Philosophical Vegan Forum

brimstoneSalad wrote: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.

I'd imagine striving to keep a relationship going as long as possible to mean trying to keep it going on forever (forever, as long as possible). I guess this is just an issue of semantics.

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

Well, then make sure your partner is.

brimstoneSalad wrote: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.

Is a 0.1% risk really that significant?

brimstoneSalad wrote:This is interesting; so, apparently it's a mixed bag.

I see there's a graph on that link with a column for infrequent dating and no sex, and infrequent dating and sex.
Wow, as soon as you introduce sex, academic performance plummets. So it is the sex.
Hm... Still, that doesn't make it unmanageable, if you take special care not to let sex interfere with your academics.

brimstoneSalad wrote: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).

Eh... How do you know this?

brimstoneSalad wrote: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

Seems like that's overthinking it a bit.

I just meant basing it off of things like whether or not the other person is trustworthy etc..

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

Oh, wow. That's bizarre.

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

Yeah, don't assume it'll last forever. I'm not sure why you're bringing this up again.
I didn't even say to assume it'll last forever in the first place.

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

Er, no...

I was asking for a source that they don't protect from contact diseases (etc.) very well.

brimstoneSalad wrote: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.

Oh, does it have animal products?

It's not just consensual sex that puts you at risk for STDs, so you should get the vaccines for them if possible anyway.
If it was just consensual sex, then I see your point.

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

Huh?

I'm saying that you can't replace friends for romantic partners. Just like you can't replace ten dogs to cuddle with to make up for the lack of social interaction you'd have from not having friends. I'm not saying you should stuff in all types of relationships into one package.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Why do you think this?

Those percentages.

brimstoneSalad wrote:I didn't say to call anybody a slut.

Well, you're promoting the word by using it.

Also, you do say that, later.

brimstoneSalad wrote:I'm not PC, or worried about using the word "slut" when it gets the point across.

This isn't an issue of political correctness. It's that by using 'slut', you're promoting beliefs that cause harm. I think it's similar to how using the word 'faggot' causes harm.

And I don't think it gets the point across.
'Slut' is an insult based on the idea that women should be 'pure'. But you're using it as if it's an insult based on the idea that it's irrational/unethical to have sex in certain situations, and assuming people are just going to see it that way, even though that's not the connotation it has.

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

This isn't a PC thing. I'm just saying that it's bad to promote things that are bad.

brimstoneSalad wrote: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.

I'm not saying you hold the double standard that only women can be sluts; I'm saying that by using the word that you're promoting that type of mindset.

brimstoneSalad wrote: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.

I'm not saying you spoke in favor of it. I'm saying that by using the word 'slut', that you're promoting the mindset that is the reason abstinence only education is being used.

It's like:
'Sluts' are bad. They are 'impure'. Women shouldn't be 'impure', so don't give your kids the HPV vaccine. It'll promote sex! And don't teach them about birth control, that'll make your daughters to have sex also. Stop it, no sex, sex doesn't even exist. And prosecute teachers for having anything that could be considered sexual in nature displayed in their classrooms.

brimstoneSalad wrote: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".

What? You just said to let them down nicely and politely.

Be polite, and then spit in their faces and call them gross 'sluts'?

EquALLity wrote: I'd imagine striving to keep a relationship going as long as possible to mean trying to keep it going on forever (forever, as long as possible). I guess this is just an issue of semantics.

As reasonably possible. Or let's say: practical. Like veganism.

EquALLity wrote:Well, then make sure your partner is.

If a man tried to make sure his girlfriend is taking her pills, he won't have a girlfriend for very long.
Trying to teach a guy how to use a condom wouldn't likely come off much better.

Ever try to teach a man how to fold a shirt?

These things are used badly, and you can't even make the assumption that you're using them right, since there's a competency bias there. See the Dunning–Kruger effect. Just because you think you're competent and can do it right, doesn't mean you are. It's not an assumption you can make. You have to assume you're average.

EquALLity wrote:Is a 0.1% risk really that significant?

Yes. Risk multiplies like this:

(Safeness of each incident) ^ incidence
Safeness (like 99.9%) to the incident power.

99.9% = 0.999

0.999 ^ (52*4) = 0.812

81.2% safe if you have sex once a week (which is a really small amount in highschool), always using protection, and always using it properly.
That's some one in five chance it fucks up.

Assuming the statistics are talking about a per use basis.

EquALLity wrote:Wow, as soon as you introduce sex, academic performance plummets. So it is the sex.

