% chance of being fine.
Fighting: 10% chance of death by being beaten, 90% chance of being seriously wounded in a massive fight -- likely additional risk of death going with that (in the chaos, multiple people may die).

You don't quantify preferences themselves, only their number.

If two people don't like you very much and kind of want you to die (they're not too invested in it, and it wouldn't really ruin their days if you lived, but they would appreciate it), and you don't want to die (your life is the most important thing in the world to you, and you value nothing more), then you should be killed to satisfy the passing fancy of the two, which override your profound will to live.

Does that sound right?

[Red]

Lol no, looks are the least important thing to me, they are not the boss.

But not for me, or any horny person for that matter. Don't apply everything that happens to you to the majority.

I'm not saying I'm 100% non-superficial (because NO ONE is) but I honestly don't give a shit about looks.

I do not recall applying sexual desire to everyone.

Men are socialized to care about looks more than women, its not biological at all.

Oh, so society tells me to feel attraction. It's not like I do that by default to have a desire to sex to proliferate our species. That makes sense.

You are taught that your worth is directly correlated to how "hot" your gf or wife is.

Maybe having the hottest chappette can show more dominance over the other men of the tribe. Ever read Of Mice and Men?
Curly only has a wife to show dominance over all the other farm workers. It shows that he has more power over the farmers. I'm pretty sure it's not socially taught, especially because it doesn't only happen to humans naturally, and it happens in other places in the animal kingdom. I'm not implying an appeal to nature, I'm saying that it's not socially taught, it's genes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominance_hierarchy
This is straight from the article:

Benefits
Reproductive success
In primates, one of the most widely studied hierarchal groups, many studies have found a positive relationship between high rank and reproductive success. In baboons, higher-ranking males have the highest reproductive success due to increased female acquisition. Also, female baboons benefit from increased rank because high-ranking females produce more surviving offspring.

Bonnet macaques demonstrate another example of increased reproductive success from high rank. High-ranking males have more access to fertile females and consequently partake in most of the mating within the group, demonstrated by one population in which only three males were responsible for over 75% of mating. In this population, males often vary in their rank, and as they gain rank, they gain more time spent exclusively with fertile females; the opposite relationship is seen as males drop in rank. In many primates, including bonnet macaques and rhesus monkeys, the offspring of high-ranking individuals have better fitness and thus an increased rate of survival. This is most likely a function of two factors. The first is that high-ranking males mate with high-ranking females. Assuming their high rank is correlated with higher fitness and fighting ability, this trait will be conferred to their offspring. The second factor is that higher-ranking parents probably provide better protection to their offspring and thus ensure higher survival rates.

In rodents, the highest-ranking male frequently sires the most offspring. The same pattern is found in most carnivores, such as the dwarf mongoose. The dwarf mongoose lives in a social system with one dominant pair. The dominant female produces all or almost all of the offspring in the living group, and the dominant male has first access to her during her oestrus period. In red deer, the males who experienced winter dominance, resulting from greater access to preferred foraging sites, had higher ability to get and maintain larger harems during the mating season.

In many monogamous bird species, the dominant pairs tend to get the best territories, which in turn promote offspring survival and adult health. In dunnocks, a species of birds that experiences many mating systems, sometimes individuals will form a group that will have one dominant male who achieves all of the mating in the group.

In the monogynous bee species Melipona subnitida it is noted that the queen wants to maintain reproductive success, and does so by preventing workers from caring for their cells, pushing or hitting them using her antennae. Workers additionally have been noted to display aggression towards males, claiming priority over the cells when males try to use them to place eggs. This species further demonstrates the conflict between hierarchy and reproductive success.

The fact that you care so much that your friends are asking you why you dont have a gf is proof of this

W-Wo-Woah.. when did I say I care?

You're taught that men are "visual creatures"

I've never come across this statement.. like, ever.

even though your brain and my brain are exactly the same, we have the same visual cortex. It's all bullshit.

Eh, not really. The male and female brains are wired very differently. That's not even including some of the other factors that play into it.
And about the visual cortex. Sure, we see the same thing, but it's a totally different part of the brain that interprets what we think of it. Maybe not the same colours though.

