How do you view someone who is sexually promiscuous (a slut, or sleaze, whatever)? Do you have any problems with such behaviour? If so, what are they? If not, why not? Would you date a guy/girl who was sexually promicuous in the past?

I would have some problems trusting that person to be faithful, and healthy. I don't judge that kind of behaviour, some people might enjoy it as a lifestyle. I do however think that promiscuity has its roots in a very low selfesteem and insecurity and not so much to do with sexual urges...although there are always exceptions.

I'm, like, the last person who should judge what consenting adults do with each other. So I don't care, and I think anyone who does is pretty fucking pathetic.


Would you date a guy/girl who was sexually promicuous in the past?

No. I expect any man I date to remain a virgin until marriage.

Originally posted by Adam
How do you view someone who is sexually promiscuous (a slut, or sleaze, whatever)? Do you have any problems with such behaviour? If so, what are they? If not, why not? Would you date a guy/girl who was sexually promicuous in the past?





I have many promiscious friends and once upon a time I too was loose so I can't and wouldn't stand in judgement..personally. However before dating someone who claimed they changed I would find it wise to establish what the change of behavior was due to.

I agree with Xev, it is pretty pathetic to judge someone based on their sexual past. Yes, I would date someone like that. Shit, I already do:D I dont get jealous so it doesnt bother me when they cheat. I just leave and find another, cuz if he really loved you and he was the one - he wouldnt of hurt you in the first place.


How do you view someone who is sexually promiscuous (a slut, or sleaze, whatever)?

I dont view them any differently. I think younger girls who have alot of sex are usually just looking for someone to like them. I dont feel they are sluts. I hate it when one of my friends says "Oh, look at that hoe". Just because a girl has sex alot does not make her a hoe. And the people that go overboard, well apparently they have issues. There has to be something not right when a girl has 5 kids by 4 different men. I think its pretty sad that they would have to resort to getting pregnant to keep a man. On the male side, I think all men need sex so they'll get it wherever. I hate to think like that, but Ive seen it happen too much. They want it all the time and if they aint getting it at home, they'll find somewhere else to get it.
But again, its just sex. It has nothing to do with the goodness of people.

<i>I dont get jealous so it doesnt bother me when they cheat. I just leave and find another, cuz if he really loved you and he was the one - he wouldnt of hurt you in the first place.</i>

If it doesn't bother you, why do you feel hurt?

I think it does bother you.

I'm still trying to figure out how having a lot of sex can turn a girl into garden implement.

Squid:

I'm still trying to figure out how having a lot of sex can turn a girl into garden implement.

You want to find out if it's possible? *Sly wink*

James R:

If it doesn't bother you, why do you feel hurt?

I think it does bother you.

I think it's more that they'd be willing to hurt you. I dunno. Personally, I'm not a huge believer in monogamy. Sex is whatever you make of it. It can be a means of communication, it can be a simple fuck, it can be a means of expressing love and it can be a way of sharing power, or exploring power, or all of these things.

Monogamy is just the biological desire to safeguard one's genetic resources.

Originally posted by Xev
Monogamy is just the biological desire to safeguard one's genetic resources.

was - and even then not really recognised as such.

now? people have forgotten even that.... monogamy now just "is" right. They dont even think much about it... deep thought is not prevalent much anymore, acceptance is. If you ask, any non-religious person will probably say something along the lines of "i just believe it's right" or "i have my own code of morality" and never get past that. what they've never thought about is why it is... and if you ask, again, they'll say "it's my intuitive feeling monogamy is a natural state". The more intelligent ones will then probably go into the laws of darwinism and tell how it gives a child more chance of survival.

which is pure bullshit. its deeply ingrained social conditioning. nothing more, and in this age even less relevant or useful than it was in the past.

Squid:

I disagree. Posessiveness serves a definite reproductive end - keeping one from supporting children that don't share your genes - therefore everyone demands monogamy from their partner while screwing around themselves.

Now, to what degree the demand of monogamy is simple emotional posessivenes I do not know. I would respect that more than I would one who claims that monogamy is a simple sign of respect.

However, you cannot logically deny that demanding monogamy while screwing around is the best reproductive strategy.

From there, the question becomes an excersize in reproductive psychology. The relevence of monogamy on one's personal life? Well, this is more cultural than anything else.

Originally posted by Xev
I disagree. Posessiveness serves a definite reproductive end - keeping one from supporting children that don't share your genes - therefore everyone demands monogamy from their partner while screwing around themselves
.....
However, you cannot logically deny that demanding monogamy while screwing around is the best reproductive strategy.

i'm not really denying that, i'm denying the relevance of monogamy in our society. it no longer serves any meaningful purpose, except as an emotional cushion. the guilt associated with not being monogamous is not caused by any factor other than social conditioning. biological imperatives do not demand guilt.

in addition, not all of us demand monogamy in our partners. there is sometimes some emotional reaction to finding out one's partner has not been faithful, but this is soon extinguished in the cold light of reason and re-examination of one's own motives.

I think it does bother you.

To know they dont give a shit about my feelings, hurts.
When they cheat, I dont give a sh*t.

Get it?

At the risk of getting laughed at, I have to ask anyone if being permiscuous is worth is.

If your a male and you knocked up a girl, you just signed your life away and have given some woman you don't know total power over you. If she chooses to keep the kid you owe child support for life and in many cases you may be denied visitation by a judge. The only recourse you have is to get a DNA test. Then, your looking at what, $200+ a month in child support? You could press for custody but what are the odds in your favor... less than 25% statistically? Unwanted fathers in this country are for the most part considered just as disposable as unwanted children.

I haven't even started talking about STD's, but I think personally no one can really justify a loose lifestyle accept "It feels good." That doesn't mean I detest people who live that way at all... just that I cannot find any incentive to live that way, and for that matter for anyone to live that way. For the record I'm not a virgin either... I just can't justify 5 seconds of orgasm with 50 years of regrets and a dirty jock.

I think monogamy goes against human nature. But then, why do we care whether the person you love sleeps around? Because we love them. If you just liked them, and knew they didn't love you, you wouldn't expect much more, but the deeper your love, the less you want to share that person - least of all sexually, because it's so personal, so close to our feelings and emotions.

The only reason you would condone promiscuity is if you *didn't care* (or just think of your own pleasure=selfish). No one can condone or judge it - but whether it's moral or like Xevious says, worth the risk (both physically and psychologically) is a question worth asking.

Living in Africa, I know what Aids does to people. It's a disease just like any other, but unlike most - the link between death and immorality has never been so evident. <bold>I am NOT saying people die because its their own fault</bold> I just say that when monogamy is an answer to a problem - it is worth thinking about twice.

Being non-manogomous is indeed a state of nature. When will people figure out that you cannot function like your in a state of nature when you live in civilization? The whole point behind civilization was to set down rules for coopertive and peaceful coexistance, the division of labor, and advancement of everyone.

Monogomy is indeed a HUGE extention of this. This is because it is designed to keep the family in one piece, make sure their is a healthy enviornment for the children to grow up in, and prevent dischord which occurs with one is promuscuous. (IE Jealousy tendencies which lead to violence, STD's, as well as reinforcing the bond has with their mate)

I think you will find that when the Greeks came a lot more worshipful of nature, their civilization collapsed. It happens time and time again, when societies reject coopertiveness in favor of more and more personal freedom. In nature, survival of the fittist is the rule. In a society which shuns coopertive morals in favor of personal interests, a state of nature is inevitable.

Viva la civilization!