Right. So, Red should date, but only date. Keep it casual. Lots of dates, no "girlfriend".

Sex also increases drama, since it increases commitment and drives irrational emotional attachment for many people. And that's not necessarily something you can control by being otherwise rational (that would be like thinking "I can do crack, I won't get addicted, I'm special!").

EquALLity wrote: Hm... Still, that doesn't make it unmanageable, if you take special care not to let sex interfere with your academics.

You're assuming that the people having sex weren't already doing that. You can't make those kinds of assumptions.

Again, don't assume that you're special; it's the main irrational mistake most people make in doing things that are demonstrated to be bad practice for others thinking they're the exception to the rule.
It's unscientific to assume that we're special in these instances without solid evidence of that.

Everything that distracts from your academics is just another problem you have to overcome. There's no reason to add to it.

EquALLity wrote: Eh... How do you know this?

Looks at studies on attractiveness in couples.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matching_hypothesis

It's more important for the woman to be attractive than for the man to be, since the man can compensate with other social variables like wealth or power. But it's still pretty important to be close.

Everybody wants to say "that doesn't apply to me, I'm special", but none of us are immune to social psychology.

EquALLity wrote: I just meant basing it off of things like whether or not the other person is trustworthy etc..

That's not a very good metric. The vast majority of people vary in trustworthiness in different situations, based on a sense of entitlement.

If the man is more attractive than the woman, for example, he will be more prone to cheat and lie, and be less trustworthy since he feels he was short changed and deserves more. The same man with a more attractive woman will be more trustworthy, since he feels like he's gotten what he deserves, or was lucky, and doesn't feel the need to compensate as much with infidelity.

The same applies to a lesser extent with women, with regard to physical attractiveness, but probably much more with regard to the current state of the relationship.

It's also nearly impossible to evaluate how trustworthy somebody is ahead of time; liars will not be inclined to admit their propensity to lie.

EquALLity wrote:Oh, wow. That's bizarre.

It's sadly typical.

In other cases, a man may sabotage a condom deliberately, and then use social pressure to make her have the child, like by threatening to tell everybody she knows that she killed their baby if she has an abortion.

EquALLity wrote: I was asking for a source that they don't protect from contact diseases (etc.) very well.

It's because the condom only covers a small part of the penis, the base, the scrotum, etc. is exposed, and there's a lot of friction and physical contact during sex. These are all areas that can be affected by HPV, and other genital skin diseases which will spread by contact.

As for other things, 99.9% sounds good, but is in practice not really that great.

It's like food that says "90% fat free!". It's still 10% fat. People don't seem to grasp what that means.

EquALLity wrote: Oh, does it have animal products?

It's made from egg. About one egg per vaccine. So, you're dealing with a chicken suffering for 24 hours in a battery cage to get the shot. And a fraction of the responsibility for her death.

EquALLity wrote: It's not just consensual sex that puts you at risk for STDs, so you should get the vaccines for them if possible anyway.
If it was just consensual sex, then I see your point.

That's a good point. If you're at high risk of being raped, it is a reasonable precaution that deals with your personal health and safety rather than just for pleasure.

EquALLity wrote: I'm saying that you can't replace friends for romantic partners. Just like you can't replace ten dogs to cuddle with to make up for the lack of social interaction you'd have from not having friends. I'm not saying you should stuff in all types of relationships into one package.

That's not what Red was saying.

We need protein, fats, vitamins, and minerals. They don't have to all come from the same place.
Just as we need friendship, love, sex*.

You don't need a romantic partner.

Friends + casual dating without sex (optional, since that study seems to support its utility) + dog for cuddles and love (no sex, ew) + masturbation = fulfilled.

You can use other sources of these nutrients, and combine them to the same effect (or better).
Just as if you try to get everything from meat it comes with cholesterol, saturated fats, excess methionine, etc.; trying to get everything from a romantic relationship comes with undesirables too, like STDs, drama, loss of academic performance, unwanted children, child support, custody battles, etc.

It's better to get those things from various sources to avoid the negative side effects of a romantic entanglement, or worse, casual sex with too many partners.

*Sex isn't actually as much of a need, people just think it is.

EquALLity wrote: Well, you're promoting the word by using it.

The word, but not the conservatism or double standard. I explicitly used it to refer to men and women.

EquALLity wrote: It's that by using 'slut', you're promoting beliefs that cause harm. I think it's similar to how using the word 'faggot' causes harm.

Being promiscuous is a choice, which has negative consequences for oneself and others. Being gay is not a choice.

