Having a Girlfriend

[brimstoneSalad]

It's less straightforward because we're talking about a multi-layered risk of causing harm (basically a risk of a risk of harm), as opposed to actual harm.

That doesn't mean it's less significant, or any less consequential.

Remember when we talked about shooting into a theater, and accidentally killing a suicide bomber?
It's like that.

Even if you infect people, you're only equally as guilty as somebody who engaged in the same behavior (and through luck) infected nobody.
Even if you are lucky and infect nobody, you're just as guilty as somebody who was unlucky and infected people.

The morality of your action (at least in terms of responsibility) is based on its probable outcome, not the actual outcome, because you have no means of seeing the perfect future (in fact, the perfect future doesn't even exist -- look at quantum physics, and how it throws a monkey wrench in absolute determinism).

We are limited by both our knowledge, and dumb luck inherent in chaotic functions which are stirred down not just to the level of butterflies, but to uncaused quantum events.

Which means that if you apply that to getting tested and using protection, the recommendations should be much more liberal in order to get to the same level of risk.

That's true, sure. But what is that level? 6? 12? We don't know.
In either case, without even needing to draw arbitrary lines, we know that fewer will be better (all other things being equal). That's not an extreme claim to make, I don't think.

True, stable long-term relationships decrease your number of partners, however they’re also less likely to involve using condoms all the time. This could mean that it may be riskier to be with someone who’s had a few (say 3) long-term relationships, than with someone who’s had multiple (say 13) shorter-term ones with protection. Because it’s the protection that makes the bigger difference here, not the number.

That's true. But also consider the ratio: Number or orgasms / risk
Long term relationships are likely to result in a lot more sex over the same time period, since they're more practical, than a series of very short (such as once or twice) relationships.

If we're looking at variety as having value, just swing: two or three long term couples swinging for variety may have the lowest risk total of any option, since it may also reduce infidelity.

There are so many possible constellations of relationships in one’s lifetime that could speak in favor or against this… It’s just very difficult to know who’s more of a ‘slut’ just based on the number of partners (if the word really is based on risk and nothing else for you), so it’s wrong to talk in such absolute terms.

That's true, but I'm most interested in average behavior, since we're usually talking to average people.

Keep in mind: Simpler advice is often easier to follow, even though it may be incomplete, it may see more consistent results. Kind of a Gödel parallel, on consistency and completeness?

All other things being equal, fewer partners is better than more. And looking at average behavior, there are certain imperfect but generally useful assumptions that we can and should probably make.

I’m still not convinced that different elements of a relationship can entirely be replaced by substitute behaviors (hand+games+….), and that the sum of those will definitely result in the same value. That may be a reductionist way of looking at things, since there are probably also reinforcing interaction effects between those elements - making them work synergistically and be more fulfilling when you get them all together from one source.

Synergy is a matter of efficiency, paying more attention to quantity or quality of disparate sources would compensate for that.

But we CAN look at overall effects in terms of time investment and return on well being. Those studies on academic performance are a great window into potential research on this -- where it's good to date, but not be sexually active, for academic performance.

Maybe this optimizes efficiency of friendship activity and minimizes drama?

I'd love to see more studies like this. Also on swinging, which from what I've seen kind of incorporates the best of both worlds, limiting a sexual pool to longer term relationships but reduces infidelity and increases relationship satisfaction.

But, that's probably another topic.

Without more research to make us confident about higher numbers or more conventionally risky behavior in relationships, we should err on the side of being a little conservative -- but not so conservative as to give impractical advice that nobody could follow. It's a delicate balance.

Essentially, the best advice represents a calculus: The smallest number of partners that the most people will actually stick to.

The alternative behavior would work in utilitarianism too - you would also increase the enjoyment of the consensual partner, so you get that added positive effect. But I do get what you’re trying to say.

Yes, but that's only if you're willing to come out and say the lesser of 'goods' from two options is wrong -- not the moral action to take. It's something utilitarianism must commit to, but that also results in other uncomfortable outcomes.
Not only does it result in the problem of the utility monster, but it results in a demand for idealism or perfection in order to be "good".

My question exactly - not what I should do myself (that’s clear), but what I should tell others to do.

Narrowed down to two people -- without outside consequences -- if he's asking what he should do in order to be moral, and doesn't want you to lie to him, then you should tell him the truth.
This, because his will to be told the truth outweighs his desire to be lied to in order to obtain more pleasure.

Remember, it's acting to enable the will of another (which may apply to many things), and not superficial experience of pleasure and pain that makes up moral significance in your interactions with others. Utilitarianism often gets this wrong (although preference utilitarianism gets it right).

Narrowed down to two people -- without outside consequences -- If he wanted to be lied to, then you should lie to him. (This doesn't apply when it's in the wild, though, where lies and spread and be harmful).

Anyway, considering only that, and knowing that Red is a rational person who values the truth, does he want to be lied to, or does he want the truth?

Let's say that I’m an altruistic advice giver, and someone asks me what to do in a particular circumstance. Do I advise him to do what will increase overall well-being - excluding myself, but including him, OR excluding myself AND him? My concern for his well-being conflicts with my concern for his morality/his altruistic decision-making position.

If he (not talking about Red here) is willing to be moral, you are not violating that by helping him do that.