What is a long time to you? Thats the thing. Is a long time forever until you die? Is a long time 4 years? 10 years? How long is long enough? I'm 25 and my longest relationship has been 4 years. Thats actually quite good for a 25 year old. I don't think its delusional at all to aim for a long-lasting healthy relationship of a solid 4 years.

I was mainly referring to first high school relationships (and high school relationships in general). If you think it'll last at least until you graduate is where I draw the line.

Physical attraction is only one aspect of attraction overall. There are many other ways to feel attracted to someone that have absolutely nothing to do with their looks. You can be attracted to someones personality, their confidence, their shyness, their smarts, etc. There are so many other factors and its simply untrue and ridiculous to state that for every person in the world, physical attraction is the only reason anyone is fucking or dating. I couldnt care less about sexual intercourse, what I do care about if I'm fucking someone is intimacy, trust, and closeness.

I refer you to the answer I gave earlier.

People don't get into relationships to have sex lol thats ridiculous.

*Silently crosses arms on desk and puts head down*

Anyone can have sex: you can go outside and ask a stranger to fuck and they might say yes.

And you'll also be a potential street harasser and syphilis patient.

Sex is overall mostly meaningless. And if you can get sex anywhere, then why get into a relationship?

You can't get sex anywhere, numnuts. If you're really desperate you can pick up a prostitute, but studies have found that people tend to enjoy sex better with the people they've bonded with.

Because there are other reasons to be in a relationship besides sex. Shared resources (money, a house, marriage benefits), a desire to have children, a desire to build a family, stability, and even love. Love is the main reason people get into a relationship and get married. Not sex.

I know that. But what you're saying is, people never have a relationship to have sex? Like, no relationship at all? And you're totally skipping over the fact that to show love, people have sex.

Lol I feel like I shouldn't have to explain that we are not wild animals and nature/biology is not an excuse for us to not evaluate ourselves or our socialization. No one has kids to keep the species going. No. One. People have kids because it gives them a warm fuzzy feeling, or to carry on their name. It has absolutely nothing to do with carrying on the species. So that rules out that the main objective of sex is to have offspring.

I am smelling a false dichotomy.

What if we aren't as "civilized" as we are now? What if we were like all animals, who rely mainly on instinct? Attraction leads to sex. Not directly though..

We have sex for many different reasons that have nothing to do with offspring or biology. The main reason we have sex is pleasure. Pleasure has nothing to do with the longevity of the species or creating offspring.

But then there wouldn't be any motivation to have sex.
Here, I'll spell it out for you:
You're vegan right? So you probably think that animals feel pain, pleasure, etc.?
Animals do feel horniness.
Animals do like the feel of sex.
Without the nice feel of sex, there wouldn't be any motivation to have sex to carry on the species.
Humans aren't the only living things that feel pleasure from sex.

You are socialized to think that you cannot control your sexual urges and that physical attraction is necessary for sex to happen (especially as a man), when (again) not everyone gives a shit about physical attraction, and there are many other ways/reasons to be attracted to someone that has nothing to do with their body.

But then why are we attracted to specific body parts? Because to a man, it shows how well a woman can give birth , and to a woman, it shows how powerful a man is compared to the others. You're saying only humans feel attraction? Or are you saying attraction is a social construct?

Your original post comes off a little insulting/offensive to me because it sounds like you're really putting down anyone who is in a relationship currently, anyone who has or did have sex in high school. And the way you worded yourself in relation to making out with or 'getting your hands on' a girl is a little bit sketchy. In high school boys are trying to prove themselves via masculinity (since society says that your worth as a dude is determined by how manly you are) so all the guys are trying to fuck or date.. Who cares? You don't have to listen to them, but you also don't have to devalue the girls in those relationships. You sound like you need validation from us for not wanting to date in high school.. Just let your buddies be immature, and you do your own thing.

3 words:
Context
Hyperbole
Satire

I hate to pull this on you but you are still very young.. Although you might not feel like it. Hell, even I am still very young! The person you are in high school will drastically change by the time you reach your first year of college. You will learn a lot after your first relationship and after you've lost your virginity (if you haven't already). Maybe your feelings on it will change.

Stop telling me stuff I already know.

[inator]

Also, there is some precedent on double standard regarding STDs for men vs. women, since women are more likely to contract from men than the other way around. I think it's something like four times more likely for many STDs. I think risk is expressed as an average for the overall event.
Men are more likely to spread STDs, and women more likely to contract them.