It's more along the lines of calling somebody a thief.

EquALLity wrote: 'Slut' is an insult based on the idea that women should be 'pure'.

No it isn't. It refers to people who are promiscuous beyond normal social standards.

A girl who has had a couple long term relationships and has had sex in those relationships is not widely considered a slut. She's considered normal.

You're handing control of the definition over to fundamentalists. They do not own the word.

From Wiki:
"Slut is a term applied to an individual who is considered to have loose sexual morals or who is sexually promiscuous."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slut

"Promiscuity is the practice of having casual sex frequently with different partners or being indiscriminate in the choice of sexual partners."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promiscuity


Even for definitions that are female centered (which I don't agree with), it doesn't mean non-virgin.

slut
slət/Submit
nounderogatory
1.
a woman who has many casual sexual partners.
synonyms: promiscuous woman, prostitute, whore; More
2.
dated
a woman with low standards of cleanliness.

From Oxford, which Google features when you search "slut definition": http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/de ... glish/slut

EquALLity wrote: But you're using it as if it's an insult based on the idea that it's irrational/unethical to have sex in certain situations, and assuming people are just going to see it that way, even though that's not the connotation it has.

No, I'm saying also limit quantity of partners.
Even if you're careful, it's still not 100%, so you should limit overall exposure to different people and risk by a smaller number of partners over a longer time.

That is in addition to the precautions that should be taken.

EquALLity wrote: I'm not saying you hold the double standard that only women can be sluts; I'm saying that by using the word that you're promoting that type of mindset.

Not when I explicitly apply it to men, too. It's subverting the mindset in that case. Subverting the conservative double standard usage and promoting a more fair one.

EquALLity wrote: What? You just said to let them down nicely and politely.

That would be my suggestion.

EquALLity wrote: Be polite, and then spit in their faces and call them gross 'sluts'?

If they're men, and you want to promote the usage of "slut" to apply to men more. That's the other way to level the playing field. It's not something I would want to do though. Just saying you can do that if you want to help put out there the idea that men are sluts too.

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

Well, teenagers are pubescent, and are wanting to have sex, and thus that's why they look for a girlfriend. Not to mention that high schoolers are more ignorant, stupider, irresponsible, and immature when it comes to sex. Don't get me wrong, I always feel turned on, but like I said, my hand is my sex partner.

EquALLity wrote: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.

Yeah that's true. But remember the STDs. I'm pretty sure that bare feels better than a condom. Like I said, teenagers are immature and irresponsible, and so they think that they can pull out at the last second without a rubber.

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

With homosexual intercourse, there's HIV. But other than that, if you wear a condom, you're in the clear. But remember what I said. As for lesbian sex, just record it and send it to me. All jokes aside, lesbian sex does have a chance of spreading STIs from my research. Look, it's natural to want sex, But there's no reason to be so desperate. And you are, like me, you got good ol' righty. Or lefty.

Jebus wrote: 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.

As weird as this may sound, porn can be an excellent guide on how to have the sex. I mean, I don't watch is much anymore, but from what I watched, I learned where to stick my johnson . As for me being the needle in the haystack, to be honest, I'm not the smartest one in my grade when it comes to sex. Sure, I am probably one of the most sexually active, but that doesn't mean I know what I'm doing when it comes to do the job.

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

But for the time being, I'll stick with masturbation.

Jebus wrote: 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.

Fair point. BUT
In basketball you can practice whenever you want. As for dating, that'll take some time to master, but it certainly won't take a lifetime. If you're smooth like me, you can be the dominator of the pack compared to the shyer ones. For some it just comes to them, y'know what I'm sayin'?

Jebus wrote: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.

I don't think that's true. The first time can be fine if you can control yourself (which is something that can probably be learned by masturbating, and holding off as long as possible). If anything, a first time in the teens is more likely to end with disappointment and a premature ejaculation than a first time later on in life.

It would be interesting to see studies on, though.

Jebus wrote: 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.

I'm not sure that's true of basketball or sex. Sex has a pretty short learning curve, though, since a lot of it is programmed in (unlike basketball).
Dating may be worth practicing, as mentioned in that study that casual dating without sex can slightly improve academic performance, and sex harms it -- but I don't think there's any compelling evidence to suggest that practicing sex in the teens is a good idea (quite the contrary).
Masturbation will be great practice for holding off during sex, and dating casually (without a steady girlfriend or sex) will cover the social dimensions and improve confidence.