Put yourself in his shoes. You want to be moral; you make the moral choice to put altruism above selfish desire. You ask for advice on how to be moral; do you want to be lied to, or be told the truth on how to do that?

By telling the truth, you are not just helping another realize the will to know true information, but also enabling altruism, which is good in a more global sense and what that person wants to do anyway.

This kind of gets back into the utility monster example, wherein by enabling the utility monster to do evil, you're also doing evil. I think I still need to reply to a post in that thread.

1. If I tell him to include concern for himself, that conflicts with his morality.

Which violates his will. He doesn't want to be lied to, so don't do that.

2. If I tell him to be altruistic, he will exclude the concern for himself.

Not necessarily. He may just choose means of satisfying himself that also help others, or that don't harm them, and otherwise do good deeds.
Being altruistic on average doesn't mean complete self sacrifice. Nobody is perfect, and that's not a realistic expectation as a result. We all do a little for ourselves too.

Anyway, nobody is going to choose to act against his or her own will. You can't will to violate your will.
If he doesn't want to be an altruist, he won't be an altruist.

This is why arbitrary metrics like "well-being" that are not well defined and are based on anything but the desires of the individual are inherently flawed.

[inator]

That doesn't mean it's less significant, or any less consequential.
Remember when we talked about shooting into a theater, and accidentally killing a suicide bomber?
It's like that.

We are limited by both our knowledge, and dumb luck inherent in chaotic functions which are stirred down not just to the level of butterflies, but to uncaused quantum events.

I didn't mean it's unsignificant, we see eye to eye on this.

That's true, sure. But what is that level? 6? 12? We don't know.
In either case, without even needing to draw arbitrary lines, we know that fewer will be better (all other things being equal). That's not an extreme claim to make, I don't think.

That's true, but I'm most interested in average behavior, since we're usually talking to average people.

Your claim's perfectly reasonable.There is no absolute level to aim for, it's a spectrum of risk, and therefore a spectrum of morality. Each person has to see which level of risk they can conform to. All else being equal, less partners is more moral. A virgin by choice is the most moral.

But since it is a spectrum of risk/morality, it would be nonsense to judge someone based on numbers if you don't have information on the more significant variable that affects risk - protection.

You're talking 'average behavior', but it only makes sense to look at average behavior in smaller populations. If you actually compare populations, you get a high variance in behaviour. And you get a low variance in sexual activity. Behaviour is decisive here.
However, inside a small population with the same culture and therefore a lower standard deviation in behaviour (what you seem to focus on) - yes, it can make sense to look at the number too.

Keep in mind: Simpler advice is often easier to follow, even though it may be incomplete, it may see more consistent results. Kind of a Gödel parallel, on consistency and completeness?

I think this speaks more in favor of "Have safe sex!" than of "Have less sex!". Advice is only simpler if it's easier to implement.
Or, if you're moral enough and in control of yourself, just do both. But the first advice should take (significant) precedence over the second. It's more effective.

Synergy is a matter of efficiency, paying more attention to quantity or quality of disparate sources would compensate for that.

But we CAN look at overall effects in terms of time investment and return on well being. Those studies on academic performance are a great window into potential research on this -- where it's good to date, but not be sexually active, for academic performance.

Maybe this optimizes efficiency of friendship activity and minimizes drama?

I'd love to see more studies like this. Also on swinging, which from what I've seen kind of incorporates the best of both worlds, limiting a sexual pool to longer term relationships but reduces infidelity and increases relationship satisfaction.

But, that's probably another topic.

Yea, let's wait for the studies. And for that thread on swinging.

Narrowed down to two people -- without outside consequences -- if he's asking what he should do in order to be moral, and doesn't want you to lie to him, then you should tell him the truth.
This, because his will to be told the truth outweighs his desire to be lied to in order to obtain more pleasure.

Narrowed down to two people -- without outside consequences -- If he wanted to be lied to, then you should lie to him. (This doesn't apply when it's in the wild, though, where lies and spread and be harmful).

Anyway, considering only that, and knowing that Red is a rational person who values the truth, does he want to be lied to, or does he want the truth?

I agree, will would take precedence over well-being in this case. However, the case is flawed.
You can't narrow it down to two people and ignore outside consequences. The whole point of altruistic morality is the effect on others. So if you narrow it down to two, there's nothing moral left for Red to do...except maybe something that will benefit you and disadvantage him, which contradicts your will. See where this is going?
Your advice is either less moral for you, or for him.

Or you can advise him to do something that's beneficial for you both, if it's consensual/ it doesn't go against either of your wills... (too much?), but some decisions are not like that. Sometimes there's a conflict of interests. Those are the cases I'm talking about.

Not necessarily. He may just choose means of satisfying himself that also help others, or that don't harm them, and otherwise do good deeds.
Being altruistic on average doesn't mean complete self sacrifice. Nobody is perfect, and that's not a realistic expectation as a result. We all do a little for ourselves too.

Anyway, nobody is going to choose to act against his or her own will. You can't will to violate your will.
If he doesn't want to be an altruist, he won't be an altruist.

This is why arbitrary metrics like "well-being" that are not well defined and are based on anything but the desires of the individual are inherently flawed.

What I'm getting from this is that, in practice, people are actually more like egoists (true), so telling them to be altruists will at least make them get closer to being utilitarians, which is pretty good. That I would agree with.

