1. We have moved to a new forum system. All your posts and data should have transferred over. Welcome, to the new Serebii Forums. Details here
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
    Dismiss Notice
  3. If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders
    Dismiss Notice

Oh, the woes of sexual immorality! The ethics of casual sex.

Discussion in 'Debate Forum' started by Crudelis ventus, Mar 27, 2013.

  1. slut shaming:

    From wikipedia

    Or in other words, it's the practice of making people feel like total, utter, crap for having sex. The question is, what's wrong with having sex outside of committed relationships?

    If you're using protection, you aren't sleeping with people in relationships, and you aren't leading people on, what exactly is wrong with being promiscuous? Sex is awesome. Sex is pretty much one of the greatest things ever. So, if people aren't hurting others in their pursuit of it, why should they be made to feel ashamed for having it? Basically, if you wanna get laid, go for it. If you want to sleep with someone, and they wanna sleep with you, you should be able to have a good time without being called a "slut" or "whore" or other such defamations of character. By all means, go and have all the sex your little heart desires, just don't be shady about it.

    I don't care if you've slept with one person, five people, or one hundred people. All that matters is that they're clean and that they would be faithful to me, and that's all that should matter to you. Where do you draw the line and decide when a person has had one sexual partner too many, and they aren't good enough anymore? After what point is someone damaged goods?

    I challenge the notion that a person has to choose between self respect and pleasure. It's a vile false dillema that helps no one.

    Thoughts?
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2013
  2. Kaiserin

    Kaiserin please wake up...

    Mostly women, in my experience. Men are very, very seldom called ****s or *****s for sleeping around, or even cheating on significant others, etc.

    It seems to go hand-in-hand with the relative taboo on sex our culture has in place. Sex, and individual sexuality, is depicted as a terrible thing unless it's done with ideals like love and marriage in mind. It's also got a lot to do with why pregnant women often get treated much differently in everyday life than those who are not.

    Personally, I think while one should always be smart about sex as a rule, the line shouldn't get drawn based on quantity of partners. I think if someone of either gender is of legal age and yet gets an STD/contracts HIV/a girl gets pregnant by accident and they didn't take standard precautions... Well, they're old enough to make their own decisions and reap their own consequences. I think in part, it's also because we need to change the way we approach sex ed, both in schools and at home -- not trying to guilt young people out of sex, or scare-tactic them, or sweep it under the rug until they find out the hard way why it needs to be handled with proper knowledge, but arming them with said knowledge. Not teaching them isn't going to make it happen less often, only turn out much worse in the end when someone does something irreversible.
     
  3. Well, heterosexual men, I think you mean. Straight men don't get slut shamed, no, but I've noticed that homosexual men...slut shame eachother. Frequently. Especially if the person in question is in the submissive role sexually, or if they are percieved to have more feminine gender expressions. It's a really odd phenomena. I'm really curious as to how and when the gay community, (or rather, gay culture? I'm struggling to find a fitting word) borrowed the practice of slut shaming from their heterosexual male counterparts.

    Here's an interesting article about it on the Daily Kos


    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/11/1063712/-On-****-shaming-and-Gay-Men

    I agree 100%

    I think a big step is recognizing where that taboo comes from. America was founded on very puritan ideals, and even since the sexual revolution, women still aren't quite sexually liberated. Definitley not in the same way heterosexual men are. What I've noticed is that it seems that women are expected to walk a tight line of sexuality. If they don't put out at all, they're seen as prudes. If they put out too much, they're sluts. It's like society expects for them to walk this tight rope of sexuality, and it's ridiculous.
     
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2013
  4. BigLutz

    BigLutz Banned

    I do think we can agree that females and the effeminate side of the Homosexual community engages in this act, why? I don't know, maybe it goes back to some kind of grade school behavior of teasing any girl who may seem different? It would be nice to have a female perspective on this as I am just shooting in the dark here.