Anarchy has never solved anything, especially not moral anarchy. People seem to confuse freedom of expression and expression of freedom, with having no standards or guidelines to live by. They say "I will decide for myself what's right and what's wrong," pretending to be free-thinking and rational individuals, but effectively closing their eyes to the world, and history, and relinquishing any social responsibility. As you said, Xevious: monogamy is about protecting the most sacred of social institutions: the family, and by inplication the whole of society.

Yes, it's an ideal. But so is complete freedom, if you think about it. There has to be a balance, I think.

'Right and wrong' is by nature a social concept, and can't be figured out in isolation and out of context. How can humanity become more civilized if they have to figure out what works and what doesn't over and over again for the sake of individuality. Everybody will bump their head twice, but it is possible to live in such a way that you don't have to worry about making mistakes that could ruin your life, or somebody else's. [Hasn't anybody ever lost a brother or friend because some drunk teenager borrowed his dads merc and decided to skip a few stops? Or had to raise a kid when you could have been travelling the world?]

You two make me fucking sick, and I can't even be bothered telling you why.

Originally posted by Adam
Would you date a guy/girl who was sexually promicuous in the past?

Well mostly when i date someone i don't know them yet so i wouldn't know if they were sexually promicuous however most of the girls i know who are sexually promicuous aren't the brighters stars in the universe so to speak so i don't think i would date them anyhow.

Squid Vicious, their is something very wrong with you if the idea of being of moral character makes you sick.

This is how I look at it: You have just displayed character which I dislike and do not support. I will choose not to support you in your character, and I will distrust you because if you are unable to be trusted with one moral, how can I trust you with others? How do I know you won't steal from me, or cheat me, or lie to me?

Thus, if you ask me for help when you are sick, how will I know you didn't bring it upon yourself, and if you keep getting sick because of whatever reason, I will eventually be less willing to help you. Similarly if you complain you are short money for groceries and I spare some to help you, or offer out of my garden or chicken coup, and you continue to be short on money, I will wonder why. By displaying one set of immoral character, I wonder about your other morals, and will debate wether or not I will want to help you in your immoral ways.

That's how well-kept societies keep in one piece. This does NOT mean that you don't have the right to individual expression, as the other guy pointed out. If you enjoy Astronomy, enjoy it! If you like Music, enjoy it! If you like to garden, or persue whatever hobbies you want to, then do so! But, none of those are entirely societal issues. Music CAN be since it reflect culture, but I degress. The point is, that morals are about getting cooperation and trust from your neighbors and if you can't do that, you can't function. Simple as that.

It seems to me that the mating urge and the rigours of survival throughout much of our history would require that: A) Men would want their women to be monogamous to ensure only their own offspring carry on; and B) women would want their men to remain monogamous for the same reason. However, for exactly the same reason, a man would wish to sleep around to really gibve his genes a shot at carrying on; and women would also want to sleep around for that reason. I think we have a natural, built-in double standard.

However, we have (I try to tell myself) evolved and overcome the rigours of natural selection somewhat. We simply don't need the old sleeping around half of the double standard. The world isn't that dangerous for most of us.

How do you view someone who is sexually promiscuous (a slut, or sleaze, whatever)? Do you have any problems with such behaviour? If so, what are they? If not, why not? Would you date a guy/girl who was sexually promicuous in the past?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the past..I didnt really worry to much about what other people were doing with their sexual lives, for like many.. I believed, and still believe that until promicuous behaviour effects me personaly its none of my business.

I know I have much personal growth and many lessons to learn / experience in my own life before I could even begin to judge another.

My Ex wife had a rather vivacious and somewhat secretive sexual appetite for other men... as such when I found out about her devious ways.... I felt betrayed, and deeply hurt.etc etc..

Exactly why I felt these emotions so strongly or indeed if they even served a purpose other than to ensure an eventual marriage dissolution is beyond me.

Having said that.. I now am quite careful and try to identify those more likely to cheat or be promicuous before I'd concider allowing a personal relationship to develop.

cheers
RazZ

Well, whatever the reasons, even crows and ducks develop monogamous intimate relationships. I guess it's just natural or something for many types of animal.

That same jealousy you felt, could drive a less controled person to be abusive, or even kill their spouse and the cheater. Domestic violence... and promiscuity is a leading player in domestic violence. Their's just another toss-in which proves my case that promiscuity is bad for society as a whole.

Originally posted by Xevious
Squid Vicious, their is something very wrong with you if the idea of being of moral character makes you sick.

by whose standards? yours?

This is how I look at it: You have just displayed character which I dislike and do not support.

erm. hm. i'm trying to figure out what sort of emotion i should be feeling in response to this, but i'm not getting anything.

I will choose not to support you in your character,

you place a very high value on the level of support i supposedly might ask from you, don't you?

and I will distrust you because if you are unable to be trusted with one moral, how can I trust you with others?

so, if you catch me fucking your wife, your first instinct will be to run out to the garage to see if your car is still there?

How do I know you won't steal from me, or cheat me, or lie to me?

You don't. Whereas you, to me, are as predictable as the weather. occasionally, i'll get it wrong.. but most of the time you're quite dependable. i wouldn't dare to ask perfection from you. i don't ask that from anyone, least of all myself.

displaying one set of immoral character, I wonder about your other morals,

yep. promiscuity is only the first step. from there, we progress to theft, drug dealing, and finally multiple homicide. it's a wild ride, but hell, if you want to learn i'll be happy to show you. i know a girl you can start being promiscuous with, and then we'll get to the fun bit and i'll teach you how to use a knife.

and will debate wether or not I will want to help you in your immoral ways.

you'll not want to help me in my immoral ways, certainly. where does the debate come into it? you WILL want to cure me of them however.... trying to do so will make ya feel all warm 'n fuzzy inside, won't it?

That's how well-kept societies keep in one piece

yep. all with neat little white picket fences and a permanent rainbow JUST over the horizon where you can't... quite... reach it.

This does NOT mean that you don't have the right to individual expression, as the other guy pointed out. If you enjoy Astronomy, enjoy it! If you like Music, enjoy it! If you like to garden, or persue whatever hobbies you want to, then do so!

so i'm PERMITTED to have your wife? take away all my fun, would you?

But, none of those are entirely societal issues.

oh i see. i'm allowed expression only while adhering to your standards. society does have issues, yes, i entirely agree.

The point is, that morals are about getting cooperation and trust from your neighbors and if you can't do that, you can't function. Simple as that.

i don't want co-operation from anybody. except maybe your wife. don't worry, once i get it you can have her back, i promise. you'd probably forgive her, too, but you'd never quite figure out why she'd ever done it in the first place.

Originally posted by Xevious
That same jealousy you felt, could drive a less controled person to be abusive, or even kill their spouse and the cheater. Domestic violence... and promiscuity is a leading player in domestic violence. Their's just another toss-in which proves my case that promiscuity is bad for society as a whole.

it proves nothing other than people's rage at the thought of being betrayed. the question you must ask yourself is WHY you feel that rage in the first place. if the belief in betrayal was not present, the rage would likewise not be.

this is more an indicator of the animal in society, not the human.

The difference is that humans can learn to control their emotions, esp. anger/rage - being able to think before you act is a sign of maturity. So by not 'taking out' your jealousy etc. on someone else is not only a sign of civilized behaviour, but mature character. Morals are usually taught by mature people (parents, hopefully) and questioned by immature people (usually their teenage kids). Immorality = immaturity, in individuals as well as in society.

Originally posted by Adam
It seems to me that the mating urge and the rigours of survival throughout much of our history would require that: A) Men would want their women to be monogamous to ensure only their own offspring carry on; and B) women would want their men to remain monogamous for the same reason.