But ideal (theoretical) altruism faces the same contradictions as egoism in terms of the attainability of morality and well-being.
In a bubble, say 10 people on an island: one has to die for the other 9 to live.

In the egoistic group, no one wants to die, so they're all blocking each other's will to get the benefit (like in that 'A Beautiful Mind' scene).
In the altruistic group, everyone is bound by morality to sacrifice themselves to save the others, so they're all blocking each other's will to be moral. If you take everyone's will into consideration, there's no possible moral action left.
In the utilitarian group, they'll simply draw straws and everyone will be happy. Or play russian roulette for some added excitement.

Yes, but that's only if you're willing to come out and say the lesser of 'goods' from two options is wrong -- not the moral action to take. It's something utilitarianism must commit to, but that also results in other uncomfortable outcomes.
Not only does it result in the problem of the utility monster, but it results in a demand for idealism or perfection in order to be "good".

I agree, and I don't see why utilitarians couldn't do that. After all, good-bad is a scale in consequentialism, not a dichotomy.
Conceptually, there's really nothing stopping utilitarians from considering alternative behaviors when making a moral judgment.
Perfect effective altruism (that's just the name, but it could just as well be called effective utilitarianism) is unattainable. But it's what maximizes well-being best, by considering possible alternatives.

[brimstoneSalad]

But since it is a spectrum of risk/morality, it would be nonsense to judge someone based on numbers if you don't have information on the more significant variable that affects risk - protection.

Across different populations, you're probably right. Like if somebody from South America went to Europe, and judged Europeans for having a number of partners that would equate to an extreme degree of risk in South America -- that would be wrong, because it's a very different atmosphere of risk due to differences in behavior.

However, inside a small population with the same culture and therefore a lower standard deviation in behaviour (what you seem to focus on) - yes, it can make sense to look at the number too.

Yes, and this is basically my unspoken assumption. Usually when people are judging a potential sexual partner, they're doing it from within a smaller population in the same culture.

If an 'American' decided the reasonable number was 4 in the U.S., then it might be reasonable to increase or decrease that number precisely in proportion to relative STD frequency in a new environment. Going to South America, it should perhaps be two. Going to some parts of Europe, maybe eight.

I think this is something we could easily look at and find good statistics on too (relative frequency of STDs in the populations).

So, a U.S. citizen with 5 partners may be less moral than a European with 7, because of the statistical differences in average behavior and risk
(I didn't look any numbers up, this is just hypothetical).

I think this speaks more in favor of "Have safe sex!" than of "Have less sex!".

I'm not saying less sex, though, I'm saying more sex, but with fewer more stable (lasting) partners who have also been tested immediately before and in sexual quarantine while awaiting results (which becomes more practical when you're dealing in fewer longer lasting relationships).
Fewer more lasting partners makes a lot of the strongest precautions easier to implement.

Or, if you're moral enough and in control of yourself, just do both. But the first advice should take (significant) precedence over the second. It's more effective.

I don't know, when we're choosing between dairy based condoms, and $2 condoms. The former being a moral harm for pleasure, and the latter being a serious financial burden on many people.

That could be a false dichotomy, though. There are silicone condoms which are reusable; which should be both vegan, and very cheap per orgasm (super sustainable too, without all of the packaging waste).

So if you narrow it down to two, there's nothing moral left for Red to do...except maybe something that will benefit you and disadvantage him, which contradicts your will. See where this is going?

It doesn't have to really disadvantage him. It's OK to do nice things for people, and for people to do nice things for you. Accepting a gift isn't anti-altruistic. Somebody willed to do something nice for you, so you aren't violating a will.

We would just end up in a perpetual circle of doing nice things for each other.

Or you can advise him to do something that's beneficial for you both, if it's consensual/ it doesn't go against either of your wills... (too much?), but some decisions are not like that. Sometimes there's a conflict of interests. Those are the cases I'm talking about.

Sometimes there are conflicts of interest, but in reality those are fewer than you might expect; working together is often better for both of us.

But if you're talking about self sacrifice, let's take the island scenario with the limited food source; As an altruist, I may insist that he kill and eat me. And let's say he asks me what he should do if he wants to be moral (if it's right to do). I could tell him that although I don't want to die, I want more to be moral, and so he is not violating my net will by killing me -- but it depends on the reason he's killing me. If he's killing me because I offered and willed it, he's fulfilling my will. If he's killing me because he wants to live, he's being selfish, so his action is more of an amoral one. If he's not sure, he can offer to sacrifice himself to me, and I can kill him altruistically to realize his will to be moral, so we get two altruistic actions instead of one.

That's a pretty bizarre case, though, since there are no outside consequences, it basically doesn't matter who kills whom, just the reasons it's done.

But ideal (theoretical) altruism faces the same contradictions as egoism in terms of the attainability of morality and well-being.
In a bubble, say 10 people on an island: one has to die for the other 9 to live.

In the egoistic group, no one wants to die, so they're all blocking each other's will to get the benefit (like in that 'A Beautiful Mind' scene).
In the altruistic group, everyone is bound by morality to sacrifice themselves to save the others, so they're all blocking each other's will to be moral. If you take everyone's will into consideration, there's no possible moral action left.

Altruists can consider long term consequence, so the least capable and/or least altruistic would be sacrificed for the good of the rest, since each "safe" altruist is thinking about the other eight and what will benefit them.

