Philosophical Vegan Forum

Since brimestone already covered some of the points, I'll go over the ones he didn't address.

EquALLity wrote:
'Naturally speaking'? What do you consider natural, and why does natural equal good?

I meant that we've evolved to want sex so e can create offspring, OK?

EquALLity wrote: Why does it matter how we evolved?

I was explaining why we are like this..

EquALLity wrote: So you'd do something you disagree with, so that your grandparents don't react in a negative way, even if it doesn't make sense for them to react that way?

I just don't wanna bother.

EquALLity wrote: I don't see why it matters what you're doing personally.

It's how I pleasure myself. You don't need a girlfriend to get your rocks off.

Jebus wrote: Let's not forget that sex can be a lot of fun, and our early sexual experiences are usually great memories we carry with us for life. Of course, it's not without its risks but those risks can be minimized if one takes caution.

But even then, it's not the smartest thing to do to have sex in high school. You're still stupid, immature, and you really don't know what the hell you're doing. And it's not like you can't sexually please yourself any other way, such as the aforementioned masturbation technique.

Jebus wrote:Most of the men I know who have a natural way with women were those who started young whereas those who are awkward around women started late. I would therefore advise any teenage boy to get out there and start honing his skills.

So you can't make multiple attempts when you're in your 20s? If anything, you'll be more awkward during your teenage years due to being a pubescent cretin, and your face is all discombobulated.

Jebus wrote:I also wouldn't recommend you to view long-term relationships as something successful that one should strive for. People who do that often end up getting very hurt when relationships end.

My point exactly. The chances that you'll get with someone in Junior High (or High School) and live together until one of you dies without getting a divorce are smaller than the chances of winning the lottery times 1000.

Jebus wrote:It is highly unusual for a teenager (especially a non-religious one) to advocate teenage celibacy. Are you generally comfortable around pretty girls or is this perhaps something that scares you and that you are trying to avoid?

I'm comfortable around anyone as long as they aren't trying to seduce me or kill me.

Ugh, I deleted the page when I was basically finished again.
I'm just going to type these on Microsoft Word from now on. >.<

brimstoneSalad wrote:Either way, you probably will. RedApple is right here.

Relationships are something that don't respond well to 'positive thinking', much like the weather, because they depend on the functionality of something outside yourself.

Relationships are a lot more like the weather, than about personal metrics like passing a class, or making a shot in a game.

If you go out today thinking it will rain, it doesn't make it more likely to rain. If you enter into a relationship thinking it will be short, it doesn't make it more likely to be.

Rather, if you go into a relationship thinking it will last, it's more likely you're just delusional, and entering into an unhealthy relationship due to an unrealistic mindset and expectations.

Perhaps positive thinking won't impact relationships as much as it would things that are solely individual, but since it involves oneself, why wouldn't it make a difference?

brimstoneSalad wrote:Which is exactly what you should do if a relationship isn't working.
A bad relationship is far more harmful and destructive than no relationship, or just a few good friends.

Sure, if it isn't working. That's not what I was referring to, though.

brimstoneSalad wrote:It's bad practice to have a romantic relationship in high school, based on the statistics. He's looking around, and making the very reasonable conclusion that, "I'm not the exception to the norm, and if I date in high school, it will probably turn out like others'".

Statistics about what?

It's his choice not to be the exception to the norm. If he wants to follow the alleged norm of dating mainly based on hotness, then alright. But that's his decision. You don't have to date mostly based on physical appearance, so I don't think it's that's a relevant point.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Protection isn't that protective

The pill works 99.9% of the time in preventing pregnancy when used properly: http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/ ... trol-pills
Condoms work nearly 100% of the time in preventing HIV: http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/ ... oms?page=2

There doesn't seem to be much of a risk when using birth control.
Except when it comes to new diseases that birth control may not be very suited for, like you said. That's an interesting point. It's not a high school issue in particular, though.

brimstoneSalad wrote:If he uses his hand to get off, and has friends for social connection, he gets almost all of the benefit with none of the cost.

That's like saying that since broccoli is good for you (like friends), that we shouldn't eat any other vegetables (romantic partners).

brimstoneSalad wrote:CLOSED circles

Closed circles?

