Page 3 of 5
#81
Quote by captaincrunk
You essentially stated that people who prefer monogamy are emotionally stunted.(1) You know what that implies, right? People with stunted growth are shorter than the average. What would an emotionally stunted person look like?(2)


(1) No I didn't. What I actually meant (whether the fault lies with my communication, or whether the fault lies with your understanding of my expression, or some mixture of the two) was that people who are in monogamous relationships as a result of an inability to hold emotional relationships (as in, family relationships, romantic relationships, friendships, etc.) are emotionally stunted.

Hell, whether such people are in monogamous relationships is entirely superfluous, they are still emotionally stunted in some way.

(2)Perhaps 'stunted' is not the right word. I don't mean any pejorative connotations, only that they are involuntarily inhibited in some sense.



But you did! It's the context that makes this the case. You said that some people are too emotionally stunted to have emotional relationships with multiple people.(3) Given that this is a thread about sexual partners, I can only assume those people you refer to are sexually active people.

It doesn't have to be negative to be wrong.(4)

(3) Partially true. However, I should have distinguished between an involuntary inability to feel romantic love for multiple people and a choice to refuse to entertain the notion of engaging in multiple romantic relationships as a matter of ethical consideration or sense of duty.

I am only talking about the former, not the latter.

(4)I'm not judging them whatsoever, I apologise for the ambiguity.


Given the nature of my family and past employment, I think you'd better drop this line of reasoning.

Don't take it to heart, cuntcandle. It's just how I talk.

Yes, I edited that out before you quoted me, it was a cheap shot and I apologise for that also.
Last edited by TooktheAtrain at Sep 24, 2012,
#82
Quote by Bad Kharmel
It's considered wrong for several reasons, the obvious are the spread of disease and that if a woman gets pregnant and the man hasn't said he'll be around then she is kind of screwed, she has a baby a difficulty procuring enough resources for herself and said child. Less obvious is that it can screw with the bonding system in the brain, ocytocin (a neurotransmitter linked with bonding, its released during sex, childbirth and nursing) is released and the the nucleus accumbens sparkles with dopamine projections which leads to happy, but in extreme circumstances (such as the woman not really feeling good about the idea of having sex ie rape or even just being taken advantage of) then they end up feeling good when they want to feel bad, and both trust and mistrust for the person they had sex with, and it makes for all kinds of nasty cognitive dissonance to get through. Since casual sex is link quite often with alcohol these problems tend to easily present themselves. Also, its important to note that it may be psychologically damaging to bond with someone and have them leave and never come back especially multiple times and lead to bonding problems, early cultures notice bonding problems with prostitutes that aren't present in less experienced woman, and zip bam boom you've got yourself a morality problem

Some good points.

But could you paragraph a bit better? It just makes things very hard to read.
Breakfast, Breakfast, it's great for us
We eat, we eat, we eat
That frozen meat
Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy, it can't be beat
#83
Quote by captaincrunk
So it's okay to force some things but not others? And it happens to be the things you're okay with that can be forced? Funny that, huh?
Perhaps my phrasing was too extreme. I don't think people should be "forced" into believing anything. They have the right to be judgmental of others who engage in practices they find immoral for whatever (or no) reason.

I personally think if an individual or a group of individuals actions doesn't affect a third party and what they're doing doesn't harm anyone that it is kind of dickish to view them negatively for it. The prevalence of contraceptive devices in first world countries that are intended to prevent unwanted pregnancies as well as the spread of STD's invalidates the idea that promiscuity is necessarily associated with disease.



I'm not sure that acknowledging that you may be wrong is worthy of applause, but I'll take it.
Last edited by RU Experienced? at Sep 24, 2012,
#84
Quote by RU Experienced?
Perhaps my phrasing was too extreme. I don't think people should be "forced" into believing anything. They have the right to be judgmental of others who engage in practices they find immoral for whatever (or no) reason.

People often forget this.
Quote by RU Experienced?