Then once he's done with school, and the girls his age are more mature, he'll be better suited to find a more stable longer lasting relationship to have a sexual partner in. And he won't be bringing in any STD baggage.

brimstoneSalad wrote:As reasonably possible. Or let's say: practical. Like veganism.

Well yeah, then I see the difference.

brimstoneSalad wrote:If a man tried to make sure his girlfriend is taking her pills, he won't have a girlfriend for very long.
Trying to teach a guy how to use a condom wouldn't likely come off much better.

Ever try to teach a man how to fold a shirt?

Haha, well, true.
For condoms, you could just watch, and make sure there are no mistakes though.

But your partner would also be pretty offended if you wanted an STD test every time you had sex.

brimstoneSalad wrote:These things are used badly, and you can't even make the assumption that you're using them right, since there's a competency bias there. See the Dunning–Kruger effect. Just because you think you're competent and can do it right, doesn't mean you are. It's not an assumption you can make. You have to assume you're average.

Well you can't take pills incorrectly. There's forgetfulness, but you could set a reminder on your phone, or something. Or use an app.

And I think that after a person considers the Dunning-Kruger effect that he or she would try extra-extra-hard to do that properly.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Yes. Risk multiplies like this:

(Safeness of each incident) ^ incidence
Safeness (like 99.9%) to the incident power.

99.9% = 0.999

0.999 ^ (52*4) = 0.812

81.2% safe if you have sex once a week (which is a really small amount in highschool), always using protection, and always using it properly.
That's some one in five chance it fucks up.

Assuming the statistics are talking about a per use basis.

Wow, that's actually pretty high. Hm...
That probably decreases a lot if the woman also uses some form of protection that protects from disease though.

Also, this doesn't make it a really dangerous idea not to be abstinent, it just makes it irrational to have a certain amount of sex.
And that makes me wonder how much sex the people in the column for dating and sex were having, and whether or not there's a certain general amount that causes academic problems, as opposed to simply not being abstinent. I'd think there is.

It doesn't seem reasonable that having sex just magically makes you decrease in academic success.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Right. So, Red should date, but only date. Keep it casual. Lots of dates, no "girlfriend".

I guess it depends on how the terms are being defined.

brimstoneSalad wrote:You're assuming that the people having sex weren't already doing that. You can't make those kinds of assumptions.

Alright, that's fair.

brimstoneSalad wrote:It's more important for the woman to be attractive than for the man to be, since the man can compensate with other social variables like wealth or power. But it's still pretty important to be close.

I don't think those studies are really convincing.

The Walster studies determined attractiveness from only four judges.
Murstein's study only had eight judges.
White's study doesn't say anything about who the judges were.
Garcia and Khersonsky's used only college students, and just had a sample size of 249 people. None of these sample sizes seem to be really significant. I'm also not sure why it matters if people view certain couples as attractive, and of course people are going to view two attractive people as an attractive couple. But then, it doesn't even say by what standard attractiveness was rated.
Shaw and Taylor had a small sample size too, and didn't seem to support the Matching Hypothesis.
Berscheid and Dion deals only with 4-6 year olds. It also doesn't say anything about sample size.

Why can't women compensate with wealth and power?
I guess that's just how it seems in those studies, because lots of them were done in less gender-progressive times.
Not that those things should even matter.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Everybody wants to say "that doesn't apply to me, I'm special", but none of us are immune to social psychology.

Alright, I won't say that it just plays no factor. But it shouldn't play a factor, and I think you can control it to an extent.

And I think that it varies largely from person to person:

Castatistics wrote:Physical attractiveness is of importance in influencing initial attraction for other people.
However, some people are much more affected by physical attractiveness than others.
Towhey (1979) asked males and females how much they thought they would like a person
whose photograph they had seen, and about whom they had read biographical
information. The judgements of those scoring high on the Macho Scale (dealing with sexist
attitudes, stereotypes, and behaviour) were much influenced by physical attractiveness,
whereas those scoring low on the Macho Scale almost ignored physical attractiveness as
a factor.

https://castatistics.wikispaces.com/fil ... tching.pdf

brimstoneSalad wrote:That's not a very good metric. The vast majority of people vary in trustworthiness in different situations, based on a sense of entitlement.

If the man is more attractive than the woman, for example, he will be more prone to cheat and lie, and be less trustworthy since he feels he was short changed and deserves more. The same man with a more attractive woman will be more trustworthy, since he feels like he's gotten what he deserves, or was lucky, and doesn't feel the need to compensate as much with infidelity.