What does that mean, no cheating or something?

brimstoneSalad wrote:You should be able to account for every person you've had sex with, and every person all of those people have had sex with, and so on back to virgins.

Why account for every person your partner has had sex with? Why does that matter, as long as your partner tests negative for STDs when you're having sex?

And how do you account for them, by name? What if you don't know them?
I thought you couldn't trust your partner about that stuff anyway?

brimstoneSalad wrote:There are also less serious diseases that are ignored in tests because the symptoms are more mild, but may still contribute to cancer risk, etc.

Oh? What diseases?

brimstoneSalad wrote:Don't be a slut (man or woman).

Eh...

Slut is a word used to condemn women who enjoy sex/who dress in certain ways/who have a lot of sex etc. for being 'impure'. It's not about that it may be irrational to have sex in certain situations because of safety concerns; it's about backwards thinking that makes people feel bad for having certain emotions and for not being 'pure' enough.

And even though you're not actually using it in that way, since that's the connotation it has... it's kind of promoting social conservatism etc..

brimstoneSalad wrote:We shouldn't support vegan only advocacy. But we should practice veganism ourselves, right?

Well sure, I was agreeing with that logic, providing it's actually that bad an idea to have sex in high school.
I still don't see it that way, though.

RedAppleGP wrote:I meant that we've evolved to want sex so e can create offspring, OK?

Who cares how we evolved? It doesn't justify things to say, "That's how we evolved."

RedAppleGP wrote:I was explaining why we are like this..

It sounded like you were giving passes for doing bad things because of evolution.

RedAppleGP wrote:It's how I pleasure myself. You don't need a girlfriend to get your rocks off.

Whatever you want, I'm just saying that you shouldn't call other people morons because they use different methods.

EquALLity wrote: Who cares how we evolved? It doesn't justify things to say, "That's how we evolved."

We only find people attractive because our brain tells us to. Without feeling arousal with another human, you probably wouldn't be able to produce offspring. Evolution does this to every sentient organism that reproduces sexually, not asexually.

EquALLity wrote: It sounded like you were giving passes for doing bad things because of evolution.

Well I wasn't.

EquALLity wrote: Whatever you want, I'm just saying that you shouldn't call other people morons because they use different methods.

It's not the methods, it's the risk they put themselves in.

Jebus wrote: Most of the men I know who have a natural way with women were those who started young whereas those who are awkward around women started late. I would therefore advise any teenage boy to get out there and start honing his skills.

I think those are both caused by common factors. Those who are attractive and confident CAN start young, whereas those who are awkward or anxious will more tend not to have any experience until later.

Jebus wrote:I also wouldn't recommend you to view long-term relationships as something successful that one should strive for. People who do that often end up getting very hurt when relationships end.

This is mainly why you shouldn't enter into a relationship with the assumption that it will last forever and ever. That's not to say that length shouldn't be striven for in any relationship, platonic friendship or sexual. More importantly with sexual ones, because it reduces your lifetime risk (and the risk to others you will have sex with).

EquALLity wrote: Perhaps positive thinking won't impact relationships as much as it would things that are solely individual, but since it involves oneself, why wouldn't it make a difference?

See above. Making assumptions and having expectations like that makes things worse, in the fallout, and in the process of the relationship itself where the other partner is more likely to feel pressured if there are heavy expectations being placed on the relationship.

A more casual friendship and pragmatic based relationship will tend to be more emotionally healthy and stable, and longer lasting, thanks to the lack of expectations.

People shoot themselves in the foot with their expectations when it comes to others. It's not about you, so the placebo effect doesn't work here, it just makes you delusional and scares people off.

EquALLity wrote: Sure, if it isn't working. That's not what I was referring to, though.

The problem is when people have expectations of a 'forever' relationship, they become delusional and can't see that it's a bad one.
There are so many biases coming into play here, you really need a more impartial view which comes from a certain level of ambivalence.

If a relationship is legitimately compatible, and a good match, it will just last without any expectations of it doing so.

