Having a Girlfriend

[EquALLity]

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.

Yeah, that's fair.

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).

True, but note that many republican states have a lot of obstacles set in place to deter women from getting abortions.

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

Some people can use cocaine casually?
That's not what they teach us in health class. I guess that's because they don't want people to hear that and feel more at ease with the idea of doing cocaine.

Since it amounts to pretty much everybody, you can just make the assumption.

Do you have a source for that?

Somewhere between 9% and 66%.

Oh, wow...

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.

Hm, ok.

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.

If it's not about 'purity', why do you think that religions encourage modesty (including merely for clothing)? Because they're worried that revealing clothing will give you STDs?
If it's not about 'purity', and really about STDs, why the double standard (the application of it to women but not to men)?

If 'purity' isn't the driving force behind abstinence only education, what do you think it is?
It's not about safety/STDs, because it has been proven to be less effective than actual sex education in increasing safety.
Also: http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/04 ... -assembly/

George Washington High School recently hosted a conservative speaker, Pam Stenzel, who travels around the country to advocate an abstinence-only approach to teen sexuality. Stenzel has a long history of using inflammatory rhetoric to convince young people that they will face dire consequences for becoming sexually active. At GW’s assembly, Stenzel allegedly told students that “if you take birth control, your mother probably hates you” and “I could look at any one of you in the eyes right now and tell if you’re going to be promiscuous.” She also asserted that condoms aren’t safe, and every instance of sexual contact will lead to a sexually transmitted infection.
Campbell refused to attend the assembly, which was funded by a conservative religious organization called “Believe in West Virginia” and advertised with fliers that proclaimed “God’s plan for sexual purity.” Instead, she filed a complaint with the ACLU and began to speak out about her objections to this type of school-sponsored event. Campbell called Stenzel’s presentation “slut shaming” and said that it made many students uncomfortable.

Obviously these claims are ridiculous, and everyone involved in organizing this assembly knows that. So they have some kind of hidden agenda here. It's not about safety. It's about "God's plan for sexual purity."

Why do you think they often teach that it's wrong simply to have sex before marriage? What does that have to do with safety?
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/public ... ?task=view

There are much worse lessons that they teach than that stuff, too.

Then you have heard it directed toward men, and you should more in the future.

Not really. I decided to look up 'slut' on to see what showed up (males vs. females), and I found this one meme that had the term 'man-whore', and I thought it sounded familiar.
That's not really anything meaningful.

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

I've never viewed that website before, but it's interesting that it has similar conclusions.

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

If clothing is only just a potential notifier of promiscuity, and not any kind of problem itself, and the issue people sometimes have with revealing clothing is not about 'purity', then why do major religions teach specifically to dress modestly?

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.

I don't think it's a healthy idea to constantly be worrying about rape to the extent that you are dressing in certain ways to avoid it.

Some of those other benefits are fair, though it can also overheat you in the summer.
You can just use sunscreen and bug spray.

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.

Sure, it's not inherently an attack word. That's just how it's almost always used.
Like eating meat isn't inherently wrong, because you may be doing it so that you don't starve in some third world country, or something.

'Normal social standards' may happen to correlate with rational behavior there, but that is accidental. They just happen to be right then. They're not reliable in any sense to be right, so it's not a good idea to base decisions off of them.

I don't believe it means that, and the evidence I have presented I believe is overwhelming that it doesn't.

What evidence have you presented about the connotation of 'slut'?
Are you talking about the definitions?

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.

Ok, if you change the negative (religious etc.) connotation of the word, it's no longer a problem... But that's not how it's really used.

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'm not saying that it's arbitrary as in that amount of sexual partners is generally irrelevant, or something.
I'm saying that it's arbitrary because it condemns people for being 'impure' as a result of sex, not for being unethical (in a rational way) or unsafe.

It sounded like you acknowledged that 'slut' has the connotation I'm talking about before.

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

It sounds like you said that 'slut' is indeed not really about safety, and is about something irrational, but that it indirectly promotes safety.

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

Yeah, sure. Everything depends on context.

Can you give me an example of a time you think it'd be acceptable?

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

Not when society has taken a side.

Do you think that Christians are remaining neutral when they talk about the existence of Jesus, because (American) society typically accepts his existence?

Total number of sexual partners over time.