The same applies to a lesser extent with women, with regard to physical attractiveness, but probably much more with regard to the current state of the relationship.

It's also nearly impossible to evaluate how trustworthy somebody is ahead of time; liars will not be inclined to admit their propensity to lie.

If a person's trustworthiness fluctuates like that, for those reasons, that person isn't really trustworthy.

True though that that particular trait may be hard to spot, but I was just giving an example.

brimstoneSalad wrote:It's sadly typical.

Typical? Are you saying it's relatively common?

brimstoneSalad wrote:It's because the condom only covers a small part of the penis, the base, the scrotum, etc. is exposed, and there's a lot of friction and physical contact during sex. These are all areas that can be affected by HPV, and other genital skin diseases which will spread by contact.

As for other things, 99.9% sounds good, but is in practice not really that great.

It's like food that says "90% fat free!". It's still 10% fat. People don't seem to grasp what that means.

Ah, hm.

brimstoneSalad wrote:It's made from egg. About one egg per vaccine. So, you're dealing with a chicken suffering for 24 hours in a battery cage to get the shot. And a fraction of the responsibility for her death.

Ah.

brimstoneSalad wrote:That's a good point. If you're at high risk of being raped, it is a reasonable precaution that deals with your personal health and safety rather than just for pleasure.

Well, I found this: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... -been-rap/

brimstoneSalad wrote:That's not what Red was saying.

My original statement about that was a response to you when you 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."

And I was saying that like you can't refuse to eat vegetables and compensate by eating a lot of healthy grains, you can't just replace a romantic relationship for tons of friends to compensate.

I'm not sure how you are taking from that that I was saying to use one source to get all types of relationships.

brimstoneSalad wrote:You don't need a romantic partner.

Yeah, but you can't equate a romantic partner to a lot of friends. A friendship brings a different kind of a relationship than a romantic relationship.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Just as if you try to get everything from meat it comes with cholesterol, saturated fats, excess methionine, etc.; trying to get everything from a romantic relationship comes with undesirables too, like STDs, drama, loss of academic performance, unwanted children, child support, custody battles, etc.

It's better to get those things from various sources to avoid the negative side effects of a romantic entanglement, or worse, casual sex with too many partners.

Again, I'm not saying that you should try to get all types of relationships from one source.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Being promiscuous is a choice, which has negative consequences for oneself and others. Being gay is not a choice.

It's more along the lines of calling somebody a thief.

I wasn't equating calling a person a 'slut' and calling a person a 'faggot'; I was just saying they're similar.

I would agree that it's like calling a person a thief if 'slut' had the connotation you're giving to it. But it doesn't actually have that connotation.

brimstoneSalad wrote:No it isn't. It refers to people who are promiscuous beyond normal social standards.

A girl who has had a couple long term relationships and has had sex in those relationships is not widely considered a slut. She's considered normal.

Well, it doesn't matter what 'normal social standards' are anyway.

But in addition, because there is this idea that women are supposed to be 'pure', 'normal social standards' regarding the term 'slut' aren't even just about sex. It's also about clothing.
And when it comes to sex, the idea isn't that it's irrational for people to be promiscuous; it's that women are 'impure' for it (who ever talks about men and purity?). So even if you're using the word 'slut' to mean it's irrational for all people to be promiscuous, that's not how people really use it, so you're going to send the wrong message.

And as a result, it's counterproductive, and promoting the mindset that is for abstinence only education and is anti-HPV vaccine.

brimstoneSalad wrote:You're handing control of the definition over to fundamentalists. They do not own the word.

That's already just the connotation the word has. I've don't think I've ever heard of anyone using 'slut' the way you are using it. It always has that aura of 'impurity', and usually of sexism.

brimstoneSalad wrote:From Wiki:
"Slut is a term applied to an individual who is considered to have loose sexual morals or who is sexually promiscuous."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slut

Loose sexual morals sounds like a sophisticated way of saying 'impure'.

brimstoneSalad wrote:No, I'm saying also limit quantity of partners.

That can be included in certain situations.

Like, "Don't have sex with a new person if you've already had sex with a certain amount of people."

brimstoneSalad wrote:Not when I explicitly apply it to men, too. It's subverting the mindset in that case. Subverting the conservative double standard usage and promoting a more fair one.

If you apply to men as well every time you use it, then it's just confusing, and it sounds like you're saying men shouldn't be 'impure' in addition to women (which would still promote the mindset that supports abstinence only education and is anti-HPV).