Not quite, Adam. Men would prefer that as many of (not only) their own genes survive as possible. not only that, we want to KNOW they're ours. so we stick around to make sure. but we'd like to have a little insurance policy every now and then too, right? can't have all the eggs in one basket. men are a little torn on this, we cant stray too far without risking another bird in the bower. so we wander a little... and then scarper home quick smart to make sure we're not being rendered obsolete. rather comical really.

Women prefer monogamy for an entirely different reason... to ensure a provider remains close for as long as possible. is it only a coincidence that the 7 year itch is rather close to an age at which a child could theoretically fend for itself? just a question.

studies tend to indicate that women have entirely different reasons for having "affairs" than men. a common trend seems to be protest... at whatever she thinks a man has done, or sometimes more importantly not done. if the provider ain't gonna come up with the goods, then maybe she'd better shop around....

and to pre-empt anyone saying im using "provider" in the sense of money, think again. security has all sorts of different meanings...

I think we have a natural, built-in double standard.

yup. is it necessary any longer? was it ever necessary, or merely... desired.

Originally posted by Jenyar
The difference is that humans can learn to control their emotions, esp. anger/rage - being able to think before you act is a sign of maturity.

No. it's a sign of being human. one more thing to consider... being able to think before you act is no guarantee of coming up with the right answer.

So by not 'taking out' your jealousy etc. on someone else is not only a sign of civilized behaviour, but mature character.

ahhh, yes. i love being proved wrong on my previous judgements of character. i only wish you fully understood what you just said.

Morals are usually taught by mature people (parents, hopefully)

yes. what if they're the wrong morals?

and questioned by immature people (usually their teenage kids)

value judgement. irrelevant.

Immorality = immaturity, in individuals as well as in society.

hmmm... my problem in replying to this is that you appear to lump all deviations from your moral code into one heading, marked "immaturity". now, i'm certainly not going to commit murder. i'm not going to steal your car. i WILL fuck your wife, given the opportunity, and provided she's worth the effort.
now, by your own words, i can't refute this and say i'm promiscuos without also declaring myself a mass murderer. this seems somewhat unfair. shall we discuss shades of grey?

You're very welcome to discuss the shades of grey. I wasn't judging your character, or even your judgement of character. I would like to know what you consider as maturity. Feel free to generalise.

Originally posted by Jenyar
You're very welcome to discuss the shades of grey. I wasn't judging your character, or even your judgement of character. I would like to know what you consider as maturity. Feel free to generalise.

oh, please, let's not lie. i was judging you, and you me. if you weren't, i'm not interested in you at all. i'm giving you a come on, bruce lee style. i'm not interested in your version of civilisation, so let's step outside our little idealogical forts and fight, shall we?

besides which.. seems to me, i've done a lot of refuting to which you havent answered. a little Squid Pro Quo seems appropriate.
if you want me to talk more, you'd better give me something to talk about.

oh, and by the way... "character" was the wrong word for me to use here. i meant something more along the lines of "awareness".
or perhaps a combination of the two.

"So by not 'taking out' your jealousy etc. on someone else is not only a sign of civilized behaviour, but mature character.

ahhh, yes. i love being proved wrong on my previous judgements of character. i only wish you fully understood what you just said."

OK, here's my version, and let me know when you want to call it Squids...


No. it's a sign of being human. one more thing to consider... being able to think before you act is no guarantee of coming up with the right answer.

Of course it's a sign of being human. But not all humans act responsibly. What the 'right' answer would be, would depend on the circumstances and the culture. In its most basic form, morality comes down to human rights. Even murder is acceptible in some cultures (death penalty). You have to judge the conduct of others when they affect your own well-being. But often by then it's already too late, and you have to stop bad behaviour even before it affects the society you're living in.

What's being debated in this thread is whether sexual promiscuity can be considered beneficial/detrimental to society. We've seen that it affects people personally - If I may quote Razz:
My Ex wife had a rather vivacious and somewhat secretive sexual appetite for other men... as such when I found out about her devious ways.... I felt betrayed, and deeply hurt.etc etc..

It did hurt him, although he "didnt really worry to much about what other people were doing with their sexual lives" before. Consequently he couldn't understand his feelings, because according to his previous lifestyle it didn't make sense. If you live promiscuously before marriage, it is my opinion that marriage (i.e. one partner) could be too much of a 'culture shock' to sustain succesfully, never mind trust completely. Personally, I don't understand so-called 'swingers'.

Razz: "Having said that.. I now am quite careful and try to identify those more likely to cheat or be promicuous before I'd concider allowing a personal relationship to develop. "

Natural selection can also be emotionally: people who get hurt by a certain behaviour are more likely to avoid that behaviour. Love is a kind of trial and error of emotions, needs and compromises. You can either mate like animals, or learn to love. Fortunately most humans eventually prefer love above lust.


ahhh, yes. i love being proved wrong on my previous judgements of character. i only wish you fully understood what you just said.
I really wasn't trying to prove you wrong - I didn't mean *you* were jealous. I understand what I'm saying: reserve=self-control. You do at least agree to the virtue of self-control, don't you?
Morals are usually taught by mature people (parents, hopefully) and questioned by immature people (usually their teenage kids)
I mean that with age comes wisdom, if you do it right. You don't have to make the mistake your parents made. If their children respect them, they can safely assume what they say is based on good judgement. If their children don't respect them, then surely they can ask themselves 'why' and strive to be different. Again, I'm assuming that respectability is a virtue.

you appear to lump all deviations from your moral code into one heading, marked "immaturity"
I use the word 'maturity' loosely to include the concepts of self-control and good judgement among other virtues. Of course there are levels of maturity. You might steal food and be quite mature in other ways. But the thinking that justifies taking from others what doesn't belong to you is not as far removed from taking someone's life when it's not yours to take - it's a matter of restraint. Monogamy is also a form of restraint, Q.E.D.

Originally posted by Jenyar
OK, here's my version, and let me know when you want to call it Squids...

that'll be when i get bored.

Of course it's a sign of being human. But not all humans act responsibly.

responsibility is subjective.

What the 'right' answer would be, would depend on the circumstances and the culture.

exactly.

In its most basic form, morality comes down to human rights.

agreed so far.

You have to judge the conduct of others when they affect your own well-being.

also true. however, your version of well-being might be different to mine.
i get the feeling here that you assume your well-being involves you remaining happy. i'm not sure if you extend that thought to any potential partner.

i could drug you, make you feel nothing but sheer bliss via chemical enhancement, and put you in a room with a few sheets of paper and a box of crayons... you'd be happy. is this good for you?

But often by then it's already too late, and you have to stop bad behaviour even before it affects the society you're living in.

again, bad behaviour is a value judgement. my standards of bad behaviour might be different from yours. we're pretty much agreed on the murder bit... we're talking about promiscuity here. your entire argument so far seems to center on the effect promiscuity might have on a third party. THIS is where i'm taking exception.

What's being debated in this thread is whether sexual promiscuity can be considered beneficial/detrimental to society.

ok... again, YOUR society, but i'll allow it for now.

We've seen that it affects people personally - If I may quote Razz:
My Ex wife had a rather vivacious and somewhat secretive sexual appetite for other men... as such when I found out about her devious ways.... I felt betrayed, and deeply hurt.etc etc..

It did hurt him, although he "didnt really worry to much about what other people were doing with their sexual lives" before.

again i ask.. WHY did it hurt him? (my apologies Razz, you're being used here).

ok, i'll elaborate. a third party's hurt is caused by a feeling of betrayal. this feeling of betrayal is a result of the belief that a partner should be faithful, and has not been. this belief is present in today's society... but why is it present? can you tell me what useful purpose it serves? this is what i want from you. go deeper.

