|
Post by MrNice on Apr 19, 2009 21:42:09 GMT -5
because some women cheat its fair to say that a certain part of the population thinks its ok to white lie someone into bed? Sorry, one does not follow from the other. Just drop this one. Women do not lie to men that they have serious intentions just to sleep with them and dump them later.
what are you talking about? what lie? who are these 'people in pursuit of hedonism'? they are more likely to lie then who and about what?
ok let me try to phrase it in a more clear fashion - without the new wacky concepts such as 'people in pursuit of hedonism' and what they want to get.
you think that women that have casual sex are more likely to lie to get casual sex
I don't see much of an argument there
lying is not an example of promiscuous behavior and it is not in any way in the definition of promiscuity
congratulations, you have read the first line - the dictionary definition and if you scrolled down a bit more, you would have encountered this relevant paragraph:
--- What sexual behavior is considered socially acceptable, and what behavior is "promiscuous", varies much among different cultures. Behavior that is considered promiscuous for a married or unmarried individual in one culture may be considered acceptable in another culture. Within a culture, men and women are not necessarily held to the same standards. For example, a man may or may not be considered promiscuous for engaging in sexual activity with someone he was not married to, even in cultures where a woman would be considered promiscuous for the same behavior. It should be noted that while male promiscuity previously had glamorous connotations that acted as an affirmation of masculinity, female promiscuity was seen as a sign of emotional instability, and loose morals in women... ---
|
|
|
Post by Farouche on Apr 19, 2009 22:19:26 GMT -5
Madiocre ---------------- ok thinking about the original thread i really can't help but point out the pure hypocricacy . It's seems slightly unfair to say that its wrong for women to judge men on their experience and turn them down based on this which hurts men . However in that sentence you used the word slut which is what .....A judement on experience which hurts women .
The word slut to me is one i ponder a lot and have a lotof issues with. The reasons why i have issue with it are many but thee main beef is that any time i hear it i can't help but feel dispair about equality between sexes .It's a reminder that yeah we both still have stereotypes we have to stick to . I mean yeah sweet pea is right there are growing amounts of people who say that the word is for men too . However it seems like superficial political correctness calling a men a slut is never taken seriously . And really at the base of it slut is a word intended for women who step out of their gender confines of sexuality .
The debate they they are doing themselves harm is a really poor one . A rapist is a criminal and the rapee is a victim . It's that simple . It doesnt matter what she said or wore or how she battered her eyelids if she said no and he did it anyway he is in the wrong . There s no way you can jump to the conclusion that if you suspect a woman sleeps around that she doesnt use protection . If you are going to jump to conclusions about a woman who sleeps with alot of different people and their protection habits it logic would say that they would know to use a comdom and get tested .
And as far as talking about cheating and hurting men that doesnt come into the defininition of being a slut . The term slut has nothing to do with that person hurting anyone. Yes it is correct that a woman who cheats maybe called a slut but its not the acvtual definition of it . Thinking of it its kinda weird and unfair how the word slut is seen as worse then cheater when it is the cheater who actually hurts someone . Quoted for truth! Madiocre makes several important points much more succinctly that I could. The part about "slut" being seen as a worse designation than "cheater" is especially profound, when you think about it.
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Apr 20, 2009 9:10:52 GMT -5
ARGH. "Promiscuity is as bad as stealing because I say so." You think that's an argument? "Moral relativism" says that Naptaq doesn't just get to decree that something is morally wrong. You have to have an actual reason. See if you can use that brain to figure out why stealing, murder, and assault are different from promiscuity, gay sex, and masturbation (three sexual activities that religion has decreed to be immoral). And no, you still don't have a clue about moral relativism. You throw the term around as an insult without bothering to understand what it entails. You don't want to understand. I suggest you learn how to construct an argument that doesn't rely on empty appeals to authority or rhetorical bluster about concepts you don't understand, or just don't bother. Attacking the argument as usual. Don't waste my time. That's a good question. I don't know. But, you know, sleeping around casually means you sleep around with people you aren't romanticly linked. Unless people sleep on the first date I think the number for most people is under 10. Yes, but not everybody is responsible. So, if you increase the number of partners, there's a higher probability that you'll get it, because it takes just one. A lot of people don't want to be used like a piece of furniture and then thrown away. I'm not. Everybody is responsible for their own lives. So if one is into promiscuity, extreme sports or fast driving it's on them if something happens. I try not to get emotional since it's just a debate. Everybody has the right to reject my arguments and opinions.