Oh, well that's different from the amount of times a person has had sex.

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

Did you see the original video?

[brimstoneSalad]

That's not what they teach us in health class. I guess that's because they don't want people to hear that and feel more at ease with the idea of doing cocaine.

Right.

Since it amounts to pretty much everybody, you can just make the assumption.

Do you have a source for that?

No idea what you're talking about.

If it's not about 'purity', why do you think that religions encourage modesty (including merely for clothing)? Because they're worried that revealing clothing will give you STDs?

The same reason the often police do, to reduce the change of rape.

If it's not about 'purity', and really about STDs, why the double standard (the application of it to women but not to men)?

Men are less likely to be raped by women, so dressing immodestly doesn't mean much.

As I also explained to inator, because men have traditionally ruled society (mostly, anyway).

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

https://theveganatheist.com/forum/viewt ... 545#p16545

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

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

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

If 'purity' isn't the driving force behind abstinence only education, what do you think it is?
It's not about safety/STDs, because it has been proven to be less effective than actual sex education in increasing safety.

I was saying the concept of sluttiness isn't just driven by some ungrounded notion of purity -- there are social and physiological effects that underpin many of these attitudes rather than dogmatic virtue-based notions of purity for its own sake.
I'm not making any representations of rationality for modern conservatives. Abstinence only education is moronic.

Everybody should know about birth control. But beyond that be abstinent (or enjoy safer practices like hand jobs and fingering with good hygiene), until finding a longer term relationship where you can establish a closed circle of sexual partners.

Why do you think they often teach that it's wrong simply to have sex before marriage? What does that have to do with safety?

Again, not saying conservatives today aren't crazy.

Marriage is irrelevant, but a lengthy commitment of a closed circle is important.

I don't think it's a healthy idea to constantly be worrying about rape to the extent that you are dressing in certain ways to avoid it.

Which may be in part why they encourage conservative dress and don't say why -- because they don't want to scare people?

Some of those other benefits are fair, though it can also overheat you in the summer.

The summer is when you need to cover up most, because of UV.

You can just use sunscreen and bug spray.

Today you can to a degree. Hundreds of years ago, not so much.
Bug spray, even now, is of limited utility unless it's really nasty (stinky stuff). And only pasty zinc based sunscreen offers the best protection.
Clothing is still best. Really huge wide brimmed hats are good though. And umbrellas.

Sure, it's not inherently an attack word. That's just how it's almost always used.
Like eating meat isn't inherently wrong, because you may be doing it so that you don't starve in some third world country, or something.

Unlike meat, we can simply change the connotations of words by using them differently every day.

Are you talking about the definitions?

Yes.
Connotation is almost impossible to pin down, so arguing over it is kind of futile -- particularly since we can just choose to change it by using words differently.

I'm saying that it's arbitrary because it condemns people for being 'impure' as a result of sex, not for being unethical (in a rational way) or unsafe.

But not only does "impurity" come from those associations (think about how most things in mythology have roots in something real that was exaggerated), I used it in that way pretty explicitly.

It sounds like you said that 'slut' is indeed not really about safety, and is about something irrational, but that it indirectly promotes safety.

People don't know it's about safety. The same way giant sea monsters are probably about freak storms or tides; there is a danger there, but people can misidentify it because they can't understand the real reasons well.

Can you give me an example of a time you think it'd be acceptable?

Penn and teller did something like that pretty well in their episode on it, when he said "Just stop fucking eating so much".
In a positive context of "you can change", it's more useful as long as you're convincing and not just mean spirited.

Do you think that Christians are remaining neutral when they talk about the existence of Jesus, because (American) society typically accepts his existence?

You can't define a thing into existence, but can define a word into definition.

Oh, well that's different from the amount of times a person has had sex.

Yes. Maximize your lifetime sex while minimizing partners. Best way to do that is long term relationships with friends... and not in high school, since that is unfortunately prone to be very short term. The same is likely true in university; kids are not very mature, and in order to find somebody mature with whom you share enough to sustain a longer term relationship, you'll usually have to look in a broader geographic range (not in a tiny sample size that is your school's student body).

Did you see the original video?

Apparently it was deleted. Can you find it?

[EquALLity]

No idea what you're talking about.

Do you have a source for most people being liars in the way you're describing?

The same reason the often police do, to reduce the change of rape.