Your version of respect for another seems to be folding their individual will to yours. mine is different. my respect is for one who will not allow me to do so.

hmm. let me develop that a little further. they will not allow me to do so when they feel strongly about something. small issues are not as important, and small clashes of will will often involve in one partner or another giving in due to the fact that they do not feel strongly enough about something to fight over it. this is fine. important issues should not result in one partner bending. that only leads to submergence.

Consequently he couldn't understand his feelings, because according to his previous lifestyle it didn't make sense.

now we're getting warm.

If you live promiscuously before marriage, it is my opinion that marriage (i.e. one partner) could be too much of a 'culture shock' to sustain succesfully, never mind trust completely.

oh, please. One might simply have been confused about their own needs, involved in a search, or unable to believe the ideal partner even exists. once the need has been fulfilled or the confusion cleared through finding the right partner, monogamy might become possible through choice rather than social dictate. or, alternatively, if an equal is finally met, monogamy might result through happenstance... that no one else is even able to provide the same level of.. hmm... pleasure (not the word i'm after but it'll suffice for now)... and others are therefore no longer sought.

Personally, I don't understand so-called 'swingers'.

there are many different personalities involved in "swinging". too many to debate here, and i don't think they're really relevant anyway. not for the point i'm trying to make.

Razz: "Having said that.. I now am quite careful and try to identify those more likely to cheat or be promicuous before I'd concider allowing a personal relationship to develop. "

in order to avoid being hurt again? why not concentrate on why he was hurt in the first place? might be more enlightening in the long run.

natural selection can also be emotionally: people who get hurt by a certain behaviour are more likely to avoid that behaviour. Love is a kind of trial and error of emotions, needs and compromises. You can either mate like animals, or learn to love. Fortunately most humans eventually prefer love above lust.

why exclude the possibility of both? or perhaps you feel humans are not capable of this?

I really wasn't trying to prove you wrong - I didn't mean *you* were jealous.

oh yes, i can be. i'm working on it, though, because i don't regard it as being an ideal emotion.

I understand what I'm saying: reserve=self-control. You do at least agree to the virtue of self-control, don't you?

yes, i do indeed. i'm not sure if my definition would correlate with yours, though.

Morals are usually taught by mature people (parents, hopefully) and questioned by immature people (usually their teenage kids)
I mean that with age comes wisdom, if you do it right. You don't have to make the mistake your parents made. If their children respect them, they can safely assume what they say is based on good judgement. If their children don't respect them, then surely they can ask themselves 'why' and strive to be different. Again, I'm assuming that respectability is a virtue.

i don't believe children can safely assume anything at all. far better for them to question, otherwise we end up with a stagnant society of robots. particularly in the 60's, if those teenagers then had not questioned the previous generation, some values may never have been exposed as they were... as being completely erroneous.

and yes, you are. but i'll let you get away with it.

I use the word 'maturity' loosely to include the concepts of self-control and good judgement among other virtues.

ummm... virtues. there are far too many of them, and unfortunately not having all of them appears to mean you are precluded from possessing any at all.

Of course there are levels of maturity. You might steal food and be quite mature in other ways. But the thinking that justifies taking from others what doesn't belong to you is not as far removed from taking someone's life when it's not yours to take - it's a matter of restraint.

completely disagree. this would entirely depend on the personal philosophy of the perpetrator. they may be completely alien to one another.

Monogamy is also a form of restraint, Q.E.D.

this is what you're trying to demonstrate, yes. however, your entire argument is, i say again, based on a personal set of values. your stance here is that restraint is a good thing. in some instances, that's entirely correct.

my belief, however, is that anyone assuming their partner will be faithful due to restraint set upon them by a social dictate, or that of a partner (which in some cases will be the same thing), will succeed only in submerging another human will to their own, if the other allows it.

if you truly value another human being, then you would not attempt to remold them in your own image, or treat them as your own personal possession. the human should recognise that in doing so he only destroys what was valuable about that human in the first place. this does not, however, preclude the odd testing of will. strength to me is sometimes as a mountain to be climbed for others. you try to break (climb) it... because its there. and take more joy in failure than in success.

Let me talk slower for you, Squid.

If you want cooperation from me with reguard to mutual survival, you are going to have to prove yourself to be a person who will treat me the what you want to be treated. If you screwed my girlfriend, then it's unthinkable you would not expect to be treated the same way. It's called hippocracy. Maybe it's human for you to screw around, but if we played by those same rules (namely, state of nature), I could decide I felt like killing you off as a rival mate. But OH NO!! You wouldn't want that, would you? Of course not, so as long as you get to enjoy the benefits of civalization and not the responsibility your fine with it.

Originally posted by Xevious
Let me talk slower for you, Squid.

why? i'll be reading it at the same speed anyway.

If you want cooperation from me with reguard to mutual survival

i don't, really. i pick my allies a little more carefully than that.

you are going to have to prove yourself to be a person who will treat me the what you want to be treated.

no. you want me to treat you the way you want to be treated, and will return the favour only if i submit my moral values to yours.

If you screwed my girlfriend, then it's unthinkable you would not expect to be treated the same way. It's called hippocracy.

that's right. exactly. don't remember saying i'd mind overly much if you did. or wait, i did, but also said i didn't agree with the sentiment and i'm working on purging it from myself. let's just say i'd probably deal with it in a manner completely different to yourself.

Maybe it's human for you to screw around, but if we played by those same rules (namely, state of nature), I could decide I felt like killing you off as a rival mate.

which would make you a murderer, and me promiscuous. seems to be a fairly extreme reaction from you, and one which would ensure that you in both your eyes and mine are the worse person, morally speaking. you sure about this?

But OH NO!! You wouldn't want that, would you?

being killed by you? of course not. fancy forcing you to become an animal in your own eyes.

Of course not, so as long as you get to enjoy the benefits of civalization and not the responsibility your fine with it.

so, in your view, we take your moral universe... the whole thing, kit and kaboodle, no exceptions allowed, or return to savage ways? how bloody silly.

You're incapable of allowing for the fact that not all of your morals are correct. i'm already allowing that some of your morals may be, but not this one. so who's intolerant then? isn't that one of your morals too?

Jesus hell, you bastards, where do you get off having interesting conversations when I'm at work?

Bachus:

however most of the girls i know who are sexually promicuous aren't the brighters stars in the universe so to speak so i don't think i would date them anyhow.

And what, you are? *Hint* In English, the personal "I" is capitalized and sentances usually are shorter than 40 words. :rolleyes:

Adam


It seems to me that the mating urge and the rigours of survival throughout much of our history would require that: A) Men would want their women to be monogamous to ensure only their own offspring carry on; and B) women would want their men to remain monogamous for the same reason. However, for exactly the same reason, a man would wish to sleep around to really gibve his genes a shot at carrying on; and women would also want to sleep around for that reason. I think we have a natural, built-in double standard.

Bingo, I've explained this to you well. Go me. :)


However, we have (I try to tell myself) evolved and overcome the rigours of natural selection somewhat. We simply don't need the old sleeping around half of the double standard. The world isn't that dangerous for most of us.

This only proves that monogamy is neutral, not that it is beneficial.

I, for one, don't need to control my partner. I'm perfectly okay if he wants to sleep with other women, so long as the same courtesy is extended to me. In my eyes, if you love someone, it doesn't matter how many people they've slept with (besides health and all) or whether they're sleeping with another person.

I rather pity those who can't love someone without being given assurence of a nonexistant sexual fidelity. Pretty pathetic, really, not to be able to feel an emotion like love over a little thing like that.