You'll wake up one day and say "holy crap, we've been together 20 years, I didn't even notice."
Kind of how you suddenly realize you've been watching a TV show you liked for the past ten years. You just get into the habit, and it works or it doesn't. There's not much you can do to force these things, since it's not just about you and the more you try to force it, the more you tend to sabotage what was there.

EquALLity wrote: Statistics about what?

Objectively, teen pregnancy and disease transmission. Most of the population has Herpes, for example, which is nowhere nearly as benign as most people think it is -- and that will spread even by kissing.

On more personal levels, we're talking about drama, depression, a drop in academic performance. Like workplace dating, it's complicated; although at least in the workplace we're dealing with adults.

EquALLity wrote: It's his choice not to be the exception to the norm. If he wants to follow the alleged norm of dating mainly based on hotness, then alright. But that's his decision. You don't have to date mostly based on physical appearance, so I don't think it's that's a relevant point.

Hotness is irrelevant. You could just call it "chemistry", which is what most people do. A combination of personality and general attraction. It's not usually smart, or guided by emotional maturity. Even adults make this mistake, but taking some time to observe others making it and learning from that can help.
There are no simple rules to help you decide who to date; you're best served by abstaining while you observe others, and get a sense of how people behave, and how to avoid delusion.

EquALLity wrote:The pill works 99.9% of the time in preventing pregnancy when used properly: http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/ ... trol-pills

When people take it, which they're really bad at. And it does nothing to prevent disease.
Vegan Gains isn't totally wrong when he talks about some people deliberately getting pregnant to save relationships (men cause pregnancy deliberately too, though, e.g. by sabotaging condoms, Vegan Gains misses that) -- particularly when they enter into the relationship with the idea that it should last forever.

EquALLity wrote:Condoms work nearly 100% of the time in preventing HIV: http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/ ... oms?page=2

A vegan condom can run you a couple bucks a pop, and they aren't exactly reusable. They also don't protect against contact diseases very well, and are poor at protecting from HPV and many others.

It's better than nothing, but there's still substantial risk. And that's even if they're used properly.

EquALLity wrote:That's an interesting point. It's not a high school issue in particular, though.

If it was a closed community, that would be one thing, but it isn't. Older people have sex with high school kids, introducing diseases from the general population into the high school mating pool.

EquALLity wrote:That's like saying that since broccoli is good for you (like friends), that we shouldn't eat any other vegetables (romantic partners).

If other vegetables put you at risk for catching and transmitting serious diseases to others... sure.

EquALLity wrote:What does that mean, no cheating or something?

Sort of. You can have a group of ten people who have all been tested and lived pretty clean sex lives, and they can all have sex like crazy with each other and you'll all be fine. It's a closed circle, and perfectly clean. But as soon as somebody has sex with a person outside of that circle, it can introduce diseases into the circle. The circle has been broken, and now everybody is put at risk.

EquALLity wrote:Why account for every person your partner has had sex with? Why does that matter, as long as your partner tests negative for STDs when you're having sex?

Because STD tests don't test for every STD.

EquALLity wrote:And how do you account for them, by name? What if you don't know them?
I thought you couldn't trust your partner about that stuff anyway?

You don't need to know them personally, but you should know where the circle ends. Know what you're being exposed to.

And you can't necessarily fully trust people, but in this case there's not really an alternative. This is why you should keep the total number of sexual partners to a reasonable minimum anyway.

If you can't establish a closed circle of people contributing to risk, it's best to make other choices.

EquALLity wrote:Oh? What diseases?

HPV isn't usually tested for, and there are so many strains of that. There are more strains of virus and bacteria than we can map. It's like a rain forest.

HIV seems like ages ago, but it really wasn't. There will be a new AIDS epidemic eventually. Probably within our lifetimes. Maybe several.

EquALLity wrote:Slut is a word used to condemn women who enjoy sex/who dress in certain ways/who have a lot of sex etc. for being 'impure'.

Purity in the religious sense is derived from STDs; it's just a notion that formed before germ theory, so it's only approximate.
Anyway, there's good pragmatic reason to keep the number of sexual partners you have in your life small. Keep them on one hand if you can.

Men can be sluts too. Don't have sex with man sluts.