I've never heard of police doing it.
But that does not seem to be the reasoning Christianity uses.

If a woman professes to be a Christian yet she dresses in a way that will unduly draw attention to her body, she is a poor witness of the One who bought her soul by dying for her on the cross. She is forgetting that her body has been redeemed by Christ and is now the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19–20). She is telling the world that she determines her own worth on a purely physical basis and that her attractiveness depends on how much of her body she reveals to them. Further, by dressing in an immodest fashion, displaying her body for men to lust after, she causes her brothers in Christ to sin, something condemned by God (Matthew 5:27–29). Proverbs 7:10 mentions a woman “dressed like a prostitute and with crafty intent”—here, the woman’s heart condition is displayed by her manner of dress.

She avoids clothing designed to draw attention to her body and cause men to lust, for she is wise enough to know that type of attention only cheapens her.

http://www.gotquestions.org/dress-modestly.html

Sounds extremely slanted towards 'purity'. It 'cheapens' her, because she her body is the temple of the 'Holy Spirit'.

It does say that 'modest dress' also applies to men 'in principle', whatever they mean by that. They don't ever mention anymore about it in the article.

I was saying the concept of sluttiness isn't just driven by some ungrounded notion of purity -- there are social and physiological effects that underpin many of these attitudes rather than dogmatic virtue-based notions of purity for its own sake.
I'm not making any representations of rationality for modern conservatives. Abstinence only education is moronic.

Everybody should know about birth control. But beyond that be abstinent (or enjoy safer practices like hand jobs and fingering with good hygiene), until finding a longer term relationship where you can establish a closed circle of sexual partners.

So you weren't saying that abstinence only 'education' is not driven by purity?
In which case, I don't see why you find it hard to believe that sluttiness is similar. In abstinence only 'education', they essentially teach that anybody who isn't a virgin is 'impure' and 'dirty'... a 'slut'.

Again, not saying conservatives today aren't crazy.

I didn't think you were supporting that; I brought it up to illustrate that abstinence only 'education' is about 'purity', not safety.

Which may be in part why they encourage conservative dress and don't say why -- because they don't want to scare people?

Their religion is based off of doing what they perceive as good so that you don't end up being tortured for all of eternity.
It doesn't really sound like they take issue with scaring people.

The summer is when you need to cover up most, because of UV.

It's super hot, though, so that's not always practical.

Today you can to a degree. Hundreds of years ago, not so much.

...Hundreds of years ago? Er, ok? But we don't live hundreds of years ago.
Unless you're using that as another explanation as to why people want women to cover up? But then why not men?
And sunburn, but not notions of 'purity'?

Bug spray, even now, is of limited utility unless it's really nasty (stinky stuff). And only pasty zinc based sunscreen offers the best protection.

I don't go outdoors for extended periods of time usually, anyway, and I don't live in Africa, so I'm not too worried about bug bites.

Unlike meat, we can simply change the connotations of words by using them differently every day.

Alright, but they're going to take on the connotation society gives them unless you make it very clear that you're using the word differently.
It's like saying you can change meat-eating by telling people that meat is healthy, while really meaning vegan 'meat', without actually making that obvious.

And even if you do make these things clear, you may just confuse people.

Yes.
Connotation is almost impossible to pin down, so arguing over it is kind of futile -- particularly since we can just choose to change it by using words differently.

I don't think it's always so hard to pin down. You can use certain elements of society that relate to words to figure out connotation.

But not only does "impurity" come from those associations (think about how most things in mythology have roots in something real that was exaggerated), I used it in that way pretty explicitly.

Are you acknowledging that 'purity' plays a role here?

People don't know it's about safety. The same way giant sea monsters are probably about freak storms or tides; there is a danger there, but people can misidentify it because they can't understand the real reasons well.

So then what do you think that they think it's about?
Not purity, apparently (I think?)... So what, then?

Penn and teller did something like that pretty well in their episode on it, when he said "Just stop fucking eating so much".
In a positive context of "you can change", it's more useful as long as you're convincing and not just mean spirited.

Do you have studies about the efficacy of this stuff?

You can't define a thing into existence, but can define a word into definition.

I don't see why this is relevant.

In both situations, it is irrelevant as to whether or not you're taking a side by doing something that society is doing.
If society takes a side, and you do what society does, you are taking a side.