    BUT that being said I want to throw this out, could there possibly be a good use for this? And that is to possibly keep down young teenagers having sex ( And mind you on this I am speaking of 12 - 16 year olds as I believe after that they are largely heading to college where the dogma isnt so bad ). And to possibly keeping down the spread of STDs, again I am just shooting this out in the dark, but if more peer pressure was out there like what you saw before the sexual liberation movement of the 60s, is it not possible we would have less of a STD and AIDS epidemic today?
     
  5. Jb

    Jb Tsun in the streets

    I personally think this comes down to a moral standing. Some people just don't want a partner that has been with large amount of people. Anyone trying to these people feel bad about that are just as bad as **** slammers. I agree we probably shouldn't care what other people do, but honestly, the more people you sleep with the higher chance you have of catching something. Humans in general like exposing others like this.
     
  6. Deku_Link

    Deku_Link ,,|,,

    We shouldn't shame the ****-shamers. We need them to be vocal, that's how they identify themselves as red-flag "do not date me ever" partners
     
  7. No they aren't. They have every right to go after those people. We're not saying people that don't want to be with people that they percieve as having too many sexual partners are inherently bad people, we're saying that they are misguided and are using poor reasoning to exclude what are perfectly valid partners/potential romantic interests. Just because someone screams "Personal morality" doesn't mean your personal morality isn't up above scrutiny.

    STD's are a non issue if you're using protection and getting tested regularly. It's a poor argument. A piss poor one.

    Let's say a woman has slept with 100 people. Big number right? What a tramp. She's clean. She's also had two long term relationships lasting over 2 years in which she has never, not once, been unfaithful.

    If you dismiss her on the grounds that she's had too many sexual partners and only for that reason, you're slut shaming.

    "But I'm not!"

    Yes. You are.

    There's only so many reasons that you'd dismiss someone for their sexual history and that alone. Either A) You're religious and you believe pre-marital sex is wrong (Which you still get no dice, because religion isn't immune to criticism either.) or B) You believe that a womans worth to a man becomes less and less with each sexual partner she has.

    So while you may not directly be calling them sluts or whores outright, you've already done it by carrying around an archaic attitude that's conducive to a culture of slut shaming. You have no excuse, nor does anyone else.

    This is cute. Thanks for making me laugh. :p
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2013
  8. Jb

    Jb Tsun in the streets

    I fail to see how people following there own beliefs on this matter are misguided. Not everyone wants a promiscuous partner that has slept with a hundred people. I don't agree with **** slamming, everyone is free to live their own life. But you shouldn't expect everyone in the world to agree with it because they're "clean and that they would be faithful to me." The same way people have romantic interest, they also have romantic turnoffs. If promiscuous people fit the bill of the later, then they are no longer potential romantic interests.


    Protection isn't 100% effective, nor are all STD's treatable. Obviously there's risk in sex and it's fine taking it, I'm all for that. But I won't blame anyone that's a little skeptical of anyone that's been with a large amount of people. I'll leave it as a poor argument though since it's only a tiny fraction of the underlying problem.

    To your last part, sure, those can be reasons, and they can be open to criticism. But not everything open to criticism is inherently wrong. I'm not saying they're right or wrong. Contrary to what some people think, the past of the person in question to some people is important to the relationship. It's a good indicator of your current standing with the person. Are you headed to a true relationship? Or are you just another sex partner?

    In short, not everyone has to agree with choices that you, of your free will made in life. Whether that's morally right or wrong can't be proven.
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2013
  9. If you fail to understand, then step up to the plate and offer me one good reason why someone that has a promiscuous background is an uneligible potential romantic interest. If you can't come up with any, and the only reasons that are given suck, then it's misguided. You're attempting to circumnavigate the issue by saying some people just have "romantic turnoffs" when the debate here is why they shouldn't and have no good reason to find it as such.

    You're right, condoms are only 98% effective. :rolleyes:

    If you have concerns about whether someone has STD's, do the smart thing and ask them to get tested. Being skeptical about whether someone has STD's or not is not the same as dismissing someone completely for the simple fact they've had too many partners.