In large groups, altruism is similar to utilitarianism. Assuming they are all identical, then they would also just draw straws or something -- who gets the honor of dying to save everybody, instead of who has to die.

I agree, and I don't see why utilitarians couldn't do that. After all, good-bad is a scale in consequentialism, not a dichotomy.

Unless you're willing to consider the rapist as good for raping somebody, because he received slightly more pleasure than the other suffered, it must be a dichotomy of requiring maximization.

Altruism is different, since it doesn't allow this behavior as good at all, so understanding things in terms of gradation is more practical.

Conceptually, there's really nothing stopping utilitarians from considering alternative behaviors when making a moral judgment.

No, but they're forced into doing it, and declaring the less good a wrong. They're forced into perfectionism.

Perfect effective altruism (that's just the name, but it could just as well be called effective utilitarianism) is unattainable. But it's what maximizes well-being best, by considering possible alternatives.

Yes, and in altruism this is fine -- you don't need perfection to be good. In utilitarianism, it's more problematic.

[EquALLity]

When you're on dates, you just ignore each other and play games/watch movies on your individual phones.

Ok she plays candy crush and I take pictures of a certain part of her body, and she's none the wiser.
Seriously it sounds like a bulletproof plan.

That's a joke, right?

Sorry I took so long to reply to this:

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

How do you know?

And there's also the phone reminder idea. But I guess your phone could die.

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.

99.9% for pregnancy with the pill, and nearly 100% for HIV with the condom.

Why are you mainly concerned with disease transmission? Pregnancy could be worse.

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

But you don't have to be. It's not like cocaine.

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

I've heard it said before that going dutch might make a guy feel less masculine. So that's partially true?

There's no winning with people.

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

Hm...

Alright, fair enough.

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

The only time you're really entitled to lie is if it's moral for some reason. Otherwise, you're just being a jerk. People aren't just entitled to lie because they think they 'deserve' a better partner. And if some people feel that way, just don't get involved with those people.

I don't think that kind of personality is hard to spot.

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

I really doubt that it's common. Do you have statistics?
Probably not, since that would be a really obscure thing to have studies on. You're probably just basing that on your personal experiences, right? I don't think that's enough to form such a drastic conclusion on.

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

I don't agree.

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.

How are you defining 'romantic'?

I cited the denotation.

Well, denotation =/= connotation. The literal definition of the word may just be a woman who has a lot of sex with many people, but that's not the connotation it has. One part of the connotation is that the woman (because I've never heard it directed towards men outside the Internet) who is, for whatever reason, a 'slut', is impure (typically religiously). So using it promotes the idea of aspiring to 'purity' (for religious reasons).

If whenever you say the word 'slut', you specify that you're applying it to both sexes, then that would take away the element of sexism. But it still has the element of 'purity', which promotes harmful ideas like abstinence only education. It's counterproductive.

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.

What makes you think that?

I think it's that women who dress that way are being 'impure' by revealing their bodies, because the word has that connotation of 'impurity'.

BUT at the same time, dressing a bit more conservatively IS still a good idea in most cases.

Oh?

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

I didn't mean that it doesn't matter in the sense of peoples' perceptions. I meant that it doesn't matter in reality.

You were saying that a 'slut' is someone who is promiscuous beyond 'normal social standards'. I was just saying, as part of my critique of the word, that in reality, 'normal social standards' are irrelevant, so we shouldn't attack people based on them (since 'slut' is an attack word).

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.

It's not just that they are used that way; that's the connotation that the word has in general.

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).

Not sure what you're saying here. You explicitly said what? Are you referring that you said 'slut' can apply to both sexes, and that therefore you weren't promoting sexism? My quote there isn't about that; it's about that promoting a word that condemns people for being 'impure' promotes the idea of aspiring to 'purity', and therefore promotes abstinence only education etc..

Are you referring to that you specified you weren't talking about 'purity' when using the term 'slut'? I don't think you ever said that. It seems like you've actually been saying that the word is not about 'purity' in the first place.

The mainstream doesn't consider being a slut the same as being a non-virgin.

I didn't say it was about being non-virgin.

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.

Maybe it refers to that, but it's still about 'purity'.

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.

I wasn't actually saying to say that. I was just giving an example of a statement that is about limiting the amount of partners that is also about not having sex in certain situations.

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.

Yeah, it gets attention, because it's an attack word that condemns people for arbitrary reasons.

I doubt you think we should go around telling people not to be 'fat-asses' because it would get attention and strike controversy etc., and for the same reason, we shouldn't tell people not to be 'sluts'.

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.

Weren't you advocating for shaming in the past?
Changed your mind?

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.

Well, when you use the word in that way, you're not really remaining neutral.

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.

Total number of times? Why is that relevant?

I don't think you really addressed my point here about how using 'slut' promotes the mindset that leads to abstinence only education. It seems like you're just saying that that's not what you're advocating for.
I never said that you were explicitly saying that abstinence only education is good etc., just that using the word 'slut', since it has that connotation of 'purity', promotes that kind of education.

Are you saying that the 'purity' aspect of it doesn't suggest abstinence only as pure? Well, not for adults, but it definitely does for minors (who are the ones being taught abstinence only education). That's why a movie gets rated R if there's a three second scene with a nipple or something.

Anyway, that video barely showed Jenna's video, so I didn't really get the full context of what she was saying so that I could actually understand her point. Apparently she took it down.