And what do you mean, you can define a word into definition?
If you use the word the way society does, you are not changing the meaning of the word.

Apparently it was deleted. Can you find it?

I don't want to see it so badly, I was just wondering if you actually saw it (or else what are you basing your judgement about it on?).

Found it, though. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoOEQ9sas9g

It's entirely about women, for one thing.
Also, she said, "Like John Mayer said, your body is a Wonderland, but you know what? It's your choice if you want Wonderland to be an exclusive club, like VIP you gotta wait in line forever to get into the club, or if you want Wonderland to be like a theme park where kids get in for free with a canned good."
As if you're 'cheapening' your body by being promiscuous... because it's not about 'purity'?

She does make quite a few good points about safety, but it makes a lot of sense to say this video has problems.

[brimstoneSalad]

Do you have a source for most people being liars in the way you're describing?

What way was I describing?

It 'cheapens' her, because she her body is the temple of the 'Holy Spirit'.

This is somewhat true in terms of sexual and relationship economics, but it applied more when there was a concept of ownership and dowry.

It does say that 'modest dress' also applies to men 'in principle', whatever they mean by that. They don't ever mention anymore about it in the article.

Because in practice men aren't dressing sexually to show off their bodies, or at least in a way they can see it.

Although men have dressed this way in the past, and not many people complained -- probably because they saw women to be less forcefully driven to lust by it, and that there is both a lower danger of rape, and men have had more social freedom by being the dominant sex so their choices were harder to question.

So you weren't saying that abstinence only 'education' is not driven by purity?

I wasn't saying anything about abstinence only education. You're the one who brought it up, and I said I didn't agree with it.

In which case, I don't see why you find it hard to believe that sluttiness is similar. In abstinence only 'education', they essentially teach that anybody who isn't a virgin is 'impure' and 'dirty'... a 'slut'.

No, in abstinence only education they also refrain from sharing important information.
It's fine to convey negative social attitudes about promiscuity (maybe even in an extreme degree), but it's not fine to discount somebody's safety entirely if those attitudes are rejected.

But as I said, although fundamentalists may consider all non-married non-virgins to be sluts, that's not the general attitude. They are misappropriating the word to an extreme degree -- they are simply wrong. Having sex in a committed long term relationship with testing and protection outside of marriage doesn't make somebody a slut (that's the baseline of normal expected social responsibility -- "slut" loses all meaning if you apply it to those situations).

Even using the words incorrectly, this wouldn't be as much of a problem if they also educated about the grey areas. They're laying out a black and white of sexual morality, and that's not helpful.

I didn't think you were supporting that; I brought it up to illustrate that abstinence only 'education' is about 'purity', not safety.

I'm not defending abstinence only education.

Their religion is based off of doing what they perceive as good so that you don't end up being tortured for all of eternity.
It doesn't really sound like they take issue with scaring people.

That's scaring somebody into a belief, and it's easily overcome by just accepting Jesus or whatever; its crucial for the survival of their belief in spite of evidence. Scaring girls by teaching them about the rapists lurking everywhere is not; you can't overcome that by just accepting Jesus.

You should dress conservatively. Why?

1. Because god wants you to.
2. Because if you don't you may be gang raped and murdered in an ally.

One of these is considered appropriate for Sunday school, the other is not.

Of course, it's worth mentioning that they don't actually care much when disobedient girls get raped -- they disobeyed god, so they deserve it, right? So if #1 doesn't work, they don't care about the consequences of not sharing the legitimate point of #2 (they think #1 should be enough to convince any good person).

It's super hot, though, so that's not always practical.

Of course. Much less so for men, though, who traditionally worked outside. Although they also really need it: men think they're too tough to get skin cancer or something.

Unless you're using that as another explanation as to why people want women to cover up? But then why not men?
And sunburn, but not notions of 'purity'?

My point is that most of these ideas in religion have origins in practical matters.

Alright, but they're going to take on the connotation society gives them unless you make it very clear that you're using the word differently.

Sure. As it stands, though, unless you're talking to a bunch of bible thumpers, "slut" doesn't mean somebody who has safer sex in the context of a long term relationship. And I wasn't talking to a bunch of bible thumpers. I don't feel like I should have to negate their irrelevant definitions just to use a word.