Why don't you just explain exactly what you're talking about, without using a word that has that type of connotation, so you don't send a confusing and counterproductive message?

brimstoneSalad wrote:That would be my suggestion.

So it's your suggestion not to call people 'sluts' anyway?
Then why are you doing it?

Or do you mean don't specifically tell individual people they're 'sluts'?

brimstoneSalad wrote:If they're men, and you want to promote the usage of "slut" to apply to men more. That's the other way to level the playing field. It's not something I would want to do though. Just saying you can do that if you want to help put out there the idea that men are sluts too.

Isn't that what you want to do, to put out there the idea that men can be 'sluts' too, to level the playing field in that way?

If you want to make it so that it's considered 'impure' for men and women to have a certain amount of sex etc. as a deterrent, then that would eliminate the element of sexism, but it would still promote the mindset that leads to abstinence only education. The people who support abstinence only education etc. are concerned with purity. It's established that actual sex education leads to less teen pregnancy etc., but they don't really seem to give a shit about that, because they're just concerned about what Jesus thinks. They're still going to support abstinence only education if there continues to be this theme in society that sex = 'impure'.

EquALLity wrote:And I think that after a person considers the Dunning-Kruger effect that he or she would try extra-extra-hard to do that properly.

For a day or two. People are lazy and forgetful.

EquALLity wrote:Wow, that's actually pretty high. Hm...
That probably decreases a lot if the woman also uses some form of protection that protects from disease though.

Those risks are relative to what is protected from.
Was the 99.9% pregnancy with the pill, or disease protection with condoms?

Using condoms + pill offers much better protection from pregnancy, IF they are both used. But using one can make people even more lax about using another.

I'm mainly concerned about disease transmission.

EquALLity wrote:Also, this doesn't make it a really dangerous idea not to be abstinent, it just makes it irrational to have a certain amount of sex.

People who are sexually active tend to be very sexually active. It's like trying to eat one potato chip.

In terms of academic performance, just don't do it. Wait until you have real free time, and your studies won't suffer.
In terms of disease, just have a very limited number of clean partners in your life.

EquALLity wrote:Why can't women compensate with wealth and power?

Men tend to feel threatened. It's silly. Sometimes they can though.

EquALLity wrote:But it shouldn't play a factor, and I think you can control it to an extent.

You can't assume that. Everybody wants to think they have the trick to prevent it from applying to them, or control it.

EquALLity wrote:If a person's trustworthiness fluctuates like that, for those reasons, that person isn't really trustworthy.

Then that amounts to pretty much everybody. People who lie do so when they feel entitled to, most of all.

EquALLity wrote:Typical? Are you saying it's relatively common?

Unfortunately, yes. It comes from the delusions of manic "love" and obsession.

EquALLity wrote:And I was saying that like you can't refuse to eat vegetables and compensate by eating a lot of healthy grains, you can't just replace a romantic relationship for tons of friends to compensate.

You can replace a romantic relationship with ONE good friend, and your hand. And the oxytocin from cuddling a pet.

EquALLity wrote:A friendship brings a different kind of a relationship than a romantic relationship.

Not really, no. Unless you're talking about the manic, obsessive kind of romance.
The less romantic a "romantic" relationship is, the more psychologically healthy and rational it tends to be.

The only way romantic relationships offer something distinctly more than friendships is when the partners are going in on child raising together, which is more of a pragmatic issue, being harder to have a child or adopt on ones own. This is not something that emanates from the relationship itself, but which the relationship facilitates.

EquALLity wrote:I would agree that it's like calling a person a thief if 'slut' had the connotation you're giving to it. But it doesn't actually have that connotation.

I cited the denotation.

The notion that sluttiness has to do with clothing is based on the presumption that somebody who is dressed in such a way is promiscuous.
I don't agree that it's good to call people sluts for wearing revealing clothing. BUT at the same time, dressing a bit more conservatively IS still a good idea in most cases.

EquALLity wrote:Well, it doesn't matter what 'normal social standards' are anyway.

It certainly matters; that's how people qualify and judge others as sluts or not.

It will, of course, depend on where you live. Also, you may find the standards in high school to be more strict and cruel than in the real world. I don't know what it's like where you live.

A girl who has had sex once may be called a slut after the fact as an attack. And by the same standard of rigorous gossip, somebody may be called fat for gaining five pounds and weighing in at a whopping 115.

That doesn't mean fatness, or obesity, doesn't actually exist. Some people use words wrongly, and level accusations that are not true.