Well, whatever the reasons, even crows and ducks develop monogamous intimate relationships. I guess it's just natural or something for many types of animal.

Male lions kill all the lion cubs when they take over a pride, so that the lionesses will start ovulating and be receptive to the lions.

Alpha female chimps will kill the children of gamma female chimps.

So infanticide is "just natural or something for many types of animal".

See where this logic gets us?

Xevious

That same jealousy you felt, could drive a less controled person to be abusive, or even kill their spouse and the cheater. Domestic violence... and promiscuity is a leading player in domestic violence. Their's just another toss-in which proves my case that promiscuity is bad for society as a whole.

No, it's not a toss in. I'll put it simply, so that even a cretin like you can understand:

A: Your assertion that promiscuity is a leading player in domestic violence is unlikely at best.

First, most battered women are live in such fear of their partner that they wouldn't dream of screwing around.

Secondly, most batterers isolate their victims socially, so that the oppertunities for fucking around are greatly reduced.

B: Even if true, you've provided no evidence that "promiscuity is a leading player in domestic violence". Put up or sound like an even bigger idiot than you do now.

C: I don't care what they've done, domestic violence is illegal.

D: Most people think it's wrong to abuse people without their consent. Now, I may be a Nietzschean, but I think it's fair enough to use a provisional moral system where

'Hurting people without their consent = morally wrong"

Sheesh, when did group homes for the profoundly retarded get internet access?

Everybody has their own set of principles, values, morals, etc. I just don't think that society should default to the 'lowest' common denominator, i.e. the people with the most personal freedom (it's called anarchism, isn't it? When someone tells you it's wrong to kill someone, but you don't think it is, do you now have the freedom to kill that person?)

I'm exaggerating in order to demonstrate my point. To bring the topic back to promiscuity. I agree with Squid and Xev that if both parties have no problem with sleeping around, it shouldn't be a problem. For instance, in a city of prostitutes, prostitution is expected. Promiscuity is defined as 'indiscriminate sex', as opposed to 'discriminate'. But the question isn't the liberties of love, but the constraints of it. Treat others as you wish to be treated...unless it interferes with their own values.

Squid, you can argue all you want that what I say are value judgements, but that is exactly what I mean: that when what someone does is offensive to you, you have the right to tell them, and if you have the kind of respect for people's freedom that you say you have, you will refrain for sleeping with my wife, for instance, because that is what should keep her from sleeping with you - marriage is supposed to be a promise of monogamy. That's what I call maturity, self-control and respect, never mind moral discrimination.

Originally posted by Xev
Bachus:


And what, you are? *Hint* In English, the personal "I" is capitalized and sentances usually are shorter than 40 words. :rolleyes:



I never claimed I was ;). I like to think i'm more intelligent then most of those girls i meet though.

Your assertion that promiscuity is a leading player in domestic violence is unlikely at best. First, most battered women are live in such fear of their partner that they wouldn't dream of screwing around. Secondly, most batterers isolate their victims socially, so that the oppertunities for fucking around are greatly reduced.

Shows what you know, buddy. Your assuming women are the biggest victems of domestic violence, when according to the US Department of Jusitce, MEN are. Women abuse their mates more than men do, and that IS because men sometimes cheat (and as you pointed out are more prone to do so). Considering too I've grown up in a neighborhood where a lot of this is normal... (the Mexican Mafia lives within 8 blocks) I would know a lot more about it than what's on statistical paper. Your letting all the soap-opera and TV shows perceptions get through, unless you worked in a Battered Women shelter or something? Battered women are not, statistically speaking a large fraction of the domestic violence problem. In fact, there are statistically (and in my experience) more battered and controled MEN than women. You wonder why you don't see it? The answer to this one is that men often don't want to admit how much power their mate has over them. This society still buys into some of the "Men are bigger" additudes when it comes to men even though we don't treat women that way in relation to their partners. To put it more simply, there is a double-standard currently in play. Men are still required to be the big "man" around here, who protects his mate, brings home the bacon, and shrugs off his problems. The role of women has changed in the past 30 years to a more "liberated" woman concept. Men can't admit to women abusing them, but women can get a divorce and half her husband owns if he abuses her.

In High School, a friend of mine was doped on extacy at a party and he was raped by several women. Instead of cleaning up afterwards, he went to a rape crisis center, and told them what happened. He was ready for a medical exam, a psycological exam, the whole 9 yards, and the middle-aged woman who saw him just smiles condescenting at him when he told her what happened and asked, "Are you sure you wern't asking for it?" So, on top of being raped (brutally - he had bruises in multiple places), someone laughed in his face and didn't even give him an exam. I'm off topic, but I just wanted to show you how bad the double-standard is in this country in terms of how men are reguarded.

Domestic violence is NOT about battered women most often, it's about married men and women, and the children of those people who's unity as a couple is so poor they turn violently on each other. It has to do with unresolved feelings about how they treat each other. Woah, sounds like what I was talking about - treating others how you want to be treated. Yes, it IS and promiscuity is a HUGE part of it. You can substantiate this easily with the number of out-of wedlock births we have in the lower class. How many single mothers do we have because they fuck around, and their parents toss them on the street because they choose not to support their lifestyle? Couple this with the divorce rate in this country - it's now around what, 50%? That's half of all marrages failing. It largely has to do with women making differnt career choices and not being with her husband (which is her right) and thus she divorces. Women initiate 70% of divorce in this country. The remaining 30% are by men who discover their wives have cheated... and in all of that are the children who had NOTHING to do with what their parents did but will have to go through years of hell after a divorce.

But anyway, Jenyar hit it on the head. It's about respecting other people and yourself. Especially when children and a family are involed, monogomy is very important I think. You can disagree with me all you want on how this might not be a correct moral, but as long as my decisions effect other people (namely, MY parents, my mate, and children when I have them) then I will think of them before I think of my own selfish wants. My loved ones are very important to me. It's a shame not everyone values their loved ones like that anymore. It's also a shame that no one cares about the women or men they sleep with any more, or what happens to them afterwards as a result of it.

No matter how we try to rationalize
it, promiscuity will never replace monogamy as the ideal. Our hearts know that, even though our other organs may quibble.... ;-)

i believe sexual promiscuity is ok in a committed relationship.

I'm beginning to believe that a desire for monogamy on the part of one's partner is at least partially due to low self-esteem on one's part. And definitely, low self-esteem on the part of girls sometimes leads to promiscuity.

So both monogamy and promiscuity are the products of low self esteem, and equally undesirable? Neither is an truer ideal?

I keep see the words "emtions", and "feelings" being used. Anyone here even know even what causes them? Does anyone reading this, even have a rudementary concept of what the relationship between man and women is? What defines a man and what defines a woman? The answer is right there.

I would not judge others for being "easy", but I would not be interested in a relationship with someone who was promiscuous. And I myself would never be promiscuous. Just my personal values that I DO NOT project on to others.

Originally posted by jds999
No matter how we try to rationalize
it, promiscuity will never replace monogamy as the ideal. Our hearts know that, even though our other organs may quibble.... ;-)

uh.. okay. my three wives told me to tell you "you are just making stuff up, stop it."

I bet your 3 wives each secrectly wish your heart wasn't divided.

nah, they're too into the perfect penis and the lesbian action to bother stopping for contemplating heart division. fact is, your statement is wrong. different stroke for different folks bro, some like it freaky.

OK. You've convinced me.
Not.

Monogamous, romantic love is the opiate of the masses.

Keep it up Squid!
Anyways, I wanted to ask this question..
Who says that it is better for a child to grow up in a "normal" family? Why not let's say let a child learn the real life from the start... divorces and how obsolete long-term relationships are...
Just a thought

The problem is, even if you grow up realizing that everyone you love will try to fuck your mind and leave you if you don't let them, you still don't learn.