[atheistarfroot]

Wow this thread lol I'm new here so I'm not going to impose myself but I'm sensing sommme small amount of sexism going on.. and I'm not sure what the big deal is OP.

If you don't want to have sex in high school (or any other time for that matter) you don't have to. You're in high school; your buddies are just playing up their masculinity. You choose when you want to have sex or get a girlfriend.. You may feel pressured or made fun of but you choose what you want to do.

I hate to break it to you but all relationships eventually end (whether they end with a break up or whether they end emotionally/physically). You will break up with your first gf and your next and your next. Its just a part of life really. When you start and its potential to last does matter, but your friends will break up with their partners and so will you. You WILL end up heartbroken at some point, whether you are 15 or 40.

I wouldn't say that its fair to say that everyone in high school, middle school, college, etc has a girlfriend just because someone is "hot" or wants to have sex. You can't make base assumptions like that: you will find throughout your entire life that some people are together for superficial reasons (regardless of gender) and some people are not. The same applies to high school. I dated in middle school and high school as a chubby, non-feminine, tom-boyish girl that nobody thought was hot.. And I did it because I genuinely loved the guy, no matter how temporary it was.

The superficiality of some people and their relationships doesn't end in high school. But I wouldn't agree that having sex in high school is dumb overall: I'd say that one should evaluate their reason for pursuing a sexual relationship.

I also wouldnt say that physical attraction leads to sex or is the main motivator for people to be in a relationship. I don't experience physical attraction on any level (I know, most people don't believe me), but I do experience mental/emotional attraction (when I become close to someone).

The word "slut" (no matter how you use it) is an attack meant to be derogatory. Even if you don't mean to use it in this way, the word has a connotation behind it, so no matter what, the use of it reinforces this negative connotation.

I think the words "slut" and "slut shaming" should be avoided overall, because women are not sluts no matter with how many people they sleep with. Men do not have this word associated with them (in fact the more women a man sleeps with the more he is praised, whereas its the opposite for a woman), so no matter what its use is denigrating.

The way you worded your post is.. a little bit insulting "Get your hands on a girl" lol what?

You are not hardwired in any way to bang everything you see, thats ridiculous lol

[Red]

That's a joke, right?

Sure, let's.. go with that.

How do you know?

It's really all just human nature. Ever forget why you walk into a room? Or lost your train of thought? Or can't remember what the teacher said in class? And, if my sources are correct, the average human attention span is 8 seconds, so they'll just carry on with their day.

And there's also the phone reminder idea. But I guess your phone could die.

Tsuh, people would also probably forget to put it on their phone. Or maybe they'll see it, then be like "Oh yeah don't forget about it!", then they'll forget about it and move on.

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.

99.9% for pregnancy with the pill, and nearly 100% for HIV with the condom.

Why are you mainly concerned with disease transmission? Pregnancy could be worse.

With pregnancy, you can just get an abortion. STDs are forever. And you shouldn't assume he's not taking it into account because he's (or she?) not mentioning it.

But you don't have to be. It's not like cocaine.

Yeah y'know those addictions are just soo easy to overcome. Sex can be addicting you know. Except for potato chips. Those suck. brimstone is wrong there.

The only time you're really entitled to lie is if it's moral for some reason.

brimstone is saying people feel entitled, not are entitled.

I don't agree.

Take it from me, it works. I don't have a pet though. Maybe a stuffed animal would work.

. But it still has the element of 'purity', which promotes harmful ideas like abstinence only education. It's counterproductive.

...how?

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.

What makes you think that?

I skipped the rest because time is money.

[brimstoneSalad]

And there's also the phone reminder idea. But I guess your phone could die.

Or be left behind. Or the birth control could be. Or people get distracted after turning off the reminder ("I'll take it in a minute").
If you're even late with the pill, it increases chances of pregnancy pretty dramatically.

Why are you mainly concerned with disease transmission? Pregnancy could be worse.

Abortion is an option for people who are responsible and not fundamentalists, and for others, having a child early will not necessarily mean having more children (sometimes it does, but other times it doesn't).

But you don't have to be. It's not like cocaine.

It is for some. And cocaine isn't even always "like cocaine". Some people can use it more casually, others get seriously addicted.

Just like some people have a harder or easier time quitting alcohol or cigarettes, compared to the other vice.
The odds are relatively high for all of these things for you to become addicted, but there are people who can use any of them casually too, so it's almost never a sure thing.
We should avoid them because they're bad for us, and because the chances of dependency are high enough to be very dangerous.

You're over estimating human will power, though.

I don't think that kind of personality is hard to spot.

Since it amounts to pretty much everybody, you can just make the assumption.
You will meet very few genuinely honest people in your life. And you won't even know when you meet them, because it's one of the most difficult things to identify that there is.

Just wait until you've trusted a few people and been lied to, or met a few pathological liars (who are VERY good at it).

Most of the people you know are probably young, and you can probably catch them in lies. As you get older, your peers have learned to become better liars, and be better able to hide it.

Probably not, since that would be a really obscure thing to have studies on. You're probably just basing that on your personal experiences, right? I don't think that's enough to form such a drastic conclusion on.

I have a small sample size, but not just personal experience. This kind of deception seems to account for around 30% of couples having children.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_coercion

Around 10% of U.S. men reported ever having an intimate partner who tried to get pregnant when they did not want to or stopped them from using birth control. Around 9% of U.S. women reported having an intimate partner who tried to get them pregnant when they did not want to or refused to use a condom.