I personally think if an individual or a group of individuals actions doesn't affect a third party and what they're doing doesn't harm anyone that it is kind of dickish to view them negatively for it. The prevalence of contraceptive devices in first world countries that are intended to prevent unwanted pregnancies as well as the spread of STD's invalidates the idea that promiscuity is necessarily associated with disease.

No, but our feelings will be colored by it anyway. At any rate, disease is still prevalent in our society despite contraceptives.


Quote by RU Experienced?
I'm not sure that acknowledging that you may be wrong is worthy of applause, but I'll take it.

I'll bet that 85% of wars (totally made up percentage, but a whole bunch anyway) could be prevented if people had the courage to question their own beliefs.
(1) No I didn't. What I actually meant (whether the fault lies with my communication, or whether the fault lies with your understanding of my expression, or some mixture of the two) was that people who are in monogamous relationships as a result of an inability to hold emotional relationships (as in, family relationships, romantic relationships, friendships, etc.) are emotionally stunted.
Anyone who is so emotionally stunted probably never moved out of their parent's house, let alone found a girlfriend/boyfriend.
Hell, whether such people are in monogamous relationships is entirely superfluous, they are still emotionally stunted in some way.

(2)Perhaps 'stunted' is not the right word. I don't mean any pejorative connotations, only that they are involuntarily inhibited in some sense.
Like how apples don't float away and are bound by gravity?

(3) Partially true. However, I should have distinguished between an involuntary inability to feel romantic love for multiple people and a choice to refuse to entertain the notion of engaging in multiple romantic relationships as a matter of ethical consideration or sense of duty.

I am only talking about the former, not the latter.
Charlie Sheen says he can experience different feelings with different women at the same time.
(4)I'm not judging them whatsoever, I apologise for the ambiguity.


Yes, I edited that out before you quoted me, it was a cheap shot and I apologise for that also.
yay
#85
I suppose it's immoral if you're spreading diseases around to unsuspecting people.
Check out my band Disturbed
#86
Quote by Crazyedd123
Some good points.

But could you paragraph a bit better? It just makes things very hard to read.


This. Some really interesting points, I'd like to see how they enter into the debate.
#87
Quote by Crazyedd123
Some good points.

But could you paragraph a bit better? It just makes things very hard to read.

he's basically giving context neurologically to the issue at hand. It's easy to isolate something and say "look, it's not immoral!" but when you look at the big picture, patterns emerge.
#88
Quote by Crazyedd123
Some good points.

But could you paragraph a bit better? It just makes things very hard to read.

I'll try, I'll skip the psyche/neuroscience and see if I can make it a little clearer, there are things that have been noticed by people for a long time, one of those is that prostitutes tend to have difficulties as wives and mothers (presumably due to bonding problems) whereas woman with less sexual experience tend to find bonding to form a family unit easier (these being important due the increased ability to manage resources and tasks, unwed mother 1:x number of children, wed mother 2:x number of children). It has been noted that children who grow up with more resources tend to thrive more easily and are less likely to commit crime (this is from modern social psyche). In an older or more moralist sense the Bhagavad Gita says something about sex needing to be controlled or we will breed a generation of thieves and vandals. Morality just exists as something that is in common memory about having caused problems at some time, but it is not necessarily intuitive what they were.
#89
Quote by Bad Kharmel
I'll try, I'll skip the psyche/neuroscience and see if I can make it a little clearer, there are things that have been noticed by people for a long time, one of those is that prostitutes tend to have difficulties as wives and mothers (presumably due to bonding problems) whereas woman with less sexual experience tend to find bonding to form a family unit easier (these being important due the increased ability to manage resources and tasks, unwed mother 1:x number of children, wed mother 2:x number of children). It has been noted that children who grow up with more resources tend to thrive more easily and are less likely to commit crime (this is from modern social psyche). In an older or more moralist sense the Bhagavad Gita says something about sex needing to be controlled or we will breed a generation of thieves and vandals. Morality just exists as something that is in common memory about having caused problems at some time, but it is not necessarily intuitive what they were.

