Wow, this should have been posted in the Joke of the day thread and no one would have commented.
Leaves thread shaking head slowly.
Wow, this should have been posted in the Joke of the day thread and no one would have commented.
Leaves thread shaking head slowly.
tuna55 wrote: So it's all based on STD risk? Really?
I'd also assume there is a bit of a threat to most people's ego. Unless you are either fabulously talented of exquisitely oblivious you are likely to wonder how you "measure up" to the ones who came before. If she has a number of 4, then it's easy enough to convince yourself that you're in the top 5. If her number is 200+ then it's harder to believe that you stand out from the crowd.
There is the risk, but even if you knew she was clean there is another aspect. For men sex is somewhat about conquest. We accomplished something difficult that other men attempted and failed. A girl like that has had the hell conquested out of her. Aint gonna be braggin about planting that flag.
In reply to tuna55:
I think it's more subliminally psychological than physical risks. We assume (probably incorrectly) that a sexual partner is also a romantic partner. Therefore, someone with tons of sexual partners has also had tons of romantic partners and by extension, tons of failed relationships which raises red flags. This can make the person seem undesirable or tainted. Some may also be intimidated or feel inadequate with that many previous partners to compete with.
tuna55 wrote:captdownshift wrote: I'm no saint in terms of number countI sort of get everything you've said other than this. If you proclaim that the number doesn't matter, why do you judge yourself by that exact measure?
Saint implies a moral standard as opposed to an ethical one to me. I blurred my own standards once with 2 other willingly involved parties, the ethical violation on my end wasn't in the act, but in the fact that lost respect for the girl whom I was seeing, who was of course was involved in the escapade. My changed view of her after the fact ultimately ended up in me ending the relationship, though it was a casual one, with her. There are some lines, that as indulgent and tempting that they may seem, that you shouldn't cross with someone if it will change how you view them. That's the violation I made not realizing how engaging in something would change my perspective.
tuna55 wrote: So it's all based on STD risk? Really?
Warning: Excessive use of "I think" should indicate to the reader that I have no expertise in this area whatsoever.
I think that people really just need to feel better about themselves for whatever reason. Male, female, young or old, red/blue, whatever. It's the natural tribal/herding mentality, and it takes mental effort and internal reflection to overcome it.
I think that historically, perhaps tribally even, a person with a high number of partners was a risk to the tribe, not only for STDs, but also for destabilizing relationships & causing jealousy. In the old days, that would be enough reason to dislike people who do that. A lot of our social habits are from this time and haven't caught up with modern day.
Nowadays, with proper protection and birth control available, the only reason anyone should care about any random person they'll never meet would be to look down on them as if they were a filthy console gamer or some beige Camery driver. You shake your head, morally give yourself a pat on the back, move on with your day and unless you need to belittle someone in front of your peers, you'll never mention them again.
Obviously, it could be a concern if you're a relationship with someone like that, besides STDs and such, it may be a sign that the person doesn't share your moral compass, much like drinking and driving or skydiving or some other dangerous behavior. If you were looking for a long term thing, it might be very revelating that the other person isn't really that "type."
As for my personal take on it, "don't confront me none, as long as I got my rent paid on Friday."
patgizz wrote:tuna55 wrote: I have a serious moral question regarding this. As a Christian who holds dear to a one-partner scenario being ideal for Biblical reasons, I totally get why a story like this points to bad morals. What I truly do not understand is why the secular world cares. I am being serious, not trying to cause a religious argument here, but if you don't have any convictions regarding celibacy until marriage, why does this come across as a bad thing to you? Pop culture seems to indicate that sex is okay after some amount of dating, usually single numbers of dates depending on where I try to get information from. Using that as an average, it's totally reasonable to see this number of partners, although I'm not checking their math, it's just too icky. I hope not to lock this thread. For clarity, I am not using this to advocate for my religious beliefs, merely trying to understand the outrage if you don't have them.Because that same culture gives a man with 200 "conquests" a high five, but a woman with that many partners is a ho. Double standard.
Also summed up with the term slut shaming.
Wow guys, thanks for the frank and varied thoughts on the subject. I believe I have implicitly made mine known, so I won't expand them here, though obviously they differ so much from the other commenters here that I doubt we have any real common ground on the matter.
I learned a lot, though my summary may not be what each of you were thinking individually. I'll attempt to collect it into a sentence, though engineering is really where I do good, english, no (that was intentional).
While such activity may be admirable or desirable for a man, current societal thoughts hold that it is unacceptable for a woman to do the same thing, and most of you think that this is unfair, at least partially, to the woman who wishes to live the same way as a man in this regard, though either present a potential risk to a long-term relationship through promiscuity and sexually transmitted diseases.
tuna55 wrote: While such activity may be admirable or desirable for a man, current societal thoughts hold that it is unacceptable for a woman to do the same thing, and most of you think that this is unfair, at least partially, to the woman who wishes to live the same way as a man in this regard, though either present a potential risk to a long-term relationship through promiscuity and sexually transmitted diseases.