That's why cheap vodka was invented. :)

Heh..
I explain my question..
My parents got divorced when I was 15.
Of course I was not happy at the time, etc... Looking back at it now, I am super thankful to life that it happened. I can't imagine how pathetic my existance would be without it.I strangely don't feel anything towards my parents now, so I am rid of some nice responsibility.
Thank you great Cthulhu.

I don't get why divorce is seen as a bad thing.
People are fuckwits.

Why? Christianity...

Originally posted by ndrs
Heh..
I explain my question..
My parents got divorced when I was 15.

Mine when i was 11. my "formative years" apparently. thank erm... cthulhu if you like... i wasn't "formatted".

Of course I was not happy at the time, etc... Looking back at it now,

i'm not sure if i was happy about it or not. i honestly don't remember, but i think looking back the thing i felt most was a profound sense of relief.

I am super thankful to life that it happened. I can't imagine how pathetic my existance would be without it.

bang that nail, right on the head.

I strangely don't feel anything towards my parents now, so I am rid of some nice responsibility.

i've just recently gotten rid of mine. along with the responsibility and the guilt which accompany them. details are irrelevant, but i agree that if this sort of thing makes a child unhappy, then that's not a good thing. however, sometimes, life itself serves a purpose, and those of us who feel lucky are the ones who have suffered the most while being given the freedom to have time to think about it.

Are your parents also divorced, Xev?

Promiscuity... A neat convenience.

I think it all depends on what we think is pleasure in life. If somebody prefers to live a life of interdependency and familial bonds, there is nothing worse than promiscuity.

But for all those who just want an independent and no-bonds life, it is a convenience to enjoy. But isn't it also the life of frustration and confusion beyond a point?

Anyway, this is a largely American/European board, so there is no use mentioning the Eastern Social Values!

Originally posted by UltiTruth

Anyway, this is a largely American/European board, so there is no use mentioning the Eastern Social Values!

Now I'm curious. What are "Eastern Social Values"?

Well, Adam, if that is a serious question, here.

Most Asian societies have a high regard for Monogamy and family life. Some Indian families have members representing 4-5 generations: Grand parents, uncles, aunts, their children...
And this is possible only when the relational lines are clearly set! So there is a high premium on relationships. For example, an elder brother's wife is considered equal to one's own mother!
You would be interested that Divorce rates are about a 0.5% in India, and according to one survey, 92% of all men and women are virgins at marriage. Dating is almost unknown with about 85% arranged marriages.
All this might appear primitive on this board, but some socieites might find some other ideas equally primitive!

Of course, I am denying the existence of the promiscuous anywhere, but they are almost outcasts in some parts of the world! :)

Originally posted by Xev
I don't get why divorce is seen as a bad thing.
People are fuckwits.

Hehe, I think ONE divorce is fine... more divorces after that you're just an idiot. As long as you know that, that's fine too. :)

Actually, I think the institution of marriage is fucking STUPID unless you have kids, desperately need a tax shelter or there is some other convenience behind it.

Love will always confound the cynics. ;-)

"But for all those who just want an independent and no-bonds life, it is a convenience to enjoy. But isn't it also the life of frustration and confusion beyond a point?"

Why would it be frustrating of confusing? Or more exactly; why would anyone who's chosen this life be likely to find it so?

Originally posted by jds999
Love will always confound the cynics. ;-)

*giggle*

why would you equate love and marriage? you've had your eyes sewn shut?

I equate love with passionate loyalty and commitment.

well, it's pretty subjective, so if that's the way you see it for you, fine. :)

Eh, it's a noble thought you've got there. I've been extremely lucky in love myself and well, you've seen my opinion. If you are childlike enough to make it to your deathbed with that same opinion, then lucky ignorant you. That is sweet though that you think that.

Call me naive... :)

If your such an adult, tell me what is the difference between you and you as a child?

Originally posted by Binary
If your such an adult, tell me what is the difference between you and you as a child?

I assume you're typing to me...

Uh about 23 years.. *shrug* hmm... well... many years of college, a degree, children, marriage, two wars (was in the army for 4 years), world wide travel, drugs, illness, happiness, elation, innumerable reflections on innumerable things, years of developing a particular perspective... well, sheez... more stuff than I can list.

hehe.. not to mention 200 pounds or something.. :)

If you think marrage is so stupid, why did you get married?

Originally posted by Xevious
If you think marrage is so stupid, why did you get married?

knocked up my chick.

turns out she's amazing (I suspected as such, but had only known her for three months prior to her turning up preggo).

i'm an incredibly lucky bastard.

two kids now (gerlz, one 6mo, one 2.5yrs) ;)

they are super mega sweeties... :) loves me my punkins..
*sports the warm fuzzy*

I think love is pretty damned badass, neuro-chemical trick or not... it's fucking cool. I don't even have a single part of a problem with monogomy. It's just that well, it's not NECESSARY. It's just possible, likely probable... but definately not certain.

Originally posted by Tyler
Why would it be frustrating of confusing? Or more exactly; why would anyone who's chosen this life be likely to find it so? Tyler:

Well, a promiscuous person wouldn't be building any great relationships. So after all the years of sexual pleasure and enjoyment, what would his/her goal in life be? Money, bills, travel and what beyond?

Where as for a family person, there would be certain responsibilities and needs for which he needs to endeavour. These might appear as constraints on the surface, but would exercise a kind of beneficial control and keep the mind in a positive direction. And along with it would come the pleasure of the cushioning the family offers, in countering any external frustrations and pressures that may arise in life. (btw, I have had the opportunity to experience the bliss that a joint family offers!)
You must have read that a person's blood pressure is always lower when with one's family, so much so they say, 'if you have to worry, worry at home'!

Without the cushion, these small feelings might escalate in full blown frustration and confusion, the effects of which are a different matter altogether.

Then, of course, is the unwritten rule: 'You care for me now, and I will for you later'.

In essence, what I am saying is that a family person would have a direction and a cushion. All said, I am not talking about the American marriages with open options, rather the marriages-for-life.

Originally posted by Adam
How do you view someone who is sexually promiscuous (a slut, or sleaze, whatever)? Do you have any problems with such behaviour? If so, what are they? If not, why not? Would you date a guy/girl who was sexually promicuous in the past?

As I've mentioned in one of my posts, we cannot judge a person unless we know him/her fully...long term. However, I count myself as one of those who think that sexually promiscuous individuals are in deep longing (just a thought)

Actually, I did date a guy who was sexually promiscuous in the past. He actually became my boyfriend. His active sex life is due to his dependence on drugs in the past. But I loved him so much that I was redy to accept all of that. "Loved"...we decided to separate ways. :(

Originally posted by Xev
No. I expect any man I date to remain a virgin until marriage. [/B]

Wow! I didn't know someone would also share my conviction. But ya know, when love strikes you, it strikes you...and you are willing to accept the whole person no matter what because of love. Love will conquer both heart and mind. Something I didn't know can actually happen to me. I thought I was too rational.

you know what, i was being kind of negative before. what a dick. I suppose the institution does have value after all. At least in that it IS sometimes advantagious in multiple ways to the couple.... and if you're IN the couple, well, you get advantages. So hey, cool. Also it's kind of neat to be married to someone you really dig, even on the merit of the stupid little label. It's just a societal status thing, but I don't know, and can't believe it.. but I've really enjoyed being married so far. Right on.

so, it's gooder than I thought. :)

the glass is both half full and half empty you know.

oh- I should credit my neighbor for swaying me.

my only reservation is that I like to give people the credit (or fault I suppose) for making their relationships what the are, rather than an institution.