What is meant by 'growing up with more resources'? Does this mean education, money, toys?
#90
Quote by Bad Kharmel
I'll try, I'll skip the psyche/neuroscience and see if I can make it a little clearer, there are things that have been noticed by people for a long time, one of those is that prostitutes tend to have difficulties as wives and mothers (presumably due to bonding problems) whereas woman with less sexual experience tend to find bonding to form a family unit easier (these being important due the increased ability to manage resources and tasks, unwed mother 1:x number of children, wed mother 2:x number of children).

it's also worth noting that promiscuity makes established family bonds weaker. incest is immoral for this reason (but amplified). Not trying to compare them, but the reason incest is immoral isn't birth defects, which are still rare even in incestuous relationships. It's the family aspect
Quote by Bad Kharmel

It has been noted that children who grow up with more resources tend to thrive more easily and are less likely to commit crime (this is from modern social psyche). In an older or more moralist sense the Bhagavad Gita says something about sex needing to be controlled or we will breed a generation of thieves and vandals. Morality just exists as something that is in common memory about having caused problems at some time, but it is not necessarily intuitive what they were.

I wouldn't really go so far as that, but the rest of the post is pretty insightful
#91
Quote by devourke
What is meant by 'growing up with more resources'? Does this mean education, money, toys?

yes, plenty of food, things to explore like toys, games, education or just things to be curious about, anything that stimulates the mind is beneficial in terms of development
#92
Quote by Xiaoxi
I feel like there should be things that are kept somewhat "sacred" for the reason that if everything was casual, then life loses a lot of specialness.


I agree with this, and also most people wouldn't want a long term partner who's been through so many dicks/vaginas.
Sincerely,
Shitstirrer
#93
Quote by captaincrunk
I think that casual sex with multiple partners is at odds with your moral intuition, and that you don't partake in such things because you find them to be undesirable.


The reason I don't have casual sex is because of a lack of opportunities and fear. Not necessarily a fear of STDs, more because of personal hang-ups.

So, hypothetically, if disease was no issue, is it safe to say there would be nothing wrong with promiscuity?

If spreading disease is the issue, what are responsible participants of casual sex who get tested regularly and don't infect others still doing wrong?
Quote by Ian_the_fox
You're not girly enough of a boy for me, and you're not man enough to take the top. So like, sorry bitch but you ain't mine! Sorry.
#94
Quote by macaroni
I agree with this, and also most people wouldn't want a long term partner who's been through so many dicks/vaginas.

even if they don't have some scientific or religious reason for it, just ask them and I'm sure many/most will agree with you. I asked TS if she bones a lot of dudes and she says no. Why, if she thinks it's so totally cool?
#95
Quote by fail
The reason I don't have casual sex is because of a lack of opportunities and fear. Not necessarily a fear of STDs, more because of personal hang-ups.

Personal hang up sounds a lot like morality.

Quote by fail
So, hypothetically, if disease was no issue, is it safe to say there would be nothing wrong with promiscuity?

Hell no that's not at all what I'm saying.

Quote by fail
If spreading disease is the issue, what are responsible participants of casual sex who get tested regularly and don't infect others still doing wrong?

If you were raped while you're asleep and you never found out, would it be wrong? Not all wrong things are so obvious as disease.
#96
Quote by captaincrunk
even if they don't have some scientific or religious reason for it, just ask them and I'm sure many/most will agree with you. I asked TS if she bones a lot of dudes and she says no. Why, if she thinks it's so totally cool?

Prolly cos we can't all get as much dick as much as you, crunk

oho, a gay joke
#97
I get mad if a girl I hit on so obviously for sex, anymore than that would just be like nice shoes wanna **** and then she denies me cuz she says she has b/f but it's ok for her to hang out with some other guy doing who knows what, and I have to wait.