Wikipedia reports a lower number in that survey, but remember, this only accounts for the obvious attempts that were known of. Many are more subversive or passive aggressive about it, and will sabotage condoms, skip birth control, or even siphon semen from a condom with a syringe and inject it into themselves after the fact. Others may cause birth control failure not so much consciously/deliberately, but because they want to have a baby and don't actually care about it (this is particularly problematic for the pill, where a woman may be lax due to not really wanting birth control, and fail to remember it).

Anyway, I would expect the actual numbers to be substantially higher, but I can't say how much higher.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_coercion

A separate study found that 66% of teen mothers on public assistance who had recently experienced intimate partner violence disclosed birth control sabotage by a dating partner.

This is limited to a particular demographic, but may reveal the extent of overt sabotage from those who are abusive (and wouldn't have any need to hide it). Less openly abusive relationships will involve more subversive methods that are harder to track, but this is a likely upper limit.

Somewhere between 9% and 66%.

My experiences of witnessing around 30% seem to jive.

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

I don't agree.

That's like saying you don't agree that the mind is a product of the brain.
We are getting a very good handle on the various social hormones, and psychology involved here. There's no evidence for any kind of special "magic" in romantic relationships that exceed the sum of the parts.

The idea that there is, is more of a supernatural concept that derives from the cultural notion of romance and "true love" being something special.

Earlier, inator talked about potential synergy, but that only speaks to an increase in efficiency and not a fundamental change in type.

How are you defining 'romantic'?

Based on cultural norms/Disney romance concepts of "true love".

I cited the denotation.

Well, denotation =/= connotation. The literal definition of the word may just be a woman who has a lot of sex with many people, but that's not the connotation it has.

Is that just your connotation? You will need to provide evidence for these claims about the word "slut" relating to purity and somehow implicitly encouraging abstinence only education.
I don't find any of this credible.

One part of the connotation is that the woman (because I've never heard it directed towards men outside the Internet)

Then you have heard it directed toward men, and you should more in the future.
This seems to be more of a problem with the way the people you interact with are using the word.

But it still has the element of 'purity', which promotes harmful ideas like abstinence only education. It's counterproductive.

I have seen no evidence for that. It's just an assertion based on a bunch of baseless reasoning.

Sites like this are full of that:
http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/07/stop-saying-slut/

Even if successful, whenever you remove one word, another will take its place as long as culture looks down on those qualities.
"slut-positive" is a movement with at least some social force, but is it good to encourage promiscuity as a good thing? No.

That doesn't mean abstinence only education either. I'm interested in what works.

What makes you think that?

Clothes make a statement about social groups, ethics, and intent. Dressing 'slutty' is sending a message to others. It's not much of an assumption to expect the person to be promiscuous as well. Sometimes, however, it's wrong, so we should try to judge less on appearance and more on actual behavior.

I think it's that women who dress that way are being 'impure' by revealing their bodies, because the word has that connotation of 'impurity'.

No. It's because of the correlation with behavior.

BUT at the same time, dressing a bit more conservatively IS still a good idea in most cases.

Oh?

It may reduce your chances of being assaulted and/or raped slightly (of course, also reducing desired attention at the same time). It's unlikely to reduce overall rape: It's kind of like the joke about the bear.

Two men are hiking, and they run into a bear. One bends down to tie his shoes, and the other says "You can't outrun the bear", to which he replies: "I only have to outrun you".

Beyond that, clothing reduces the chance of catching nasty contact diseases from brushing against other people's skin, keeps you warm (seasonally)/reduces risk of sun burn and skin cancer (seasonally), wards off insects, etc.
And if you ARE assaulted (although not fair) the police will likely take it more seriously.

'normal social standards' are irrelevant, so we shouldn't attack people based on them (since 'slut' is an attack word).

No word is inherently an attack word. And standards are relevant, since they correlate with rational behavior in reducing disease risk. It is a more arbitrary line, going from respectable to suddenly slutty, so perhaps we need to start seeing it more as the spectrum it is.

My quote there isn't about that; it's about that promoting a word that condemns people for being 'impure' promotes the idea of aspiring to 'purity', and therefore promotes abstinence only education etc..

Too many assumptions without evidence. I don't believe it means that, and the evidence I have presented I believe is overwhelming that it doesn't.

Maybe it refers to that, but it's still about 'purity'.

If you start defining "purity" more rationally like that -- putting it into the context of normal modern behavior and risk -- then "purity" is no longer a problem.
You're focusing too much on words here, and reading into them problems that don't exist, or are not solved through language.

Yeah, it gets attention, because it's an attack word that condemns people for arbitrary reasons.

We already saw how it's not an arbitrary reason; it does correlate. In our society, the line just may be a bit arbitrary.

I doubt you think we should go around telling people not to be 'fat-asses' because it would get attention and strike controversy etc., and for the same reason, we shouldn't tell people not to be 'sluts'.

Telling people not to be fat asses may be fine. Depends on the context.

Being fat IS a matter of personal behavior, but unlike slutty behavior it can not be changed overnight. Somebody will continue to be fat even after deciding to change his or her behavior. Somebody can radically change his or her sexual ethics overnight, and no longer be considered a slut.
This is why fat shaming is less useful. The "slut" element affects ongoing behavior more, whereas being fat takes longer to change.