Every time you use the word "evolution" do you make clear that you mean it in the scientific context, and not the bible thumper definition of "Sudden random change from slime to human unsupported by evidence and which encourages immorality"?

Bible thumpers don't get to define our words for us.

It's like saying you can change meat-eating by telling people that meat is healthy, while really meaning vegan 'meat', without actually making that obvious.

That's kind of what Beyond meat does. It's brilliant marketing.

"Real meat. 100% plant protein."

I don't think it's always so hard to pin down. You can use certain elements of society that relate to words to figure out connotation.

No you can't. You can't just say something like: The Fundamentalists use the word "slut" and they advocate abstinence only education, and use the word along side purity, that means if you aren't a 100% sexually pure virgin then you're a slut, so if you use the word "slut" it means you are advocating their ideas of purity.

That's not how it works. Fundamentalists do not own words. Society at large does not call unmarried women who have sex in committed relationships sluts. It means nothing of the sort.

Dictionaries do actual research, and consult usage panels -- far more valid a method than my or your personal opinion, or that of any random fundamentalist who may have suggested another definition.

Look to dictionaries to discover credible meanings to words. Arguing about connotation is not useful. Unless you're going to bring real evidence to the table (which means statistically valid surveys of usage and opinion), you should try to avoid contradicting dictionary definitions with vague notions that this or that has a particular connotation.

This is also why it's important to use it to address men too (and specify this) so we can overcome the gender bias in these definitions (which comes from a gender bias in our language). If we apply it to men more often, the dictionary will be updated.

Are you acknowledging that 'purity' plays a role here?

Not what you're calling "purity" in the fundamentalist sense.

"Slut" is a state of more extreme promiscuity with certain earned negative associations due to the implication of risk in that behavior. It is NOT merely having sexual partners. So avoiding the label doesn't require somebody to be sexually pure in the fundamentalist sense; only to be more sensible and less promiscuous (not "pure").

The concept of purity itself may have sensible roots, but for fundamentalists, they may have lost touch with those to the degree that with modern understanding of disease theory, they can't find the link anymore. They're just stuck on the "god said so and will punish you with disease if you disobey" excuse which is all people could think of before germ theory explained why we shouldn't do these things.

So then what do you think that they think it's about?
Not purity, apparently (I think?)... So what, then?

People usually don't think about things that much.

Do you have studies about the efficacy of this stuff?

No, but neither is there any study against it. And it was a popular episode.

There are studies on overt shaming, and only in those specific cases do we have a good argument to make against the usage.

Remember: Err on the side of freedom of speech.
If you don't have evidence of what somebody's saying being harmful, and they're trying to be helpful/opinions differ, the chances of it being helpful are probably higher than not (or at least as good as what you're doing). It may not be maximally effective altruism (there may be better things to say) but if you don't have evidence of something better it doesn't make much sense to argue against it.

This is the same kind of issue I have with Gary Yourofsky: I can't really say if he's being more helpful or harmful in certain contexts. Some things he says are more clearly harmful (when he's really harsh on something), but on average it's harder to say, and some of his hard hitting stuff has limited evidence of success based on anecdotes.

Anyway, this comes down to an issue of burden of proof. If you don't like how somebody is saying something, you need some evidence to back yourself up to prove it's harmful (or that something else is better).

If society takes a side, and you do what society does, you are taking a side.

In this case, the definition society has given the word is only a problem because it applies to women more than men, so I was clear that I meant men too.
In my deviation from the social definition, I was clear. Otherwise, there's no problem because for society at large it's not about purity. Again, fundamentalists don't get to own this word.

And what do you mean, you can define a word into definition?
If you use the word the way society does, you are not changing the meaning of the word.

In this case, I am helping to apply to also to men. So, I noted the difference in my usage. This was the aspect of meaning that needed to be changed.

You can define words into definition by using them differently, and as one of millions doing that, change the trend of the definition.
The definition of atheism has changed pretty quickly, and dictionaries are reflecting that.

Check it (this is pretty awesome):

a·the·ist
ˈāTHēəst/
noun
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
"he is a committed atheist"

About five years ago IIRC, it was "a person who denies the existence of god. 2. An amoral person"

In a couple years, the definition for slut could read: "a person who has many casual sexual partners."

Definitions change. The older members here who have been around in these circles for a few years have seen it happen. It's not as hard as you may think, and it only takes a few people to get it started.