EquALLity wrote:It's not about that it may be irrational to have sex in certain situations because of safety concerns;

It is, actually. Just very indirectly. It's like condemning the act of crossing a street without looking both ways because THE DEVIL!
A rational rule that is buttressed by an irrational superstition because people are too stupid to understand the rational explanation.

RedAppleGP wrote:it's not the smartest thing to do to have sex in high school. You're still stupid, immature, and you really don't know what the hell you're doing.

The copulation only needs one smart person to be safe. Why can't you be that person? Of course, you don't know what the hell you are doing the first time you fornicate. It's a learning experience. I don't see why a first-timer in his 20s would be any better at it than the first timer in his teens.

RedAppleGP wrote:And it's not like you can't sexually please yourself any other way, such as the aforementioned masturbation technique.

Why not do both? Masturbation because it's simple and convenient and the real thing because it's a lot more pleasurable.

RedAppleGP wrote:So you can't make multiple attempts when you're in your 20s? If anything, you'll be more awkward during your teenage years due to being a pubescent cretin, and your face is all discombobulated.

Of course you can make multiple attempts in your 20s, but it's like learning how to play basketball in your 20s. Compared to those who learned it in their teens you will be a lot more awkward at it. Try not to worry about teen physical shortcomings. You will get shot down a lot (everyone does), but it won't bother you as much if you remember that it's all just a learning experience.

brimstoneSalad wrote:See above. Making assumptions and having expectations like that makes things worse, in the fallout, and in the process of the relationship itself where the other partner is more likely to feel pressured if there are heavy expectations being placed on the relationship.

A more casual friendship and pragmatic based relationship will tend to be more emotionally healthy and stable, and longer lasting, thanks to the lack of expectations.

People shoot themselves in the foot with their expectations when it comes to others. It's not about you, so the placebo effect doesn't work here, it just makes you delusional and scares people off.

Alright, so don't assume it's going to last forever. But don't assume it'll end either.

brimstoneSalad wrote:This is mainly why you shouldn't enter into a relationship with the assumption that it will last forever and ever. That's not to say that length shouldn't be striven for in any relationship, platonic friendship or sexual. More importantly with sexual ones, because it reduces your lifetime risk (and the risk to others you will have sex with).

What would be the difference, in practice, between the behavior that comes with assuming it'll last forever and striving to keep it going as long as possible, when it comes to the reaction of your partner?

brimstoneSalad wrote:Objectively, teen pregnancy and disease transmission. Most of the population has Herpes, for example, which is nowhere nearly as benign as most people think it is -- and that will spread even by kissing.

The statistics with condoms/the pill and pregnancy/HIV seem to work in favor of the argument that there isn't much risk in having sex with protection used properly.

brimstoneSalad wrote:On more personal levels, we're talking about drama, depression, a drop in academic performance.

You have statistics about that stuff?

brimstoneSalad wrote:There are no simple rules to help you decide who to date; you're best served by abstaining while you observe others, and get a sense of how people behave, and how to avoid delusion.

It seems like a pretty common sense thing.

Rule a) Don't date based on looks/money/any other superficial reasons.
Rule b) Date based on things that actually matter.

brimstoneSalad wrote:When people take it, which they're really bad at. And it does nothing to prevent disease.

I never said it prevented disease.

What makes you think people are so bad at taking it?

brimstoneSalad wrote:Vegan Gains isn't totally wrong when he talks about some people deliberately getting pregnant to save relationships (men cause pregnancy deliberately too, though, e.g. by sabotaging condoms, Vegan Gains misses that) -- particularly when they enter into the relationship with the idea that it should last forever.

That's insane.
I doubt that is something that really happens much though.

And only guys even have to worry about that, unless the girl is against abortion or doesn't know she's pregnant.
In addition, a person who would do something like that probably has other personality issues that you'd notice.

brimstoneSalad wrote:A vegan condom can run you a couple bucks a pop, and they aren't exactly reusable. They also don't protect against contact diseases very well, and are poor at protecting from HPV and many others.

It's better than nothing, but there's still substantial risk. And that's even if they're used properly.

Source?

And can't you just get the HPV vaccine?

brimstoneSalad wrote:If it was a closed community, that would be one thing, but it isn't. Older people have sex with high school kids, introducing diseases from the general population into the high school mating pool.

