›
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE

The trope "Ethical Slut".

135

Comments

  • MillerCrossMillerCross
    You can change. You can.
    I have no sour grapes, only a certain sense of morality and theology.

    No, you have a different set of morals than most. This is not a bad thing. Nor a good thing. This is sex we're talking about. And this is sex that doesn't hurt anyone. Again, if you dislike that in your life, suit yourself, wait for that partner, but don't come near me when I meet a girl who just wants to have sex with me. Much less cockblock me, because...well, that'd be uncool. :P

    Today's culture is sadly decedant and depraved.

    A culture that understands that sex is nothing but an act of reproduction and pleasure and that understand that love is not necessarily included on this > a culture of rape and pillaging, for example.


  • ClockworkUniverseClockworkUniverse
    OOOooooOoOoOOoo, I'm a ghoOooOooOOOost!
    Today's culture is sadly decedant and depraved.

    Every culture throughout all of human history has thought exactly the same thing.
  • notwithstandingnotwithstanding
    DUMBER
    I have no sour grapes, only a certain sense of morality and theology.

    As far as senses of morality go, one that leads you to feel such vitriolic contempt for people with different values is a pretty shitty one.
  • NovaNova
    If you must eat a phoenix, boil it, do not roast it. This only encourages their mischievous habits.
    I have no sour grapes, only a certain sense of morality and theology.

    See, there's your problem.

    Your sense of 'morality', as defined in this context, has led you to see a large portion of the human population as amoral, simply because they can seperate lust from love.

    Please, try and understand this. Love can encompass lust, too; but they are not necessarily implicit. Lust can exist without love, and love can exist without lust.
  • RottweilerRottweiler
    Inside, too dark to read
    As
    far as senses of morality go, one that leads you to feel such vitriolic
    contempt for people with different values is a pretty shitty one.

    Is there no system of values a moral person ought to have vitriolic contempt for?
  • NovaNova
    If you must eat a phoenix, boil it, do not roast it. This only encourages their mischievous habits.
    Ones which lead to the harm of another human being.

    Anything less than that is... not.
  • ┻━┻ ︵ ヽ(`Д´）╯︵ ┻━┻┻━┻ ︵ ヽ(`Д´）╯︵ ┻━┻
    edited 2011-05-01 00:04:54
    Tableflipper
    How broadly will you define harm? Because unless you're more specific that covers most popular moral systems.
  • GelzoGelzo
    edited 2011-05-01 00:06:08
    Pony Sleuth
    My set of values say it's permissible to cause harm to another when it means less harm is likely to fall on others. I'm guessing that's not something that would make them contemptible to most people.
  • RottweilerRottweiler
    edited 2011-05-01 00:06:01
    Inside, too dark to read
    @Cygan: So a moral person ought to have vitriolic contempt for all systems of values that lead a person to contradict negative utilitarianism.

    This begs the question "is negative utilitarianism true?"
  • NovaNova
    If you must eat a phoenix, boil it, do not roast it. This only encourages their mischievous habits.
    I'unno, I'm not a philosopher.

    I'm just saying. If it's not hurting anyone, then it's kind of a dickish move to hold it in contempt. After all, what's wrong with it, if it's not hurting anyone?


    • How broadly will you define harm? Because unless you're more specific that covers most popular moral systems.

      Harm meaning severe physical or psychological damage to a person to the extent that they cannot function in society.
  • ┻━┻ ︵ ヽ(`Д´）╯︵ ┻━┻┻━┻ ︵ ヽ(`Д´）╯︵ ┻━┻
    Tableflipper
    So what about damage to a person to an extent that they will still be capable of functioning in society?
  • ChagenChagen
    [tɕagɛn]
    "Your sense of 'morality', as defined in this context, has led you to see a large portion of the human population as amoral, simply because they can seperate lust from love.

    Please, try and understand this. Love can encompass lust, too; but they are not necessarily implicit. Lust can exist without love, and love can exist without lust."

    Given that lust is an immoral feeling, that just proves my point.
  • ClockworkUniverseClockworkUniverse
    OOOooooOoOoOOoo, I'm a ghoOooOooOOOost!
    Why is lust an immoral feeling?
  • ┻━┻ ︵ ヽ(`Д´）╯︵ ┻━┻┻━┻ ︵ ヽ(`Д´）╯︵ ┻━┻
    Tableflipper
    "Your sense of 'morality', as defined in this context, has led you to see a large portion of the human population as amoral."