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Apr 20, 2009 9:32:16 GMT -5
what are you talking about? what lie? who are these 'people in pursuit of hedonism'? they are more likely to lie then who and about what? If they have a romantic partner they'll say they don't have one in order to get some. Or they'll pretend to like'em and dump'em after they get what they want. Stuff like that. I don't see it relevant to this debate. We aren't debating the meaning of promiscuity in Africa, but in modern developed world. Again, I understand the gender double-standard, however, when I'm speaking of promuscuity it's both genders.
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Apr 20, 2009 14:19:22 GMT -5
yeah nap, this is getting pointless you just keep repeating your opinions (which you try to pass off as facts) without actually trying to understand what is said to you its tedious to refute everything you say over and over
to summarize:
1. the word slut is offensive 2. promiscuity is NOT synonymous with lying, cheating, and hurting feelings 3. if we take a strictly rational approach, driving which is arguably just as or more dangerous then promiscuity is not considered morally wrong but promiscuity is 4. there is a double standard for males and females
|
|
|
Post by Farouche on Apr 20, 2009 19:43:53 GMT -5
Looks like my post was deleted. I acknowledge I shouldn't have said that the way I did. Here it is again without the offending phrase, and with an explanation. Naptaq -------------- Attacking the argument as usual. Don't waste my time. This is what makes it obvious that you don't understand how to have a debate, Naptaq. If you meant to say "attacking the arguer," that still doesn't fly. You claimed you understood a term that you didn't understand, and you used a logical fallacy to try to insist you were right. It's not an irrelevant personal attack to say that you didn't understand the concept you were trying to use to prove your point, or to point out that the bulk of your "arguments" were just opinions presented as facts. Why do you even bother quoting people when you cut out all the relevant arguments, snip the post down to useless soundbites, and then just keep repeating your undefended assertions? This is what makes debating with you so frustrating. You're not arguing in good faith.
|
|
|
Post by nelo on Apr 20, 2009 22:46:39 GMT -5
I have nothing to add, but I'm having fun reading through all your responses.
|
|
|
Post by 10010101001111 on Apr 21, 2009 3:22:04 GMT -5
I have nothing to add, but I'm having fun reading through all your responses.
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Apr 21, 2009 4:27:03 GMT -5
I have nothing to add, but I'm having fun reading through all your responses. lol.. Yeah, we haven't moved an inch. Farouche, I said that because what you wrote was irrelevant. I don't care what your opinion is on my argument - adress the argument and we'll see from there. And if you notice I did adress your valid points, however, I did write something adressing the religious points you made, but I decided to remove it, because I don't want to discuss my beliefs on the Bible here.
|
|
|
Post by Farouche on Apr 21, 2009 18:35:32 GMT -5
Naptaq -------------- Farouche, I said that because what you wrote was irrelevant. Wrong. Naptaq -------------- I don't care what your opinion is on my argument - adress the argument and we'll see from there. This makes no sense. I addressed the argument; I just didn't let you get away with making false assumptions. Your argument is crap because your premises are crap. You based your entire argument on crap, so you need to replace the crap with not-crap for your argument to be valid in a debate. How many ways can I say that and make you understand? Either present the actual merits of your claims, or quit pretending to be interesting in a debate. Naptaq --------------- And if you notice I did adress your valid points No. You didn't. You deleted all my arguments and reduced my responses to useless, empty soundbites, to which you then responded with... useless, empty soundbites. Soundbites impress narrow minds, but they don't win debates. Not only that, but you used those soundbites to completely misrepresent my arguments, as evidenced by all the non sequiturs. For example: Farouche --------------- People getting their feelings hurt? This concern is pretty silly [relevant context purposefully snipped by Naptaq]
Naptaq --------------- [responding as though I were claiming something like "who cares if people get their stupid feelings hurt?!"] A lot of people don't want to be used like a piece of furniture and then thrown away. WTF? Naptaq -------------- however, I did write something adressing the religious points you made, but I decided to remove it, because I don't want to discuss my beliefs on the Bible here. So... why did you bring them up in the first place? I assume this is acknowledgment that you can't make a logical counter-argument.
