Having lots of friends is slutty.

[waif]

Hi, Elias...


Norsemaiden, are you a Mormon?

Anyhow...
You have a point...except that you're wrong. In this I mean that while you definitely make a good point saying that we have to look at this objectively, I take issue with your objective analysis.

America is a hotbed of sexual promiscuity. Do we have issues? Yes, but compare us to the Middle East. No sexual promiscuity tolerated. Issues? Yes.
Obviously, sexual promiscuity isn't the root of these issues, but neither is it the problem in your Africa example. What is the real problem? The answer probably uses a couple of these words: AIDS, civil war, genocide, corruption, poverty, rape, disease, starvation, and exploitation.
Your point about a father lacking confidence that his children are his is moot in this day and age of handy things like DNA testing.

With sexual competition...isn't a promiscuous society less competitive? With monogamous relationships you play for keeps. In a promiscuous society, you might not get there first, but you have a better chance of getting there.

Also, what do you mean by societies stalling? If you mean they don't have as many kids as they could, that's a good thing. The last thing the world needs is more people.

With regard to what Lastmen said about extreme politics, I somewhat disagree. I think it's obviously idealistic rather than something anyone is actually trying to accomplish. If I'm wrong about this, then I take it back, and you guys really are morons. If I'm right then it's fine, except that I also take issue with points 2 and 6 of the credo, as they're really stupid. Other than that, it's fine.

Also, just fyi, gay people can get AIDS too.

 

[FerretallicA]

Ok, but how many of those are sex's fault? Disease? If people were good about testing, condoms, and hygiene, shouldn't be an issue. Sexual violence? if people weren't assholes, wouldn't happen. Unwanted children? If people weren't total dumbfucks about condoms and birth control and certain backwards morons would stop whining about abortion, wouldn't be a problem.

If people weren't such hopeless whorebags, sex wouldn't be a problem either. :Smug:

Also, just fyi, gay people can get AIDS too.

Too? Aren't gays the whole point of AIDS?

 

[waif]

my point exactly.

 

[laxman]

reading that entire thing degraded me moraly

 

[waif]

general consensus is that it's pretty much nine pages of fail that will take off at least three IQ points,

 

[Alex78]

Norsemaiden, I'm always tempted to read your comments until I check out your links. Then I realize that someone who advocates for a drug friendly, society of racially segregated polygamists can't really be worth reading.

true

 

[Einherjar86]

Sexual promiscuity causes a lot of trouble in society because it spreads disease, can be linked to sexual violence, causes unwanted children to be born who don't know their fathers and cheapens the whole idea of love.

On the contrary, sex is the most basic and animalistic of instincts. We as humans have completely polluted the notion of sex by linking it with "true love" and "marriage." Consider this; what most defines a marriage? I would answer the sharing and divulging of secrets between two lovers. The deep and intellectual conversation that you have over a private dinner or while lying in bed.

That to me defines a loving marriage.

And yet what is considered cheating? Not when you speak intellectually or confidentially with a member of the opposite sex, but when you engage in the act of intercourse with him or her.

The sanctity of sex is overrated. Sex, in its most basic form, is the union of a man and woman in order to procreate. There is no form of deeper or higher love there; only an instinctual sense of attraction. The human race has attributed too much romantic sensibility to the act of sex.

 

[waif]

Well said. I agree completely.

Not that it should be wrong to talk with other women...

 

[Einherjar86]

Oh, not at all. Everyone needs friends to confide in other than their spouses; ironically, that's how some marriages stay together.

However, maybe it should be RIGHT to be able to have sex with other women...

 

[Blowtus]

It isn't WRONG at the moment. All you have to do is convince your partner it's a good idea...

 

[waif]

That's true, and that's a recent development - I think perhaps people, at least in western society, are beginning to realize that sex isn't such a big deal, so such open relationships are becoming more common. Although some would have it that this is a sign of the decay of our society.

 

[WeAreTheLastMen]

That's true, and that's a recent development - I think perhaps people, at least in western society, are beginning to realize that sex isn't such a big deal, so such open relationships are becoming more common. Although some would have it that this is a sign of the decay of our society.

Depending on how common you think open relationships are becoming, I would certainly see it that way. I'm not really down with the open relationships, I think it's kind of a ridiculous concept. If you want to have a lot of sex, you just go right ahead, but don't try to pretend you're in a relationship. That's just fucking stupid.

 

[waif]

I think open relationships are a bad call, overall...the whole point is that you don't fuck other people.

Look at it this way:
If you have sex with other people and you talk with other people then you and your partner don't really share anything exclusively.

I'm not promoting open relationships.

 

[Pyro_Fish]

Cheapens the whole idea of love? I don't see how...Actually, if sex is easy to get, and there's no need for a relationship then wouldn't that make each relationship stronger, since there was no ulterior motive other than romantic (and not sexual) interest in the other partner? That's one interesting point that came up in that monster post (not that that moron did it on purpose) - the division between romantic interest and sexual drive.

sex drive is self-ish
love is self-less
the first post is saying that having multiple friends is slutty by purpousfully blurring the line between "romantic love" (loving boyfriend/girlfreind/spouse) and "non-romantic" love (loving siblings/parents/children)
the first post is basically saying that "love-ing" multiple platonic friends, is, morally, the same as feeling "romantic love" for multiple people

 

[Pyro_Fish]

I think open relationships are a bad call, If you have sex with other people and you talk with other people then you and your partner don't really share anything exclusively.

I'm not promoting open relationships.

the thing that you end up sharing exclusively in a "relationship" doesn't neccasarrily have to be the sex part, that's merely a Christian concept

i don't believe in sexual monogomy, biologically it's just not normal

if i'm having sex with someone and somebody else says to me "i've never told anyone this before...." and then tells me something deeply personal, i'm gonna feel a much stronger emotional attachment to that person than the person i'm actually having sex with, then if the person who told me their deep dark secret went out and told that secret to somebody else, i'm gonna feel more betrayed than if the person i'm having sex with ends up having sex with someone else

 

[Pyro_Fish]

On the contrary, sex is the most basic and animalistic of instincts. We as humans have completely polluted the notion of sex by linking it with "true love" and "marriage." Consider this; what most defines a marriage? I would answer the sharing and divulging of secrets between two lovers. The deep and intellectual conversation that you have over a private dinner or while lying in bed.

That to me defines a loving marriage.

And yet what is considered cheating? Not when you speak intellectually or confidentially with a member of the opposite sex, but when you engage in the act of intercourse with him or her.

The sanctity of sex is overrated. Sex, in its most basic form, is the union of a man and woman in order to procreate. There is no form of deeper or higher love there; only an instinctual sense of attraction. The human race has attributed too much romantic sensibility to the act of sex.

i completely agree with this post

 

[St. Onan]

Selectivity = upward, willlessness = downward.

 

[waif]

1. Avoid epic bumps
2. Ignore pyrofish. He's banned for a reason.

 

[WeAreTheLastMen]

On the contrary, sex is the most basic and animalistic of instincts. We as humans have completely polluted the notion of sex by linking it with "true love" and "marriage." Consider this; what most defines a marriage? I would answer the sharing and divulging of secrets between two lovers. The deep and intellectual conversation that you have over a private dinner or while lying in bed.

That's the dumbest thing I've heard in five weeks.

 

[waif]

Actually, I think he's right. Only I would replace the word "marriage" with "relationship"