Any institution is only as solid as the individuals committed to it.
Wishing you a lasting love...

AMEN, Jds.

Originally posted by jds999
Any institution is only as solid as the individuals committed to it.
Wishing you a lasting love...

thank you very much.. :)

If a person chooses not to care about the one they are in a relationship with, may the world turn it's back on them.

Siddhartha posted:
"If a person chooses not to care about the one they are in a relationship with, may the world turn it's back on them."

This is foolish. Humans will only hurt you and exploit you if you let them. The best thing to do is to strike first, and if your conscience bothers you, strike first until your conscience becomes numb.

Originally posted by Juliette
This is foolish. Humans will only hurt you and exploit you if you let them.


That is only conditionally true. For instance if the wind blows and you are bruised by it, yes.... you are very likley to be hurt.

What hurts you? Isn't that the first question? Why does it hurt? Why do you allow yourself to interpret what happens to you as pain? Maybe you should reflect mal-intent rather than broadcast it. Is it that you haven't the strength to bear it? Maybe you are looking at the whole thing wrong eh? Maybe you are only hurt emotionally when you let yourself be. Maybe sometimes that's okay. Maybe sometimes it's great. Maybe sometimes that's how you realize it when someone comes along that could never hurt you? Maybe you would have never even have known what love is if you haven't been to the opposite extreme.. or at least that extreme brought uncomfortably into your attention.

Maybe by your strength and good intention, the world is literally a better place.

Originally posted by Juliette

The best thing to do is to strike first, and if your conscience bothers you, strike first until your conscience becomes numb.

that is called being a sociopath.

This is foolish. Humans will only hurt you and exploit you if you let them. The best thing to do is to strike first, and if your conscience bothers you, strike first until your conscience becomes numb.

How then, are you any better than those who would hurt you withour cause? Are you not doing the exact same thing to others as you think they would do to you.... or mayhaps you WANT to be treated that way? The golden rule still works.

Now it's my turn to offer the "AMEN", Xevious... We can't escape our conscience.

How would you explain this 'hold' that your conscience has over you? Why be true to it? I'm being devil's advocate now - isn't a person bound by conscience theoretically less fit, evolution-wise, than someone who has no obligation towards his conscience?

If survival of the fittest takes priority over our humane evolution, you're right. It's a choice.

Originally posted by Jenyar
How would you explain this 'hold' that your conscience has over you? Why be true to it? I'm being devil's advocate now - isn't a person bound by conscience theoretically less fit, evolution-wise, than someone who has no obligation towards his conscience?

Hmm.. it's difficult to say if sheer evolution has much application regarding conscience. For instance, as a species conscience definately assists in survival. (keeps us from killing each other, thereby not decreasing our numbers)

So the human conscience-- and all the
grappling we do in our hearts & minds in regard to love, justice, etc -- all comes down to 'not decreasing our numbers'?
THAT'S suppose to be easier to swallow than the idea that it may actually be our interior homing device?

Xevious posted:

"How then, are you any better than those who would hurt you withour cause? Are you not doing the exact same thing to others as you think they would do to you.... or mayhaps you WANT to be treated that way? The golden rule still works."

I am no better than them. "Better" does not exist, only power and the Law of Nature does.

Jenyar posted:

"How would you explain this 'hold' that your conscience has over you? Why be true to it? I'm being devil's advocate now - isn't a person bound by conscience theoretically less fit, evolution-wise, than someone who has no obligation towards his conscience?"

Yes this is true. Nature intended us to live without conscience. But weak humans invented the conscience to keep the stronger from hurting them.

Juliette-- Then I'm assuming your opinion on any question of 'justice' is "whatever", since power is everything?

jds999, I do not believe in Justice at all. It should have struck me down long ago if it existed. Human justice is something that can be bought and sold.

What a hopeless view of life you choose... Yes, there is corruption and evil in the world, but there is also
genuine, mysterious, deep GOODNESS.
The law of the jungle can't explain that...

Peace.

My hopeless view of life has brought me prosperity and pleasure. I see many who choose the path of virtue and have nothing but pain and misery.

I chose wisely.

Excuse me - when did I invent my conscience, and howcome everybody makes the same invention so spontaneously? How does a conscience prevent me from being threatened? I suppose all the mass murderers and sociopaths and other strong people like you without a conscience, has forced me to develop a sense of right and wrong. I'm interested - was it in order to defend my poverty and inferiority that I chose to burden myself with guilt?

The conscience identifies guilt, and regulates your internal locus of control. Do you truly think there is no such thing as 'wrong'? If you are truly unable to identify something as wrong, someone else - someone with a conscience - will judge over you. Justice is one of the properties that differentiates humans from animals - because we have come to know the difference between good and evil.

You are right that it wasn't originally like this - how do you think it came to be like this? If nature is right, howcome we are born wrong and have to 'make up' with nature?

My hopeless view of life has brought me prosperity and pleasure. I see many who choose the path of virtue and have nothing but pain and misery.

Pleasure is easy, and prosperity can be easy if you do not treat others equally to gain it. A homeless bum who panhandles makes enough money for food, booze, and a whore. To him, he is prospering and has all the pleasure he wants.

You seem to base your philosophy on the idea that all human beings are out to get you and hurt you just because they can. If I remember right, there is a name for it in my old psycology textbook, and it is considered a significant disorder.

If one does not value other human beings, they are indeed a threat to society. Who knows what they might do, or what they are capable of.

Originally posted by jds999
So the human conscience-- and all the
grappling we do in our hearts & minds in regard to love, justice, etc -- all comes down to 'not decreasing our numbers'?
THAT'S suppose to be easier to swallow than the idea that it may actually be our interior homing device?

*shrug* I'm just an observer. I don't know how "easy" it is supposed to be to "swallow". I personally think that if that is indeed case (which seems likely to me) that it is a beautifully elegant and simple solution to a very complex problem.

Originally posted by jds999
What a hopeless view of life you choose... Yes, there is corruption and evil in the world, but there is also
genuine, mysterious, deep GOODNESS.
The law of the jungle can't explain that...

Peace.

Well, I beg to differ. It's just that you're not taking it to the next level as the jungle seems to have done.

I think basic economic principles of capitolism are exactly what is reponsible for most human behavior (besides that which results from mental illness, etc.). We are all ultimately selfish, even if it doesn't seem as such. That's one of the reasons people are generally easily manipulated. No matter how sophisticated and "good" you are in my opinion, you are intensely selfish. I would say that the more intense any belief or mode of behavior you endorse.. the more selfish you are with respect to like beliefs or behaviors (I'm not sure about that, I'm theorizing on the fly here). I say this from this perspective: Why am I writing this? Why do I "waste" my time here? Why do you?

Do you follow? Even if your motivation is to help others, that's still selfish.

Thoughts?

Originally posted by Juliette
My hopeless view of life has brought me prosperity and pleasure. I see many who choose the path of virtue and have nothing but pain and misery.

I chose wisely.

So, you've permanently chosen a "hopeless perspective". You are a danger to yourself and society if your words ring true. You should just kill yourself and let the rest of us off the hook from your self-reproach and reproach for the world. You're likely to do something retarded.

It's sad really, that nature requires that teens have such angst, but it's an important tool for learning to be an adult I suppose. You may not realized that the brain in teens has not yet finished developing. You still process emotions in a primitive portion of your brain. As you age into your late teens and early twenties, your brain starts to move said processing into the frontal lobe where in can handle the more sophisticated nuances of societal interaction and the pertinent emotional implications. As of now it seems that you react to the world with despair, while you are still too young to have tasted much of the world, and certainly to be emotionally mature.