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Apr 22, 2009 14:38:35 GMT -5
This makes no sense. I addressed the argument; I just didn't let you get away with making false assumptions. Your argument is crap because your premises are crap. You based your entire argument on crap, so you need to replace the crap with not-crap for your argument to be valid in a debate. How many ways can I say that and make you understand? Infinity is too small a number. lol.. just giving you and the audience a little jazz. Let's try this: Farouche, you based your entire argument on crap, so you need to replace the crap with not-crap for your argument to be valid in a debate. That sounds pretty unimpressive and reminds me of the "you don't understand" which is, a lot of time, a code word for "Please, you must see it my way" To catch the essence of what you're saying. I could quote the whole thing and my responce would be similar. What? Can't understand a pithy responce? Ok, I see, you're saying you were taken out of contex: Since promuscuity is largely the domain of people who are "in pursuit of hedonism" they only care about themselfs. "Me, me, me." A lot of people are not like that and do not consider sex to be 'just "sharing secrets" plus genitalia'. So, by definiton being used sexually is a lot worse than breaking up with your best friend in kindergarten. And, as I also pointed out, a lot of women who were sexually abused in the past go on the promiscuity rute to feel some "love". So it's fair to say that that is not what emotionally healthy people do since they actually value themselfs and their body. Sure, assume the best scenario for you. I only brought up the 10 Commandments, the absolute, not the whole Bible.
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Apr 22, 2009 15:14:44 GMT -5
baseless assertion - your own opinion - not facts - irrelevant in a debate
based on the above unsupported opinion - irrelevant
I am pretty sure you understand that this wasn't meant literally
though literally speaking being used sexually is probably worse then breaking up with your best friend in kindergarten, your reasoning is wrong because your 'definition' is only your opinion
go on the promiscuity route to feel some love? how do you know they go on the promiscuity route to feel some love? how many women that were sexually abused become promiscuous? how many women are promiscuous in general? how do you know they would not have become promiscuous in the first place without being abused? how many women that were abused do not become promiscuous?
you need to answer all these questions in order for your assertions to mean anything you can't just throw your opinions (and things you heard somewhere) out there and expect them to be meaningful arguments in a debate
this is what was meant by 'your arguments are crap' you just throw things out there and expect them to be taken seriously even though they are often just ridiculous unsupported assertions
no - its not fair to say that lots of emotionally healthy people that value themselves and their body are promiscuous
|
|
|
Post by Farouche on Apr 22, 2009 22:45:50 GMT -5
Naptaq --------------- Let's try this: Farouche, you based your entire argument on crap, so you need to replace the crap with not-crap for your argument to be valid in a debate.
That sounds pretty unimpressive and reminds me of the "you don't understand" which is, a lot of time, a code word for "Please, you must see it my way" You really do find yourself impressive, don't you? What the heck are you talking about, "code words" for "you must see it my way?" I've explained several times why your premises are false, and you keep insisting that whether the basis of your argument is false or not is somehow not relevant to the discussion of your argument. I finally put it into tiny words in the hopes that that, at least, would get through to you. And the best you can manage in response is "I know you are, but what am I?" Why don't you try and explain what premise of mine you object to? This ought to be amusing. I'm expecting something imaginative and mind-bending like, "you want a premise? Is it a premise for prostitutes to LIE?!" Naptaq ------------------- What? Can't understand a pithy responce? Pithy?? That was supposed to be pithy? This pithy? Um, no. Lol... no. What you posted was a cliche wrapped in a non sequitur wrapped in a straw man. It was pretty much the opposite of "full of vigor, substance, or meaning." Naptaq ---------------- Ok, I see, you're saying you were taken out of contex: Ooo, love the smug superiority in this intro to my quote! Just love it. Naptaq --------------- Since promuscuity is largely the domain of people who are "in pursuit of hedonism" they only care about themselfs. "Me, me, me." Claiming promiscuous people are selfish, reckless hedonists doesn't make it so. This is what I'm talking about with the false premises. The argument looks like this to me: Naptaq: Since the moon is made of cheese, it's safe to say that the moon is a delicious dairy product. Me: But the moon isn't made of cheese. Naptaq: Irrelevant. Stop attacking the argument! I'm going to use absolutes. The moon is made of cheese, so obviously it's a delicious dairy product. I think that's something we can all agree on. Me: *head asplodes* See, "the moon is made of cheese" is a false premise, so you CANNOT use that false assumption to argue that the moon is a delicious dairy product.