Yep, you pretty much nailed it.
The very same thing has always really bothered me, ever since I've had my first kid (a daughter). I can't tell you how many time's I've heard some variation of "if you have a son, you only have to worry about ONE dick, if you have a daughter you have to worry about EVERY dick! LOL! I hope I never have a daughter!"
WTF is that all about? Guys are allowed/encouraged to be promiscuous, but it's some great outrage if a girl does it? And who do they propose their son is promiscuous WITH?
WonkoTheSane wrote:tuna55 wrote: While such activity may be admirable or desirable for a man, current societal thoughts hold that it is unacceptable for a woman to do the same thing, and most of you think that this is unfair, at least partially, to the woman who wishes to live the same way as a man in this regard, though either present a potential risk to a long-term relationship through promiscuity and sexually transmitted diseases.Yep, you pretty much nailed it. The very same thing has always really bothered me, ever since I've had my first kid (a daughter). I can't tell you how many time's I've heard some variation of "if you have a son, you only have to worry about ONE dick, if you have a daughter you have to worry about EVERY dick! LOL! I hope I never have a daughter!" WTF is that all about? Guys are allowed/encouraged to be promiscuous, but it's some great outrage if a girl does it? And who do they propose their son is promiscuous WITH?
Thanks!
I am still unclear on your personal views on the subject, but thanks for tyhe confirmation.
I find it interesting that "moral" is equated with / connected to "religious". As an atheist, I still have morals. Morals exist outside of a religious framework. Tuna, I realize you are coming from your unique perspective, and I am absolutely NOT calling you out in specific - this is a very common view.
Personally, I think any person who has 200 sexual partners in 4 years is not my type, whether male or female. I don't think it makes a man a stud or a woman a slut. It's their body and their choice, as long as they are honest and up front about it with potential partners. But it does make them somebody without the consistency and monogamy I am looking for in a relationship.
Viewed from an evolutionary standpoint there is support for women being more "discerning" in their sexual relations. The male of the species has a biological drive to spread his seed far and wide. He is capable of impregnating dozens, even hundreds of females and moving along to the next at a moments notice.
The female (prior to the advent of birth control) was tied to the child which would result from such encounters and generally wanted the strongest and smartest males so they would have strong smart offspring. She had a much more limited capacity to reproduce than the male.
Now, while we like to think we are fully evolved and above such base desires. If one looks at the scope of human evolution it's only been the briefest of moments since we have things like religion, morals, ethics, and the rest.
Otherwise, hairless apes for the past 500,000 years.
That guy sure thinks a lot about wieners.
Maybe he should stop worrying about the drivers who handled the opening stints and see if he can complete the lap?
Duke wrote: I find it interesting that "moral" is equated with / connected to "religious".
That is an excellent point which I have many deep thoughts about, PM me if you want to know more, they are not GRM material.
tuna55 wrote:Duke wrote: I find it interesting that "moral" is equated with / connected to "religious".That is an excellent point which I have many deep thoughts about, PM me if you want to know more, they are not GRM material.
I did not take your original post to imply that non-religious people can not be moral. I read that as religious people having specifically defined moral codes they (are supposed to) follow. That if you do not hold to those religious codes, not understanding the justification for moral outrage in this situation.
tuna55 wrote: While such activity may be admirable or desirable for a man, current societal thoughts hold that it is unacceptable for a woman to do the same thing, and most of you think that this is unfair, at least partially, to the woman who wishes to live the same way as a man in this regard, though either present a potential risk to a long-term relationship through promiscuity and sexually transmitted diseases.
I would argue that this is not actually a majority opinion. There is a portion of the population that congratulates men for promiscuity but shames women. I think that's pretty uncommon.
It seems more common that people fall into one of two camps: That being that promiscuous points to living a high risk lifestyle and shows a lack of maturity, so judging both men and women - Or not really judging either men or women so long as they are careful to avoid STDs and unwanted pregnancy, and fully communicate the situation with all partners.
tuna55 wrote: Thanks! I am still unclear on your personal views on the subject, but thanks for the confirmation.
Ah, yes, sorry, I was intentionally vague because I didn't want my personal beliefs to interfere with what I was trying to communicate :)
Like Duke, I'm an atheist who believes that morals & religion are not tied together. I plan on having the same "the talk" with my son as with my daughters. I find the double standard completely ridiculous, and firmly believe that it's their body to do with as they wish (as long as everyone is consenting).