I actually meant that that's a general issue, and that it doesn't just apply to people in high school.

brimstoneSalad wrote:If other vegetables put you at risk for catching and transmitting serious diseases to others... sure.

I was just saying there that you can't just replace relationships with each other like that.

I don't think the risk is very significant.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Sort of. You can have a group of ten people who have all been tested and lived pretty clean sex lives, and they can all have sex like crazy with each other and you'll all be fine. It's a closed circle, and perfectly clean. But as soon as somebody has sex with a person outside of that circle, it can introduce diseases into the circle. The circle has been broken, and now everybody is put at risk.

Ah.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Because STD tests don't test for every STD.

So what are you supposed to do, find out if your partners partners had STDs?

brimstoneSalad wrote:HPV isn't usually tested for, and there are so many strains of that. There are more strains of virus and bacteria than we can map. It's like a rain forest.

Can't you just get the vaccine?

brimstoneSalad wrote:Purity in the religious sense is derived from STDs; it's just a notion that formed before germ theory, so it's only approximate.

brimstoneSalad wrote:It is, actually. Just very indirectly. It's like condemning the act of crossing a street without looking both ways because THE DEVIL!
A rational rule that is buttressed by an irrational superstition because people are too stupid to understand the rational explanation.

Well, according to you, society calling women sluts won’t discourage them from having sex; it’ll just discourage them from talking about it. So how would that help?

Also, you know it's an irrational reason... So why are you using it here, where logic is the central idea of the forum? Why not just use the rational reasons, that way you're not promoting backwards thinking and social conservatism?

And even when you're not in places where logic is the central idea, why not just use the rational reasons? Anyone who actually examines what you're saying there will realize it's B.S., and you'll lose credibility in the eyes of that person. You'll promote the idea that people who encourage abstinence are living in another century, and that'll do harm to a possibly good cause.

It's like atheists using straw-mans that seem rational on face-value, and then theists asking their priests about those arguments, finding out the truth, and the idea that atheists are evil liars being reinforced in their minds.

Also, think about the unintended consequences there. You discourage people from being 'sluts' to help a possibly good cause, but then, you're promoting backwards thinking (ie sexism). And it’s that kind of backwards thinking that promotes abstinence only sex education, and discourages people from vaccinating their kids with the HPV vaccine, etc..

And I fail to see why it matters if you say men can be sluts too. It just doesn't make sense. You're using a word for its negative connotation, with the assumption that if you say men are sluts too, that you’ll just remove sexism from the equation, even though that’s why it’s negative. ‘Slut’ is derogatory because it is a word that attacks women for being ‘impure’. There's no issue with men being 'impure'.
It’s like replacing three from the equation that 2+3=5 with four and expecting it to add up.
And aren’t you against just changing the meanings of words like that?

RedAppleGP wrote: It's not the methods, it's the risk they put themselves in.

What risk, that is more significant for high schoolers than it is for the general population?

The only thing I can think of is pregnancy, because that's obviously worse to deal with in high school than it is to deal with when you're out of high school. However, if you use birth control correctly, the risk isn't that great.

Also, note that if you're having gay or lesbian sex, there is no risk of pregnancy anyway.

EquALLity wrote: Alright, so don't assume it's going to last forever. But don't assume it'll end either.

Just an understanding of the probability, being open to a longer relationship but knowing most are short and end, is probably the best thing you can do.
You don't need to make assumptions about that particular relationship to avoid shortsightedness based on observation of others.

EquALLity wrote:What would be the difference, in practice, between the behavior that comes with assuming it'll last forever and striving to keep it going as long as possible, when it comes to the reaction of your partner?

One is obsessive, one is pragmatic. You have to have a sense of not throwing good time or money after bad.

If you have a car, you want it to last as long as possible, but you shouldn't pay money hand over fist trying to repair it when it breaks down, if it's really just ready to die. At a certain point you have to recognize it's better to get a new car.

EquALLity wrote:The statistics with condoms/the pill and pregnancy/HIV seem to work in favor of the argument that there isn't much risk in having sex with protection used properly.