I can't find any data on this.
Then where do men contract them from in such great amounts before giving them to women, other men?
It may have something to do with the fact that women are generally more likely to seek treatment at the first sign of symptoms, which would limit the spread in their case. If that's the explanation, this statistic would only be relevant nowadays.

This could be a minor factor, and was probably another issue with marriage. But purity for paternal certainty only requires a short quarantine -- people have understood this for a very long time. This is more the cause of our insistence on strict monogamy (which serves two purposes).

The 'dirtiness' of sluttiness can only significantly be attributed to disease risk.

I kinda doubt that was the main motivator behind slut shaming. While the positions of both men and women have been liberalized lately, there's still a difference, and there was one before.

Prostitues/brothels were always an important institution. Men loved having their 'sluts', they just didn't want their wife to be one, for procreation/property reasons (sorry for the generalization).

And as you mentioned, noblemen and the king routinely took mistresses. Marriage/monogamy for the upper class was more about creating offspring/succession, not about liking each other or even sharing a bed after the succession had been ensured. It's a bit far-fetched to say that monogamy was mainly about disease control.
That might have played a role in some cases, but based on the success of brothels.... I doubt it was that important.

The difference in slut shaming attitudes is hard to justify without looking at procreation issues. Quarantine for paternal certainty may have worked to convince the man that the child was his, but not necessarily the public eye.

No, rational egoists will accept the straw rule, because they realize that fighting will be more likely to result in more harm to them than just going along with the straw.

Straw: 10% chance of death by selection, 90% chance of being fine.
Fighting: 10% chance of death by being beaten, 90% chance of being seriously wounded in a massive fight -- likely additional risk of death going with that (in the chaos, multiple people may die).

It's classic game theory. They would go along with the straw rule only until they're the one who's will have to be sacrificed. Then they'd try to find a way to cheat and escape it. Same for altruists in reverse.
That's the only rational thing to do from a me-centered perspective, if the game isn't repeated and reputation doesn't matter. But since death is so final...

If two people don't like you very much and kind of want you to die (they're not too invested in it, and it wouldn't really ruin their days if you lived, but they would appreciate it), and you don't want to die (your life is the most important thing in the world to you, and you value nothing more), then you should be killed to satisfy the passing fancy of the two, which override your profound will to live.

Does that sound right?

Ok the way I worded that was definitely off.

Killing someone is different than weighing one interest against another, because it goes against every single preference and projected interests someone has. If I am Hitler though, and my will goes against enough preferences - in number and intensity - then it's fine to kill me. Unless there's an alternative like restraining me, which would be the better choice (unless I prefer to die).

[brimstoneSalad]

Then where do men contract them from in such great amounts before giving them to women, other men?

Sometimes, or women. It's just a little harder to transmit certain STDs "upstream".
It's a smaller opening, and lower volume of fluid entering.

I kinda doubt that was the main motivator behind slut shaming.

I'm looking at mainly old testament context; men weren't supposed to have sex out of wedlock either (although they could have many wives).

A woman only having one husband (at a time -- that is, serial monogamy) was the assurance of paternity, and her only ever having one partner (true lifetime monogamy) meant her 'purity' protected the man (and the rest of the wives) from disease.

While the positions of both men and women have been liberalized lately, there's still a difference, and there was one before.

I would believe that in the context of the social norms favoring male choice.

Such as: If the man wants to be slutty and catch diseases, and then transmit those to worthless hookers or his OWN wives, that's his choice.
Nobody would care about that.

What MEN cared about was for a man who wanted to avoid disease (most of them) to be able to find pure women to marry, to keep STDs out of his house.
A wife should never put the husband at risk (since it was the men making the rules to minimize their own risk if they so chose), and nobody cared if the husband put the wife at risk since she was basically his property.

That's a likely explanation for the traditional double standard, but that's about as good of a reason to throw out the word "slut" as it is to throw out the concept of "marriage" because the latter was applied unfairly too.

It's a bit far-fetched to say that monogamy was mainly about disease control.

Serial monogamy isn't, but lifetime monogamy/no sex before marriage is.

That might have played a role in some cases, but based on the success of brothels.... I doubt it was that important.