    Misguided. Someone's sexual promiscuity outside of committed relationships says nothing about their ability to have healthy and committed relationships. They're completely different arenas. That would also fall under what I said about "not being shady about it." in my first post. Someone that's both promiscuous and ethical will be honest about their intention with another person. You've already unwittingly associated promiscuity with lack of character.

    So I'll reiterate my question. What good/logical/rational/well thought out reason is there to dismiss the woman above that I mentioned as a potential romantic interest? I'm waiting.
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2013
  10. Scammel

    Scammel Well-Known Member

    Not necessarily, and hear me out: Having two partners with different attitudes towards sex could potentially be a point of conflict, just like any other element of a relationship. For example, dismissing a partner over differences in religious beliefs sounds equally condemnable, but that's making the assumption that one potential partner deems the other as 'inferior' because of it. I'm a Christian and I would have to question how healthy a relationship might be with someone who has strong atheist views. I don't think any less of that person, they're just possibly not suitable for me to be entering into a relationship with. If two potential partners differ over something as significant as to the what, why, when and how of sex in a relationship, it might not be one that's going to be healthy.
     
  11. I see what you're saying, I just don't see how it's anything other than avoiding the issue.

    That's like saying "As a racist, I don't think I would mesh very well with someone that's for equality. Not that I think any less of them, I just disagree with them and don't think our relationship would work out due to our different philosophies"

    Using that card is cheap and it's a way to weasel yourself out of seriously self examining your views.
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2013
  12. Scammel

    Scammel Well-Known Member

    I'm not sure the analogy works, because neither being sexually active or preferring abstinence are objectively 'bad', unlike racism. Someone who believes strongly in sex after marriage (a completely legitimate stance that should be respected) might feel under pressure to deliver in a relationship where the other partner sees sex as something to be enjoyed fairly frequently (ALSO a completely legitimate stance that should be respected) and vice versa.
     
  13. Jb

    Jb Tsun in the streets

    That's the problem, "good" is subjective. Any reason I could come up with, whether it be religion to not wanting an "easy" woman and any in between you'd say is open to criticism and therefore misguided.

    I don't want a woman that has been with the whole town, it's something I simply find unattractive. Promiscuous people tend to have emotional stress and low self esteem. Some promiscuous people become addicted to sex. Promiscuous people are also at a higher risk for prostate cancer, cervical cancer and oral cancer. In my mind, there would always be a back thought of how I stack up against those other 100 people.

    I'm sure none of this is either bad, nor good in itself.
     
  14. This works under the false assumption that someone who has been sexually promiscuous would make sexual demands from someone that has more conservative attitudes on sex. If said person in your scenario feels pressure when none is being given by the other party, then that's misguided feelings of pressure. It once again falls into the category of "not being shady about it." There's no logical correlation between people that have had a promiscuous sexual history outside of committed relationships to people that would pressure and or demand sex in a committed relationship with others that they know have differing attitudes on sex.

    If I've done my fair share of sleeping around and end up falling for a good little Christian girl, I am going to know better than to pressure her for sex. Most rational thinking people would too. Unless you're a dick.

    Then get the hell out of the thread then! Gosh. If all you're going to do is throw your hands up in the air and say "But morals are subjective" in a debate about morals, then why are you here!?

    Are you just pulling all of this out of your hat, or do you have anything to back up those claims? Those are pretty big claims that all sound like straight up BS that you pulled out of nowhere. Back it up. As for your insecurities about how you would stack up against those 100 other people, you would still have that same problem if she had only slept with three, or even just one. The only way you could never have to worry about measuring up to a womans previous sexual partner is if you were the only person she had ever slept with. Further more, maybe, just maybe, committed relationships are about more than just sex. If she would stick with you and like you for who you are, who cares whether you could please her sexually as well as another man once did? Male brovado much? Relationships are about spending time together and getting to know eachother on a fundamental and intimate level, not how intense of an orgasm you can give. :rolleyes:
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2013
  15. Scammel

    Scammel Well-Known Member

    Certainly, but that doesn't mean that the pressure might not be there, especially if the girl is aware that you enjoy sex. You might also have to question if you're completely satisfied in a relationship without sex if you enjoy it/see it as something that promotes health of said relationship. This of course doesn't mean in the slightest that such a relationship can't be beautiful and fulfilling, but disagreement/differing expectations over something rather fundamental could always potentially cause issues and discomfort.
     