What is unfortunate is when somebody gets labeled "slut", particularly unfairly or due to double standards, and is unable to shake it despite changes in behavior.

Weren't you advocating for shaming in the past?
Changed your mind?

No, it depends on the situation.

Well, when you use the word in that way, you're not really remaining neutral.

Using the word in a way society uses the word? Of course I am.

Total number of times? Why is that relevant?

Total number of sexual partners over time.

I don't think you really addressed my point here about how using 'slut' promotes the mindset that leads to abstinence only education. It seems like you're just saying that that's not what you're advocating for.

I don't believe it does. You're making an unfounded assertion. So, you have to present evidence here.

Anyway, that video barely showed Jenna's video, so I didn't really get the full context of what she was saying so that I could actually understand her point. Apparently she took it down.

I guess because she was flamed for daring to share an opinion that encouraged moderation in sexual practice.

[Red]

I hate to break it to you but all relationships eventually end (whether they end with a break up or whether they end emotionally/physically). You will break up with your first gf and your next and your next. Its just a part of life really. When you start and its potential to last does matter, but your friends will break up with their partners and so will you. You WILL end up heartbroken at some point, whether you are 15 or 40.

....That's what I've been making abundantly clear throughout this entire post.

I wouldn't say that its fair to say that everyone in high school, middle school, college, etc has a girlfriend just because someone is "hot" or wants to have sex. You can't make base assumptions like that: you will find throughout your entire life that some people are together for superficial reasons (regardless of gender) and some people are not. The same applies to high school. I dated in middle school and high school as a chubby, non-feminine, tom-boyish girl that nobody thought was hot.. And I did it because I genuinely loved the guy, no matter how temporary it was.

Did I say everyone? And trust me, 90% of the time, you may care about other attributes, but when it's all said and done, looks are the boss. And people are attracted to other people because they feel attraction differently, or maybe they have a weird fetish. Now it's not like you don't favour somethings over looks. But for the average dick.. yeah, pretty much.

The superficiality of some people and their relationships doesn't end in high school. But I wouldn't agree that having sex in high school is dumb overall: I'd say that one should evaluate their reason for pursuing a sexual relationship.

Even if it does last long, it's still delusional to think that a relationship would last for a really long time.

I also wouldnt say that physical attraction leads to sex or is the main motivator for people to be in a relationship.

Hm. And what makes you say that?

The way you worded your post is.. a little bit insulting "Get your hands on a girl" lol what?

How is it insulting?

You are not hardwired in any way to bang everything you see, thats ridiculous lol

Biology. The main objective of a species is to keep proliferating offspring. More offspring means increased longevity of species. Sex is how we keep making offspring. We are motivated to have sex by physical attraction, at least for the majority (the rest either are unable to produce offspring, or lack sexual attraction, or some other factor). I really shouldn't have to spell this out for you.

[inator]

If an 'American' decided the reasonable number was 4 in the U.S., then it might be reasonable to increase or decrease that number precisely in proportion to relative STD frequency in a new environment. Going to South America, it should perhaps be two. Going to some parts of Europe, maybe eight.

So, a U.S. citizen with 5 partners may be less moral than a European with 7, because of the statistical differences in average behavior and risk
(I didn't look any numbers up, this is just hypothetical).

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.

I think this is something we could easily look at and find good statistics on too (relative frequency of STDs in the populations).

I think this speaks more in favor of "Have safe sex!" than of "Have less sex!".

I'm not saying less sex, though, I'm saying more sex, but with fewer more stable (lasting) partners who have also been tested immediately before and in sexual quarantine while awaiting results (which becomes more practical when you're dealing in fewer longer lasting relationships).
Fewer more lasting partners makes a lot of the strongest precautions easier to implement.

Well…yes and no. Consider this:

- Let’s say condoms are 98% effective. It’s actually more like 100% for HIV and 99,9% for pregnancy, but let’s account for possible malfunctions, like the condom breaking etc. So, with a 2% risk, 1 out of 50 protected sexual acts will be as if you hadn’t used protection.

- Apparently 20% of people have an STD in the US, 1 in 5 (wow…). That percentage would be different in other parts of the world. But in the US you have a 0.02x0.2 risk of getting infected yourself if you always use protection – 1 in 250 sexual acts.

- I’m only interested in the morality of having sex, not what you’re exposing yourself to. Since we’re looking at the risk of you infecting others, we have to multiply that once again by a 1 in 50 chance that the condom malfunctions once you’ve already been infected yourself.

- Also, most STDs give symptoms and can be cured. Even if HIV can’t be cured, treatment can significantly lower the viral load and make it very unlikely for you to infect others, even with unprotected sex. But let’s assume there’s no treatment or cure for any of them and that nobody gets tested ever (since that's difficult to quantify).

You get a 1 in 12500 chance of infecting someone else if you always use condoms. That’s without taking into account available treatment, and taking a large margin of error for condom malfunction. But still, the risk increases the more sex you have. I don’t really see how having few or many partners for those sexual acts can have too much importance, since you’ll probably end up infecting your partner on only one of those 12500 occasions.
It’s very different if you apply all that to unprotected sex, of course. But since longer relationships can often mean less protection….one night stands or multiple short relationships could actually be safer. They may be unideal for other reasons, but not really because of risk and morality.