I have no problem with multiple partners on either side, but, like every other thing in life, "too many" (an admittedly not defined line) could be a warning that their lifestyle doesn't match up with mine.
If you and Duke start an offline discussion on the intersection of religion, morals and life values, I'd love to be a part of it :)
Beer Baron wrote:tuna55 wrote: While such activity may be admirable or desirable for a man, current societal thoughts hold that it is unacceptable for a woman to do the same thing, and most of you think that this is unfair, at least partially, to the woman who wishes to live the same way as a man in this regard, though either present a potential risk to a long-term relationship through promiscuity and sexually transmitted diseases.I would argue that this is not actually a majority opinion. There is a portion of the population that congratulates men for promiscuity but shames women. I think that's pretty uncommon. It seems more common that people fall into one of two camps: That being that promiscuous points to living a high risk lifestyle and shows a lack of maturity, so judging both men and women - Or not really judging either men or women so long as they are careful to avoid STDs and unwanted pregnancy, and fully communicate the situation with all partners.
Interesting point.
If you are right, and that it is a minority opinion which looks down on female promiscuity, then why is the OP funny?
tuna55 wrote: If you are right, and that it is a minority opinion which looks down on female promiscuity, then why is the OP funny?
Because it's easier to laugh at the absurd extremes than the reasonable center.
And... the OP joke wasn't that funny. The most amusing absurd thing was the the character who wrote it was putting in that much effort to think that hard about dongs.
Spoolpigeon wrote:
Thanks for that! 
tuna55 wrote: While such activity may be admirable or desirable for a man, current societal thoughts hold that it is unacceptable for a woman to do the same thing, and most of you think that this is unfair, at least partially, to the woman who wishes to live the same way as a man in this regard, though either present a potential risk to a long-term relationship through promiscuity and sexually transmitted diseases.
That would not only represent current social thought but historical social though too. That was how it was in ancient Rome and seems to have been a common view in many other cultures - even ones where, in theory, some priesthood or group philosophers were doing their best to try to make men conform to the same rules as women regarding promiscuity. And the main reason I can see for why this was so is that historically, men made those rules.
My own views on the matter are closer to Tuna55's than historical or current thought, in case you were wondering.
And I think Beer Baron did a good job of summing up why it was funny. Somebody was really doing a bit too much math over this.
MadScientistMatt wrote: That would not only represent current social thought but historical social though too. That was how it was in ancient Rome and seems to have been a common view in many other cultures - even ones where, in theory, some priesthood or group philosophers were doing their best to try to make men conform to the same rules as women regarding promiscuity. And the main reason I can see for why this was so is that historically, men made those rules.
If you look at actual historical mores about promiscuity and fidelity, I think you've got the direction of causality wrong. It's not that historically men were respected for having numerous sexual partners, but that respected and wealthy men got to have more sexual partners. In pretty much all cultures, men aren't respected for getting women pregnant, but for being able to provide enough to raise children. And where wealthier more powerful men may have multiple wives/mistresses/concubines, the poorest men may have none. Or there just may be more women than men because men tend to die in hard labor, hunting, and war.
The historical social expectation has been that a man should be able to provide for and protect all of his offspring and their mothers. A woman should be able to ensure to that father that the children he's putting the work into providing for and protecting are actually his. Hence the higher value of fidelity for women and stronger judgment for promiscuity.
Men who were promiscuous but did not stick around to raise children have not been highly socially regarded. Think sailors. Otherwise men who aren't always moving but may get his sweetheart knocked up... well, her Pa's going to go get his shotgun and make sure the boy does right and marries her.
Surprisingly, I've learned a lot from a thread that I thought was doomed from the first post.
This is still the best place on the internet 
tuna55 wrote:Beer Baron wrote:Interesting point. If you are right, and that it is a minority opinion which looks down on female promiscuity, then why is the OP funny?tuna55 wrote: While such activity may be admirable or desirable for a man, current societal thoughts hold that it is unacceptable for a woman to do the same thing, and most of you think that this is unfair, at least partially, to the woman who wishes to live the same way as a man in this regard, though either present a potential risk to a long-term relationship through promiscuity and sexually transmitted diseases.I would argue that this is not actually a majority opinion. There is a portion of the population that congratulates men for promiscuity but shames women. I think that's pretty uncommon. It seems more common that people fall into one of two camps: That being that promiscuous points to living a high risk lifestyle and shows a lack of maturity, so judging both men and women - Or not really judging either men or women so long as they are careful to avoid STDs and unwanted pregnancy, and fully communicate the situation with all partners.
It was more an attempt to ridicule an individual with that much time and that fragile of an ego to do the math instead of talking about it to his girlfriend like a normal human being. I have no double standards regarding promiscuity.
You'll need to log in to post.