Not everybody uses them properly, even otherwise smart people who know how.

And there is a huge difference between legitimately 'no risk' and 'not much risk' as determined subjectively -- relatively to unprotected sex, it's a very small risk. Relative to abstinence, or safer practices like mutual masturbation, hand jobs, etc. it's an enormous risk.

You could say there isn't much to leaving your children unvaccinated either. But we know that's wrong.

Calculate it: What's your risk if you average having sex twice a day for four years, at 99.9% safe per encounter?
How about just once a day?
Once a week?

It's substantial, even then.

99.9% looks like a big number that's totally safe, because our brains are not well wired to understand statistics. But the amount of sex teenagers have in relationships (or out of them) is phenomenally large too.

EquALLity wrote: You have statistics about that stuff?

Look into single-sex education. There's mixed data on it.

Also, see studies like this:
http://www.aebrjournal.org/uploads/6/6/ ... ._pham.pdf

This study used the propensity score method to investigate the effects of early adolescent romance in the 9th
grade on academic performance, as measured by high school graduation and college enrollment. The study
sample included 2,895 9th graders from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth, 1997. Findings from the
study uncovered mixed effects of early adolescent romance on student performance. While frequent dating
behaviors and early sexual experiences showed significant negative impacts on both academic outcomes,
moderate dating activities had an estimated positive impact. Implications from this study may help inform
educators and families in developing appropriate policies and educational conversations to guide youth toward
a moderate, timely manner of dating

This is interesting; so, apparently it's a mixed bag.
It might be a good suggestion for Red to date casually, but not to get into anything serious or have sex. And not kiss. Herpes.
Good old holding hands, then going home to masturbate.

EquALLity wrote: It seems like a pretty common sense thing.

Rule a) Don't date based on looks/money/any other superficial reasons.
Rule b) Date based on things that actually matter.

A: Not quite.
Romantic relationships are generally based at least in part on sexual attraction. If there's none (or not much) there, you're probably doing yourself and your partner a disservice.
Further, even if there is attraction for you for other reasons, if you're conventionally attractive, or unattractive, you need to date somewhere in your same "league". There's a lot of insecurity that develops, along with social pressure, for people dating outside a certain margin of attractiveness. Relationships like that aren't usually very sustainable.
You may think "I'm not superficial", but the unattractive partner will be uncomfortable and insecure. Lots of jealousy, etc. It's counter intuitive, but this isn't in practice very good for either party (there are rare exceptions).

B: Yes. But highschool students rarely have any idea what that is. What does that mean?

There's a lot of difference in how people approach relationships.
She has advocated some pseudoscience in the past (homeopathy), but this video is pretty good:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Al1rQKIllk4

EquALLity wrote: What makes you think people are so bad at taking it?

People, even otherwise smart people, can be clumsy and incompetent and some things. It's easy to forget.

EquALLity wrote: That's insane.
I doubt that is something that really happens much though.

I know several examples of it personally. The one who was a man was with a Catholic woman.

EquALLity wrote: In addition, a person who would do something like that probably has other personality issues that you'd notice.

Yes, like being obsessed. Which is what thinking a relationship is forever -- something that our culture programs us to do -- is.

EquALLity wrote: Source?

For condom cost? I'm not comfortable with where this discussion is heading.
Check Amazon. You may be able to buy in bulk.

EquALLity wrote: And can't you just get the HPV vaccine?

HPV vaccine is one option, but does involve some animal cruelty. And why, when you can choose to be more careful about sex instead? For pleasure?

Animal cruelty... for pleasure? A pleasure which also involves health risks?
This sounds like the same argument carnists make.

When you're getting a vaccine against a deadly disease that may be transmitted casually to and from you, there's a trade off there in terms of public health. You can't just choose not to contract any of "MMR", etc. by not having sexual partners. Absolutely get those vaccines. And get flu vaccines like flublok which are cruelty free (made from an immortal insect cell line).
But in terms of the HPV vaccine, you can choose instead to avoid HPV by avoiding sexual contact with those who may or are likely to have it, and prevent the cruelty that comes with its production.

It's a more difficult question when there's animal suffering involved, and the disease is so easy to avoid based on your behavior.