You are on a path to disappointment in life, I assure you. Hopelessness leads to despair. Have a a modicum of hope and you may find actual deep satisfaction.

Oh, and you may be right about the "virtue" thing, but it's wholly dependent on what "virtues" you are talking about eh? You don't have to be a christian to be a kickass human, and you don't have to be spitefull and hate-filled to disregard christianity (or any stupid crap that you have a problem with for that matter).

Just my opinion. Slam me if you must.

Originally posted by Jenyar
Excuse me - when did I invent my conscience, and howcome everybody makes the same invention so spontaneously? How does a conscience prevent me from being threatened?


Well, if everyone has one and it is functional, then it would perfectly insulate you from harm from other humans most likely.

Originally posted by Jenyar

I suppose all the mass murderers and sociopaths and other strong people like you without a conscience, has forced me to develop a sense of right and wrong.


I don't think so.. conscience in all honesty, probably comes part nature part nurture. Partially it's a resultant of empathy. For instance, from the time I was a little kid I could look into the eyes of an animal or person and FEEL something coming back.. it makes my bones tingle kind of. I become that person to an extent, I relate to their plight and with them no harm for why would I harm me?

It's complicated, from a simple premise as nature seems to be so incredibly apt to do. Some people completely lack the perception for empathy (sociopaths). Maybe they had it, but they turned it off or it was lost or damaged or something terrible. Some people don't have it because they did not develop properly and either they physically lack the perception or ability to process the information in such a manner that leads to empathy or conscience.

Originally posted by Jenyar

I'm interested - was it in order to defend my poverty and inferiority that I chose to burden myself with guilt?


No, it was because you can relate to the harm you might cause another I'd think. Would you want to be treated callously? Then why do so? Golden rule knocking your socks right off.

Originally posted by Jenyar

The conscience identifies guilt, and regulates your internal locus of control. Do you truly think there is no such thing as 'wrong'?


There is a such thing, and likely even in purely abstract terms, but I believe what you're attempting to apply the subjective to the objective case. Right and wrong are first applicable subjectively. While a person may be "right" subjectively.. that may or may not have a bearing on what their family thinks is such... it may not have a bearing on what society think is such.. it may not have a bearing on what is abstractly right or wrong.

Originally posted by Jenyar

Justice is one of the properties that differentiates humans from animals - because we have come to know the difference between good and evil.


Good and evil are constructs and ways to put "right and wrong" into a package that can be advertised better, such that control can be exerted over those who would be controlled.

Originally posted by Jenyar

If nature is right, howcome we are born wrong and have to 'make up' with nature?

That doesn't make sense to me.

wesmorris-- You seem to be able to argue
an issue passionately from ANY side.

You seem to want to convince Jenyar and myself that concepts like 'conscience'
and 'right and wrong' are completely subjective and even false constructs,
and yet you sound certain of your own ethical/moral objectivity in your stern reply to Juliette...

;-)

in the case of juliette, I only say what I say to help her realize she's fucking herself with her own attitude. I say it out of experience, it's a personal thing with me and if you noticed.. as with almost all my posts.. I built in a disclaimer, for I realize as few seem to on this site, that anything I can possibly bring to the table is merely opinion... just my input. I think my input is generally valuable, though I realize some maybe differ from that opinion.

i'm actually interested in seeing if there is any spin off of my reasoning or if there is room to advance in our mutual understanding of the topic at hand, but if you'd like to piss around I suppose that's okay. really though, I'd like you to consider what I have to say and tell me where my reasoning is soft, and where it's good from your perspective, and then I'll reciprocate.

wesmorris-- Where your reasoning is best, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, is when you concede that things like conscience
and empathy and the golden rule, finally go beyond explanation... (it's that something in another's eyes that makes your bones kind of tingle, as you put it). We can try to deny it, or deconstruct it all day, but underneath
all our endless words, it matters because we're human.

Originally posted by jds999
wesmorris-- Where your reasoning is best, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, is when you concede that things like conscience
and empathy and the golden rule, finally go beyond explanation...

That's not what I said. I definately DO NOT concede that these things are beyond explanation (though as of now, they are not fully understood, i'm sure that they will be and I think I have some good input)... I think there are pretty of theories by which to explain such things... For instance as I said before... but maybe wasn't clear enough...

Concience: a result of empathy and possibly an evolutionary tool for survival of the species.

Empathy: the ability to relate to the other humans in such a manner that you put yourself in their place.. I believe some people (like myself) have a particular set of perceptive abilities that allow them to be more empathetic. for instance, you are conditioned to comprehend emotional expression in the early months of life (I've got two daughters, I've noticed this - you're also doing this for the rest of your life). This is the foundation for your emotional interpretation skillz for the rest of your life. If something goes right during this process, such as your particular brain develops in areas that are good for percieving emotions, then you get better at it faster, thereby becoming more perceptive of the emotions of the people around you, thusly making you more empathetic. Again, this is theory, but I'll be there's more truth in there than the attitude "beyond explanation". That attitude is for (IMHO) wussies. Mind you, I'm not saying you're a wussie unless of course, you can't see the value in pursuing analysis of said type issues..

Golden Rule: the golden rule is actually in my opinion a statement of basic economic sanity. (if you don't know any thing about economics, you should learn some stuff, then pontificate how it is directly applicable to human interaction as well as the method of distribution of "scarce" resources). Basically, if I screw you over I'm increasing my chances of being screwed. I can summarize this as the karmic effect I suppose, but it's really really really subtle (moreso than karma) and I don't know if I can explain it properly. It's basically that life is a jedi-mind trick in a sense. basically, and this may be a horrid summarization, but life is attitude, if yours sucks it will bring suck down upon you in droves. it's subtle because of this.. you have total control of how you percieve things.. at least in taking a new direction on how you percieve things.. further.. your attitude directly effects the flavor in which you percieve things.. for instance "that sucked" and all the associated nuances are how you are probably percieving this right now... but if you thought instead "hmmm... maybe there's something in there" the entire way you deal with the situation, how it effects you subjectively and how it reflects upon you from other people will be directly related to how you percieve the event. It's a strangely simplistic and integrated yet amazingly complex interation... as life tends to be.

Another point that is far more important FROM MY PERSPECTIVE... if you think "that is unknowable" guess what? Are you following? That exactly demostrates my prior point. If you determine that something that seems incomprehensible to you is as such and cannot be different, then you have just relagated yourself to ignorance and will NEVER EVER EVER NEVER EVER know anything about it. Not until you allow yourself to.. see? Again, just my opinion. For sure that's how it works for me.. and really most of the people I consider quite wise have all had similar revalations.... but then again.. what do I know? Do you recognize this wisdom or see it as false?

Originally posted by jds999

(it's that something in another's eyes that makes your bones kind of tingle, as you put it).

Yes, for I am lucky enough to be perceptive of such things.. seems that if you understand what I mean, you likely are too. Nice to know you. You would understand me more if you could see me and feel what I'm saying instead of this dry format.. but what can be said? *sigh*

Originally posted by jds999

We can try to deny it, or deconstruct it all day, but underneath
all our endless words, it matters because we're human.


Yes, it matters.. but this seems to conflict with your statement that it can't be known.. if it matters, wouldn't you seek the knowledge.. the understanding? Instead you write it off as unknowable??? Maybe I misunderstand you.

peace, wesmorris: we seem to be talking in circles. In my experience, cerebral
reasoning and that type of knowledge can only take us so far, and then it's finally simply about choices of the heart and soul.

Choose love and empathy because it rings true, not because of evolutionary species programming...