Every girl in life seriously acts like they want a relationship.

It's quite obvious I'm on a tv show and people think it's funny for the girls to **** with me. I guess no one is willing to pay for the pay-per-view scenes.

and as for TS, she sounds like a tease.

I wasted the last two days doing nothing because I wanted answers and people think it's funny to **** with me.

I'm not an ugly looking guy either, I would **** my mirror.
#98
Quote by fail
The reason I don't have casual sex is because of a lack of opportunities and fear. Not necessarily a fear of STDs, more because of personal hang-ups.

So, hypothetically, if disease was no issue, is it safe to say there would be nothing wrong with promiscuity?

If spreading disease is the issue, what are responsible participants of casual sex who get tested regularly and don't infect others still doing wrong?

Even without disease unprepared for pregnancy is a problem. As for people who get tested and what not, that is good, however we have to be realistic and realize that there are people who won't do this case in point http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ga%C3%ABtan_Dugas.
#99
I'm no longer in a good mood, because I probably have to wait little longer than planned to fuck and I now have to sell more shit getting ripped off because I don't wana break bank, and because of this thread.

I'm going to bed.
Last edited by RabbitFeet at Sep 24, 2012,
#100
Quote by RabbitFeet
I would **** my mirror.

Sounds as if you like the dick

Ooooh shit two in a row, I'm practically running a train on you guys
#101
Quote by captaincrunk
Personal hang up sounds a lot like morality.

Psychological hang-ups, not moral ones.


Hell no that's not at all what I'm saying.

What else is there?


If you were raped while you're asleep and you never found out, would it be wrong? Not all wrong things are so obvious as disease.


So, what are they doing wrong?
Quote by Ian_the_fox
You're not girly enough of a boy for me, and you're not man enough to take the top. So like, sorry bitch but you ain't mine! Sorry.
#102
Quote by devourke
Sounds as if you like the dick

Ooooh shit two in a row, I'm practically running a train on you guys


My dick is the only dick I find to be somewhat attractive, I'm not lying here.
#104
and why are you trying to run a train on two guys, sounds like you're focusing on a fruitcake.
#105
Quote by RabbitFeet
I would model my penis for you if you were female.

I am female lol. Why do you think I'm so adamant about this equality in society thing?
#106
Does anyone know where I can get paint that is safe for cats?

I just had a laugh but I'm still mad.

Going to bed.
#108
Quote by fail
Psychological hang-ups, not moral ones.

You can think that all you want, but morality is done in the mind. You know, where your psyche is. You can't separate yourself from morality and say "this is okay for other people, but wrong for me." I think there's more to it that you aren't acknowledging.
Quote by fail
What else is there?

flowers, trees, atoms, thoughts, cement, etc

(i forgot what I said to make you say that)
Quote by fail
So, what are they doing wrong?

I can only answer that once we delve into the first part a little more. Otherwise I won't know what to say.


Quote by RabbitFeet
fail send me your picture and if you're good looking I'll get Haunted Boy to shoop my penis on it in a provocative suggestive manner, sexually.

whose multi are you? reported
#109
Quote by RabbitFeet
There is no such thing as a ****ing female storm trooper.

Stop lying devourke.

You ever seen one without a mask off bb ; )

I'll make your lightsaber go pfffssshhhh
#111
Chimps are rather promiscuous. The females mate with multiple male partners during estrous.

This has nothing to do with humans. Chimp dicks are spiky, for one thing.
#114
Quote by RabbitFeet

Wow you must workout lol. Those are some buff shoulders :3

edit: Where are the dick pics I was promised?
#115
Quote by RabbitFeet
s She never grabbed my ****

Why are you deleting your posts bb? nAre you ashamed of our relationship?
#116
You're such a *****
(>•&bull> $$$$$ <(••<

Gear:
Jackson RR3
Jackson DK2
1991 Jackson Fusion Pro
Peavey Triple X Super 40