So, if "Have safe sex" is put into practice, the second advice should really be "Have less sex" instead of "Have fewer partners".
Only if that first condition is not fully met does the number of partners become potentially relevant. But then you need information on average behavior regarding protection, as we discussed.

There are silicone condoms which are reusable; which should be both vegan, and very cheap per orgasm (super sustainable too, without all of the packaging waste).

Oh? Good to know.

Well, when you use the word in that way, you're not really remaining neutral.

Using the word in a way society uses the word? Of course I am.

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. You did explain what's particular about your definition, so it's fine by me.
But it can be a bit confusing for someone who doesn't already know how you think => it's not very pragmatic to insist on using it that way in general.

But if you're talking about self sacrifice, let's take the island scenario with the limited food source; As an altruist, I may insist that he kill and eat me. And let's say he asks me what he should do if he wants to be moral (if it's right to do). I could tell him that although I don't want to die, I want more to be moral, and so he is not violating my net will by killing me -- but it depends on the reason he's killing me. If he's killing me because I offered and willed it, he's fulfilling my will. If he's killing me because he wants to live, he's being selfish, so his action is more of an amoral one. If he's not sure, he can offer to sacrifice himself to me, and I can kill him altruistically to realize his will to be moral, so we get two altruistic actions instead of one.

It doesn't have to really disadvantage him. It's OK to do nice things for people, and for people to do nice things for you. Accepting a gift isn't anti-altruistic. Somebody willed to do something nice for you, so you aren't violating a will.

What you’re describing are situations where solutions can be found to increase the benefits for both. That would also be the best choice in (preference) utilitarianism. Altruism only significantly differs from it where there’s a conflict of interests.

In the you vs. Red cannibalism case (conflict of interests), the selfless thing for you to do won't be to let your will (to be sacrificed/be moral) be enforced instead of his - assuming that he also wants to be altruistic. 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.

Altruists can consider long term consequence, so the least capable and/or least altruistic would be sacrificed for the good of the rest, since each "safe" altruist is thinking about the other eight and what will benefit them.

In large groups, altruism is similar to utilitarianism. Assuming they are all identical, then they would also just draw straws or something -- who gets the honor of dying to save everybody, instead of who has to die.

You're pretty much saying that, in extreme situations, altruists should become utilitarians. Which makes sense, since there’s really not much difference between those two in normal situations anyway.

Drawing straws doesn't work because 9 altruists get their wills to be moral denied. If each of their will is for the other 9's wills to be enforced, then the only selfless conclusion for each and every one of them - in order to meet as many preferences as possible (excluding their own) - is: I should not die no matter what. And they end up in the egoists' situation.
There's really no way out of this unless one of them settles for less altruism and acts against the others’ will to sacrifice themselves.

Since there are no outside consequences, it basically doesn't matter who kills whom, just the reasons it's done.

It does matter who kills who if you take your personal (be it altruistic or egoistic) point of view instead of the objective point of view.

Unless you're willing to consider the rapist as good for raping somebody, because he received slightly more pleasure than the other suffered, it must be a dichotomy of requiring maximization.
Altruism is different, since it doesn't allow this behavior as good at all, so understanding things in terms of gradation is more practical.

You can bypass this problem:
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.
2. if you look at preferences. You don't maximize overall happiness, but the number of preferences being met.
If the victim has the preference/will to not be raped ever, they project it for the future too - it doesn't matter that they're unconscious in that moment. Otherwise it's like saying that if you make the animals unconscious first, then you can kill them. But preference utilitarians don't believe that.

Think about it, even for an altruist: If the victim is unconscious (and we disregard the risk of infection), then raping her isn’t morally good - since you disregard your own pleasure, but also not wrong - since the victim doesn’t have a will in that particular moment. Rape simply becomes amoral.

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.

[atheistarfroot]

Did I say everyone? And trust me, 90% of the time, you may care about other attributes, but when it's all said and done, looks are the boss. And people are attracted to other people because they feel attraction differently, or maybe they have a weird fetish. Now it's not like you don't favour somethings over looks. But for the average dick.. yeah, pretty much.

Lol no, looks are the least important thing to me, they are not the boss. I could give 2 rat turds how you look compared to your behavior, how you treat others, your personality, your hobbies, etc. I'm not saying I'm 100% non-superficial (because NO ONE is) but I honestly don't give a shit about looks. Men are socialized to care about looks more than women, its not biological at all. You are taught that your worth is directly correlated to how "hot" your gf or wife is. (The fact that you care so much that your friends are asking you why you dont have a gf is proof of this). You're taught that men are "visual creatures" even though your brain and my brain are exactly the same, we have the same visual cortex. It's all bullshit.

Even if it does last long, it's still delusional to think that a relationship would last for a really long time.

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.

Hm. And what makes you say that?

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.

People don't get into relationships to have sex lol thats ridiculous. Anyone can have sex: you can go outside and ask a stranger to fuck and they might say yes. Sex is overall mostly meaningless. And if you can get sex anywhere, then why get into a relationship? 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.

Biology. The main objective of a species is to keep proliferating offspring. More offspring means increased longevity of species. Sex is how we keep making offspring. We are motivated to have sex by physical attraction, at least for the majority (the rest either are unable to produce offspring, or lack sexual attraction, or some other factor). I really shouldn't have to spell this out for you.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.