    "Given that lust is an immoral feeling, that just proves my point."

    lolwut
  • ChagenChagen
    [tɕagɛn]
    Because it leads to pre-marital sex.

    And because it reduces sex down to a simple and carefree act, when it is far much more
  • RottweilerRottweiler
    Inside, too dark to read
    I'm just saying. If it's not hurting anyone, then it's kind of a
    dickish move to hold it in contempt. After all, what's wrong with it,
    if it's not hurting anyone?

    You're begging the question "Is the utilitarian definition of 'harm' true?"

    In The Laws, Plato analyzes social harm and determines affluent people becoming atheists to be the biggest root cause. Atheism is made a grave crime to protect society from systemic harm.

    John Stuart Mill would be horrified. But "I'm horrified" proves nothing either rationally or empirically.
  • ClockworkUniverseClockworkUniverse
    OOOooooOoOoOOoo, I'm a ghoOooOooOOOost!
    Why is pre-marital sex bad? Why is simple and carefree sex bad?
  • ┻━┻ ︵ ヽ(`Д´）╯︵ ┻━┻┻━┻ ︵ ヽ(`Д´）╯︵ ┻━┻
    edited 2011-05-01 00:17:41
    Tableflipper
    Well, it could be far much more, but no one says you have to seek the farthest exclusively anyway.

    DON'T ANSWER ROTT CYGAN OR ELSE THE THREAD WILL EXPLODE
  • ChagenChagen
    [tɕagɛn]
    Because sex is a sacred act deserved only for your spouse.

    I'd rather people not have sex at all until they're married.
  • ClockworkUniverseClockworkUniverse
    OOOooooOoOoOOoo, I'm a ghoOooOooOOOost!
    Why is sex sacred?
  • ┻━┻ ︵ ヽ(`Д´）╯︵ ┻━┻┻━┻ ︵ ヽ(`Д´）╯︵ ┻━┻
    Tableflipper
    So what about arranged marriages, marriages done for money exclusively, marriages done because your parents wanted you to get married sooner even if you don't really like whoever your spouse is going to be very much, etc...
  • RottweilerRottweiler
    Inside, too dark to read
    Why is pre-marital sex bad? Why is simple and carefree sex bad?

    Orgy-porgy, Ford and fun,
    Kiss the girls and make them One.
    Boys at One with girls at peace;
    Orgy-porgy gives release.
  • BobBob
    So, pre-marital sex is considered simple and carefree, even if the people involved truly love each other and have put much thought into the act?
  • GelzoGelzo
    Pony Sleuth
  • notwithstandingnotwithstanding
    DUMBER
    Given that lust is an immoral feeling, that just proves my point.

    Chagen-poo, the word "given" is used when the subject in question is factual.
  • Wicked223Wicked223
    We Played Some Open Chords and Rejoiced, For the Earth Had Circled the Sun Yet Another Year
    There you have it, folks; it's bad because the people in Brave New World did it.
  • ChagenChagen
    [tɕagɛn]
    "So what about arranged marriages, marriages done for money exclusively, marriages done because your parents wanted you to get married sooner even if you don't really like whoever your spouse is going to be very much, etc..."

    Those are wrong as well.

    "So, pre-marital sex is considered simple and carefree, even if the people involved truly love each other and have put much thought into the act?"

    Then why haven't they married yet?
  • notwithstandingnotwithstanding
    edited 2011-05-01 00:26:05
    DUMBER
    Why are we even allowing someone who masturbates to six-year-olds to pontificate about ethics?
  • ClockworkUniverseClockworkUniverse
    edited 2011-05-01 00:26:22
    OOOooooOoOoOOoo, I'm a ghoOooOooOOOost!
    Didn't answer my question. If I sounded condescending or anything, I wasn't meaning to be. I'm legitimately curious why you'd consider sex sacred.

    ^Okay, you're slipping into attack territory again.
  • BobBob
    edited 2011-05-01 00:26:39
    Many, many reasons. Perhaps they don't want to rush into it. Perhaps neither of them consider marriage as being necessary to show their love for each other. Perhaps they're both opposed to the idea of marriage. Perhaps they're too young. And those don't even begin to scratch the surface.
This discussion has been closed.