  16. As I said, I don't deny that the pressure wouldn't be there, just that the feeling of pressure wouldn't be rationally justified if no pressure is being given. If it's coming from you and you alone without anything to justify it, then own your emotion and overcome it because it's not logical.

    Now, I do sort of see your point about questioning how satisfied you would be if you were sexually promiscuous beforehand and then entering into a relationship where there's no sex until marriage. I'd wager though that most people would simply go find someone that puts out if they weren't satisfied, or didn't think they were going to be. If they've got their eyes set on the good little Christian girl, there must be a pretty good reason why when they could easily look elsewhere and pursue a relationship where similar attitudes on sex would be shared.
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2013
  17. Scammel

    Scammel Well-Known Member

    This is absolutely the case a lot of the time, definitely. Again though, I'll just reiterate: Relationships can be tough to get right at the best of times and if either party is uncomfortable/discontented with the other's interpretation of sex, it could mean that such a relationship might not be worth pursuing. I'm not a massive believer in unconditional love at this level.
     
  18. Lol, I'll just end on that note then.

    Thanks for offering an input that was at least a cut above JB's nonsense.
     
  19. Jb

    Jb Tsun in the streets

    This is coming from the person that's labeling everyone's opinions as misguided. What a pretentious little child you are.
    In the risk section of the this article they have links to most of the ones I've claimed. They're also found on multiple Sex Ed sites.
    Anybody is serious relationship would want to please their partner to the best they've ever had it. If you don't think sex plays a large part in relationships, especially young ones, you're deluding yourself,

    I also see you didn't quote my first reason. Was that a " good/logical/rational/well thought" reason? Or is that misguided as well.
     
  20. I never once just labeled your arguments as misguided. I clearly demonstrated how they were. My point still stands.

    As for your source, I'll get right down to business.

    Notice how it specifically uses the word "may."

    There's a difference between people that enjoy sex and therefore have lots of it, than people who have sex because of underlying emotional or psychological issues. Sure, someone may indulge themselves in comfort food because they use it to cope with their emotional issues. Is there anything wrong with ordering pizza every Friday because you like pizza? No.


    All of the bolded would fall into the whole "not being shady" thing that I mentioned in my first post. At this point it's like you seriously do not even care to listen. As for the rest, who cares? Promiscuity with and of itself is not a bad nor immoral thing, so it's not even worth listing how many partners they have in one day or not.

    Once again, all of this is solved with condoms and STD testing. Except for the domestic violence bit, now that's somewhat interesting. I'm curious as to how they got that. The only way I could see that is if the person in question was unethical and was doing things like cheating on their partner. In which case, it wouldn't be far fetched that domestic violence could stem from that. It's still not an argument, because the discussion is about promiscuity with ethics.


    Obviously we're talking about grown adults here, not 14 year olds. Wow.


    And here's what tells me you didn't even read your own damn source.

    The link you provided was clearly talking about people with emotional issues and or psychological truama that use sex as either a cry for help or as a means of raising their self esteem, not responsible individuals who enjoy sex and pursue it in an ethical and healthy manner.

    But by all means, give me another source you didn't bother to read. ;)

    I see you ignored what I said regarding the fact that feeling you would need to measure up would still be true in the event a woman just had one sexual partner. Care to touch on that? Here I'll quote for you again since you missed it. Bold letters this time.

    I also never said sex wasn't an integral part of relationships, I simply said there were more important things. You can still have an awesome sex life without being THE BEST SHE EVER HAD.

    And what reason did I ignore from you, dear? The fact that you don't want your woman to be "easy"? Define what you mean by that and I'll respond. Easy in the sense that she'll screw anybody? If that's the case, you don't have a point. Promiscuity doesn't mean you don't have standards and that you'll just go out and hump everything that has a pulse.
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2013

Share This Page