Just because words are used meanly by some, or in unjustified contexts, that doesn't mean we should give up on those words, which still contain a lot of cultural capital and have utility.

EquALLity wrote:So even if you're using the word 'slut' to mean it's irrational for all people to be promiscuous, that's not how people really use it, so you're going to send the wrong message.

Promiscuity is part of the definition. People can use a dictionary. But really, it is how people use it.

There's also a slut-positive counterculture that celebrates casual sex, one night stands, etc.
I'm speaking to that as well.

EquALLity wrote:And as a result, it's counterproductive, and promoting the mindset that is for abstinence only education and is anti-HPV vaccine.

Not in the least, since I explicitly said otherwise in my post, and every post. If I had just said it without any qualification, and with no context, then maybe (but even that is a stretch).
The mainstream doesn't consider being a slut the same as being a non-virgin. Maybe it's different where you live?

EquALLity wrote:Loose sexual morals sounds like a sophisticated way of saying 'impure'.

It usually refers to sex outside of love, or a committed long term relationship. Modern sexual morals are much different than they were hundreds of years ago.

As I said before, there's also a counterculture which focuses on one-night stands and casual sex. This is problematic.

EquALLity wrote:Like, "Don't have sex with a new person if you've already had sex with a certain amount of people."

That sounds great, but wouldn't likely work in practice.
The problem with setting a cap is that it cuts people off. It's similar to the issues with the three strikes laws.

Once somebody reaches the cap due to foolish choices when they were younger, they'll either never be able to have sex again, or just give up and have sex with however many people they want.

So while I'd love to just say "five sexual partners max in your lifetime; use them sparingly, you may live a long time!", it's probably not going to be effective. People will use them all up in the first week.

Instead, I'd rather focus on behavioral trends, and attitudes toward sex in general in the present.

EquALLity wrote:If you apply to men as well every time you use it, then it's just confusing, and it sounds like you're saying men shouldn't be 'impure' in addition to women (which would still promote the mindset that supports abstinence only education and is anti-HPV).

I feel like you've gotten a very different impression of how "slut" is used. This is no way supports abstinence only education, or is anti-vaxx.

EquALLity wrote:Why don't you just explain exactly what you're talking about, without using a word that has that type of connotation, so you don't send a confusing and counterproductive message?

Because it's about behavioral attitudes, and mainstream sexual ethics. It's a word that has a lot of "punch" and cultural capital. It's a word that gets attention, strikes a bit of controversy, and is memorable.

EquALLity wrote:So it's your suggestion not to call people 'sluts' anyway?
Then why are you doing it?

Yes.
I'm not doing it. I said don't be one.

EquALLity wrote:Or do you mean don't specifically tell individual people they're 'sluts'?

Right, that would be mean. Like with fat shaming.

I can say "don't be obese" as a rule for health without going around and calling people obese (calling people out and shaming them). In my understanding, shaming doesn't work very well.

EquALLity wrote:Isn't that what you want to do, to put out there the idea that men can be 'sluts' too, to level the playing field in that way?

This is not my fight. You can do it if you want. I just make sure to note that it can apply to men or women.

EquALLity wrote:If you want to make it so that it's considered 'impure' for men and women to have a certain amount of sex etc. as a deterrent, then that would eliminate the element of sexism, but it would still promote the mindset that leads to abstinence only education.

Sexual morality refers more to the context of the sex (in a serious relationship, no one night stands, etc.), and total number over time. It doesn't suggest abstinence.

I don't follow Jenna Marbles, but she made a good video on it that got a lot of shit. Including from Laci Green.

Diana Davison made a good video response on it here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-b6w4Nog5E

It's a sensitive term, and feminists tend to either hate the term and anybody who uses it (even to apply to men and women equally?) or to embrace it and the sexual promiscuity it denotes to an extreme. Neither are rational. Instead, we should try to help people understand that promiscuous behavior is bad for men and women.

Addendum
If any of you think I'm not gonna have sex, you're seriously mistaken. I'm not going to go my whole life a virgin. From what I can tell, sex is an amazing thing, plus we're wired to crave it. Unless you're asexual of course. I just don't think it's smart to have it now, since you have to consider the risks, it's illegal for me, and mainly, it's not going to accomplish anything. I got plenty of time to bang as many chicks as I want when I get older, (I'll use protection, don't worry) plus I'll be more responsible. The hand is probably the safest sex partner any person can have. Unless you weren't born without them or got them amputated.