EquALLity wrote: I actually meant that that's a general issue, and that it doesn't just apply to people in high school.

Oh, of course. It's worse outside of highschool.

Just take care to hook up with other people who are careful, and those you're close friends with, and have more sustained relationships so you have fewer lifetime sexual partners (but a maximum amount of sex with those partners, if you like).

These kinds of sustained mature relationships aren't usually something highschoolers are ready for.

EquALLity wrote: I was just saying there that you can't just replace relationships with each other like that.

Sure you can. Why not?
Trying to get everything from one person verges on obsession.

Get your social interaction from friends. Cuddle up with a pet for emotional comfort. Masturbate to porn to get off sexually.
We have various social, emotional, and sexual needs, but there's no reason they need to be a package deal. It's just a chemical recipe, together or apart.

EquALLity wrote: I don't think the risk is very significant.

Why do you think this?

EquALLity wrote: So what are you supposed to do, find out if your partners partners had STDs?

You can't do anything for sure beyond testing.
You just need to limit your number of partners both in number, and only partner with people you can really trust and maintain long term relationships with so you aren't forced to have too many sexual partners (in order to keep having sex in the context of many short term relationships).

This is one of many reasons it's bad to get a start on sex in highschool.

EquALLity wrote: Well, according to you, society calling women sluts won’t discourage them from having sex; it’ll just discourage them from talking about it. So how would that help?

I didn't say to call anybody a slut.

Slut = high risk partner. Just don't do it. Male or female. Be nice about it, but politely decline the sex.
I think you missed my point. I'm not PC, or worried about using the word "slut" when it gets the point across.

Be wary of having partners who have been sexually promiscuous, male or female. Even if you only have a couple partners in your life, if they're high risk partners, you acquire their high risk yourself. It's how disease transmission works.

And from an ethical perspective, don't be promiscuous either, because that increases the risk for all of those you have sex with.

There is a reasonable number somewhere that is both moderate a practical.


Now, prostitutes are another matter, and it they serve an important role in society (particularly where horny men outnumber women), so I wouldn't condemn professionals on moral grounds (although I wouldn't have sex with one either). It's a more thorny issue, and involves questions of how to do the least harm.

EquALLity wrote: Also, you know it's an irrational reason... So why are you using it here, where logic is the central idea of the forum? Why not just use the rational reasons, that way you're not promoting backwards thinking and social conservatism?

I think you missed my point.

Numbers matter in terms of disease vectors. If you want to use a different word, that's fine.

EquALLity wrote: Also, think about the unintended consequences there. You discourage people from being 'sluts' to help a possibly good cause, but then, you're promoting backwards thinking (ie sexism).

Men can be called sluts too, usually clarified as 'male slut'. I think I was clear about that in my post. It's the fact of the less common use of "slut" when applying it to men that indicates a double standard.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slut

I have no problem with labeling men as sluts.

I'm not promoting anything like sexism by using the word generally.
Men are often proud of their promiscuity today, and that's even worse.

EquALLity wrote:And it’s that kind of backwards thinking that promotes abstinence only sex education, and discourages people from vaccinating their kids with the HPV vaccine, etc..

Where did I say anything about promoting abstinence only education? I said the opposite. We shouldn't be "vegan or bust" advocates either. Any reduction in meat consumption or increase in welfare is good. Any reduction in sexual partners or increase in safety of sex is good.

WE, however, should be both more vegan, and more careful about our sexual partners than we expect others to be.

EquALLity wrote:And I fail to see why it matters if you say men can be sluts too. It just doesn't make sense. You're using a word for its negative connotation, with the assumption that if you say men are sluts too, that you’ll just remove sexism from the equation, even though that’s why it’s negative. ‘Slut’ is derogatory because it is a word that attacks women for being ‘impure’. There's no issue with men being 'impure'.

I don't know where you're getting this from.
Just start calling men sluts more. Yes, there is a problem with it.
Say "no, I won't date you, you're a man slut, that's gross, go away I'm gonna have sex with this virginal geek over here who won't give me STDs instead".
Refusing to use the term "slut" to apply to men is part of the problem.