Brothels have conventionally been disreputable places; successful in spite of condemnation and lack of broad social acceptance. People did it anyway, knowing it was dirty and wrong.

Quarantine for paternal certainty may have worked to convince the man that the child was his, but not necessarily the public eye.

Who else need to be convinced, aside from the man and his family? It's about whose estate the child is inheriting.

It's classic game theory. They would go along with the straw rule only until they're the one who's will have to be sacrificed. Then they'd try to find a way to cheat and escape it.

Sure, but at which point it is nine against one, and they don't really have a chance.

Same for altruists in reverse.

Nope. Think about the asymmetry.

Nine people trying to kill one person who doesn't want to die. Easy.

Nine people trying to stop one person from killing himself who does want to die for them and trying to kill themselves and stop others from killing themselves. More chaos.

In the case of the egoist, the asymmetry guarantees compliance. In the case of the altruists, you return to the same chaos that you had started with; a case that is more harmful than compliance to the rules everybody had promised to follow.

If I am Hitler though, and my will goes against enough preferences - in number and intensity - then it's fine to kill me. Unless there's an alternative like restraining me, which would be the better choice (unless I prefer to die).

You've come back to mandating the best outcome again as the only moral one. Is it fine to kill you, or is it only fine to kill you if there's not a better alternative?

[Red]

Hey dudes, sorry to disrupt the conversation, but I do have 2 things I wanna quickly talk about before you guys move on.
1. The Friendzone
So everyone on the internet has always made clear that the friendzone is the worst possible place you can be. You normally see this happening amongst the naive teenagers, especially on the internet. My question is: Why? In high school where you're most likely not gonna have sex, what's the difference between having a close girl that is a friend and having a girlfriend? What, you can't kiss or grab her ass? So what? As we have all stated multiple times, masturbation is a great tool for covering the sex area in your teenage life, with little risk and 99% of the benefits. Look, isn't it be better to be friendzoned than her not liking you at all? And while I'm at it, if she only put you in her friendzone, she probably wasn't the right one for you (and it's probably for the better). So shut the fuck up.

I dunno, I guess since you've lived such an insignificant part of your life so far, and having a girlfriend is such a big deal for you. I dunno anyone mind explaining?

2. Nudes
I've never seen the point of nudes. Some girls at my school wanted my phone number so they could send some! I remember one of my friends got expelled for sending around nudes! As with most things, I've never understand why. I mean, you have the internet right? The internet was practically made for pr0n! I mean, I don't watch it as much anymore, but it's a safer and more legal alternative to nudes, unless it's bestiality or child pornノ( º _ ºノ). Why do you even need nudes when you have internet!? What, because you want to see some hot girl at your school naked? Look chief, it's just not worth the risk. I can get if you wanna jack off to them, but if that's the case use your fucking imagination!!! I Do it all the time?
Anyway what do you guys think?

[knot]

2. Nudes
I've never seen the point of nudes. Some girls at my school wanted my phone number so they could send some! I remember one of my friends got expelled for sending around nudes! As with most things, I've never understand why. I mean, you have the internet right? The internet was practically made for pr0n! I mean, I don't watch it as much anymore, but it's a safer and more legal alternative to nudes, unless it's bestiality or child pornノ( º _ ºノ). Why do you even need nudes when you have internet!? What, because you want to see some hot girl at your school naked? Look chief, it's just not worth the risk. I can get if you wanna jack off to them, but if that's the case use your fucking imagination!!! I Do it all the time?
Anyway what do you guys think?

Seems like really high risk and low reward. They could just make up some BS story about you stealing the pictures, and then your life is more or less ruined. Cases of leaked nude photos of non-famous women have already received huge attention in the media, so I question those girls' motives..

[death_by_rage]

Herpes isn't as widespread as you fear redapple... A common misconception with public school sex ed. The fear monger students into unrealistic beliefs. I do condone safe sex.

[Red]

Herpes isn't as widespread as you fear redapple...

How can you be so sure of that? Plus, I never said it was that widespread, but rather the risk for someone having herpes is in fact there.

A common misconception with public school sex ed.

Jackass, you know I go to private school. Plus, they don't really say it's very common, but to be weary of that shit.

The fear monger students into unrealistic beliefs. I do condone safe sex.

What?