It's entirely about women, for one thing.

That's fine. You don't have to give advice to everybody, I assume that's because of her audience, or she just cares about girls more. If anything, I'd say it's insulting to men to ignore them and not try to help boys with advice too, but anyway...

Also, she said, "Like John Mayer said, your body is a Wonderland, but you know what? It's your choice if you want Wonderland to be an exclusive club, like VIP you gotta wait in line forever to get into the club, or if you want Wonderland to be like a theme park where kids get in for free with a canned good."
As if you're 'cheapening' your body by being promiscuous... because it's not about 'purity'?

No, that's not about purity. She seems pretty clear that she's not saying no sex before marriage.
It was a cute little analogy. It's a little romantic, but that's fine if it's doing something good.

Consider the vegan argument which talks about how gross meat is. It's not about being gross, but thinking about how gross it is might encourage people to go vegan too, in addition to the more rational moral arguments. Rational and irrational arguments can be paired, and may be effective, as long as the irrational arguments don't damage the credibility of the rational ones.

[Red]

Ok this just happened a few minutes ago.

I was in bed, just started to close my eyes, when I heard constant and consistent, say, moans of arousal coming from the basement, along with a few slaps. Was I having a wet dream? I did a few reality checks, and this was still real life. My brother was in the basement, and brought a friend, so to speak. I checked to see if my parents were awake, but they were out cold. I was planning on going downstairs to see what's up, but first of all my stairs are creaky as hell, so they'll know if someone is coming, secondly it would be rude, thirdly I'm naked (would be a funnier story if I actually went downstairs), and fourthly I don't want to see that. I wasn't even getting aroused, which was very unlike me. So I just laid there with my eyes wide open facing the wall opposite my door, unblinking due to the noise. I think I will refuse to get a moment of sleep until the sun comes up.

What do you guys think of this experience? Should I confront my brother? Tell my parents? It's a pretty traumatizing, yet funny, experience to be honest.

[EquALLity]

Ok this just happened a few minutes ago.

I was in bed, just started to close my eyes, when I heard constant and consistent, say, moans of arousal coming from the basement, along with a few slaps. Was I having a wet dream? I did a few reality checks, and this was still real life. My brother was in the basement, and brought a friend, so to speak. I checked to see if my parents were awake, but they were out cold. I was planning on going downstairs to see what's up, but first of all my stairs are creaky as hell, so they'll know if someone is coming, secondly it would be rude, thirdly I'm naked (would be a funnier story if I actually went downstairs), and fourthly I don't want to see that. I wasn't even getting aroused, which was very unlike me. So I just laid there with my eyes wide open facing the wall opposite my door, unblinking due to the noise. I think I will refuse to get a moment of sleep until the sun comes up.

What do you guys think of this experience? Should I confront my brother? Tell my parents? It's a pretty traumatizing, yet funny, experience to be honest.

Hahaha.

How old is your brother?
It sounds like maybe they were being sexual. So what, though?

I don't think you should tell your parents. What would be the point of them knowing? It would probably just make your brother feel angry/betrayed/embarrassed.

As for asking your brother about it, I'm not sure. Just don't do it tonight...

[brimstoneSalad]

Typically, you should pound on the floor as a way to say "keep it down", if it doesn't stop, go down there (wearing clothes) and ask.

[Red]

How old is your brother?

Fresh outta high school. I forgot to mention that. I wanted to tell him about the risks of sex in high school. Technically.

It sounds like maybe they were being sexual. So what, though?

Trust me, it's awkward.

I don't think you should tell your parents. What would be the point of them knowing? It would probably just make your brother feel angry/betrayed/embarrassed.

I'm pretty sure he wouldn't care.

As for asking your brother about it, I'm not sure. Just don't do it tonight...

ok

[Red]

Typically, you should pound on the floor as a way to say "keep it down",

Like with a broom?

if it doesn't stop, go down there (wearing clothes) and ask.

Then what should I ask? "Do you mind if you guys stopped fucking so I can get some sleep?"

[brimstoneSalad]

Whatever you want. If he's over 18, then tell your parents and explain to them that you can't sleep because of all of the sex, and that your grades will suffer.

They can tell him to keep it down, and if he does not keep it down, they can kick him out. Problem solved. He can get his own place.