I don't get what's up with this scare of being attracted to other people. This is like the only hour of sex ed I've ever had in school, which I can pretty much sum up like: DISEASE, GERMS, THE DEVIL, ABSTENTION OR RUIN YOUR LIFE, DISEASE!!
Hey, you do you, it's perfectly fine if you don't feel like getting a girlfriend yet. Just don't rationalize 'I don't want to' like 'I shouldn't'.

You don't have to have sex if you have a girlfriend you really like and you're in school. But you can, if it's legal and you're ready, and you want to and your partner wants to, and you use protection correctly. And unless you're a germofobe, judging someone based on their baggage doesn't make much sense if they get tested and you use protection.
Anyway, attraction isn't just about physical hotness. I can have the hots for people with extraordinary intellectual abilities or personality more than for extraordinary abs, if I really have to choose. It's best not to have to choose, but the former is more valuable due to scarcity... And the fact that a relationship will eventually end doesn't negate it's value as an experience. It's like saying 'I won't play this video game because one day I'll finish it and I'll feel sad about it".

I feel like nowadays the bigger problem is people not having enough quality experiences that add richness to their lives, rather than having too much going on and too much drama. Which is a direct result of always staying in their comfort zone and not putting themselves out there, like ever. Great way to become lonely and depressed later in life. Making mistakes is fine and you have a lot of room for making them in school... just don't be too stupid and make the big ones with long-term consequences.

inator wrote:I don't get what's up with this scare of being attracted to other people.

That's not the main argument; or an argument brought up at all.

inator wrote:This is like the only hour of sex ed I've ever had in school, which I can pretty much sum up like: DISEASE, GERMS, THE DEVIL, ABSTENTION OR RUIN YOUR LIFE, DISEASE!!

Well you've seem to not have a proper edumacation.

inator wrote:Hey, you do you, it's perfectly fine if you don't feel like getting a girlfriend yet. Just don't rationalize 'I don't want to' like 'I shouldn't'.

Uhhh, I wasn't? But for the sake of argument, let's say I did. If you have a girlfriend and make out with her often, you got a solid chance of getting some unwanted ailment. The "I shouldn't" factor is played as more of a safety card. And it's jot that I don't want to, it's that i don't need to. I got a working hand, and I got all other social areas in life covered. Plus I don't get heartbroken when (not if, when) someone breaks up with me, as it happened to so many others.

inator wrote:You don't have to have sex if you have a girlfriend you really like and you're in school.

You'd be surprised.

inator wrote:But you can, if it's legal and you're ready, and you want to and your partner wants to, and you use protection correctly.

Disregarding irresponsibilities, let's just say some people think they can pull out at the last second.

inator wrote:And unless you're a germaphobe, judging someone based on their baggage doesn't make much sense if they get tested and you use protection.

brimstone said before that not every STD is tested.
And confirmed!
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn ... td-testing

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-cond ... t-20046019

Both sources claim that some STDs don't show symptoms, and that some are only testing for a certain disease.

inator wrote:Anyway, attraction isn't just about physical hotness.

If it's not the only factor, it's more than likely the main factor. You see what someone looks like first. There are reasons why we're attracted to the body. The posterior for example can give the male a sense on how well a woman can give birth, while for the woman, it's to see how muscular the male is. We're attracted to sex organs to continue our species. If it didn't feel good, there wouldn't be any real motive to have sex.

inator wrote:I can have the hots for people with extraordinary intellectual abilities or personality more than for extraordinary abs, if I really have to choose. It's best not to have to choose, but the former is more valuable due to scarcity... And the fact that a relationship will eventually end doesn't negate it's value as an experience. It's like saying 'I won't play this video game because one day I'll finish it and I'll feel sad about it".

I refer you to the answer I gave earlier.

inator wrote:I feel like nowadays the bigger problem is people not having enough quality experiences that add richness to their lives, rather than having too much going on and too much drama. Which is a direct result of always staying in their comfort zone and not putting themselves out there, like ever. Great way to become lonely and depressed later in life. Making mistakes is fine and you have a lot of room for making them in school... just don't be too stupid and make the big ones with long-term consequences.

The mistake isn't fine if it's a horrible grotesque permanent ailment. I've said it before, and I'll say it once more, teenagers are stupid, ignorant, and irresponsible when it comes to sex cause they want to so badly, but it is in fact natural. Anyway, these negative attributes lead to the aforementioned "pulling out" and other stupid risks. Look, I know long shots pay off big time, but sometimes, it's not worth taking those risks. It's a gamble.