* *I can't remember where that phrase comes from, but I love it.Naptaq -------------- A lot of people are not like that and do not consider sex to be 'just "sharing secrets" plus genitalia'. So, by definiton being used sexually is a lot worse than breaking up with your best friend in kindergarten. Wow, you just managed to... completely misunderstood that post. Pay close attention and I'll try to break this down: 1. People get their feelings hurt all the time. People get hurt when a friend tells someone else an embarrassing secret. People get hurt when someone they like romantically rejects them for any reason. Being rejected by someone you willingly had sex with is always a risk--the type of risk you take every time you make yourself vulnerable to another person. Getting rejected by someone you opened up to, emotionally or physically, will always hurt. If you're going to be totally devastated if you have sex and the other person ends up rejecting you, don't have sex. Sex is NOT a contract, and you will be disappointed if you expect it to function as one. 2. They say the ninth circle of hell is reserved for betrayers. People who lie about their feelings to get anything, sex, money, whatever, are assholes, plain and simple. But are all people who lie to get sex promiscuous? No. Are all promiscuous people lying to get sex? No. It's bogus to claim or even insinuate that lying goes hand in hand with promiscuity. They're two separate things--unless you think promiscuous people can't find partners unless they lie..? Which would just be a really odd claim. 2. I think most people nowadays are aware of the fact that sex is not a binding agreement. Women are less likely to require a declaration of love before having sex, so there is less payoff nowadays for a guy to lie about his intentions. I think actually a too-quick declaration of love would be more likely to creep out women AND men than get them into bed. So the whole thing is a bit of a non-issue nowadays--hence, "silly." Naptaq --------------- And, as I also pointed out, a lot of women who were sexually abused in the past go on the promiscuity rute to feel some "love". So it's fair to say that that is not what emotionally healthy people do since they actually value themselfs and their body. No, it's not "fair to say." Is it "fair to say" that everyone who hates peanut butter must be physically ill because people with peanut allergies hate peanut butter? Is it fair to say that people who enjoy eating are sick in the head because emotional people often cope by overeating? (Hint: no to all.) Abused kids often allow themselves to be "used" by others in a variety of ways, sex being only one of them. And some have sex because they want to "drown out" the abuse with consensual sex. Some have sex because it's a way to find temporary physical intimacy without subjecting themselves to the potential trauma of a relationship. It's not the sex that is the problem any more than the food itself is the problem for emotional eaters. Having unsafe sex because you don't gave a f*** about what happens to yourself, or gulping down gigantic portions of food without even tasting it because you feel worthless--these are problems. But what about all the legions of people who weren't abused and aren't having emotional issues, who enjoy sex or food very much and very frequently, and manage to boink or eat responsibly? Note that this faux concern of yours for abused women actually demonstrates a complete contradiction to your contention that promiscuous women go around lying to maliciously trick people into sex. It sure looks like you're just throwing out any justifications you can think of to see if anything sticks. Naptaq ------------- Sure, assume the best scenario for you.
I only brought up the 10 Commandments, the absolute, not the whole Bible. Those words make no sense in that arrangement. I truly have no idea what you're trying to say.
|
|
|
Post by skyhint on Apr 23, 2009 0:25:11 GMT -5
Claiming promiscuous people are selfish, reckless hedonists doesn't make it so. This is what I'm talking about with the false premises. The argument looks like this to me: Naptaq: Since the moon is made of cheese, it's safe to say that the moon is a delicious dairy product. Me: But the moon isn't made of cheese. Naptaq: Irrelevant. Stop attacking the argument! I'm going to use absolutes. The moon is made of cheese, so obviously it's a delicious dairy product. I think that's something we can all agree on. Me: *head asplodes* See, "the moon is made of cheese" is a false premise, so you CANNOT use that false assumption to argue that the moon is a delicious dairy product.* *I can't remember where that phrase comes from, but I love it.I think the real question we need to answer is would you eat the moon if it were made of BBQ ribbs?
|
|
jai
Full Member
Posts: 131
|
Post by jai on Apr 29, 2009 7:32:52 GMT -5
Slut can be applied to men and women, not just women. A slut is someONE who has sex with someone which is meaningless and will never go anywhere. Now male and female sluts can have their meaningless sex however much they want but in my veiw I don't degrade sluts, I just dislike them because their moral views on sex is just gone out the window.
An example: I'm out clubbing and find a girl who I speak to 5 minutes. She says to me "I get really lonely in my room". She's obviously after one thing. Now if she's that quick to say that to me (by the way I'm only an average looking guy) how quick would she be to say that to somebody else? If a guy fell for her, being naive, not knowing the term slut he is certainly heartbroken. This can work both ways, women can fall for guys who can use their words to make you feel like jelly, then leave in the blink of an eye. The woman is heartbroken if she has fallen for him.
Sluts, both male and female, play with emotions and they know they are. They have very little value for emotional feelings. They need to be branded on their forehead so they can easily find one another and to stop playing around with real peoples lifes and emotions.
|
|