[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k] [s4s] [vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/adv/ - Advice



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: milakunis.jpg (4 KB, 290x174)
4 KB
4 KB JPG
Considering you practice safe sex, you're honest and respectful towards your partners? As long as everybody is well-informed and consenting? Sure, sex might lose a large part of its importance and bonding power, but that's not unethical.
>>
>>18143649
you can play this game all day in your head, is it wrong to kill a murderer? only your conscience can decide
>>
>>18143649
I agree.
>>
>>18143649
Your ethics are your own, as everyone has their own morals and ethics. You can do whatever you want.

Realize that the more men you sleep with or have sexual interaction with the more men who will want nothing to do with you and will consider you to be too "high mileage".
>>
>>18143649
There's nothing ethically wrong with it. Most people's issues with it aren't from an ethical standpoint even if they see it that way.

Of course, there's nothing ethically wrong with not wanting to be with a slut either.
>>
>>18143664
This. Would you buy a car that has 500,000 miles on it? Shit no I'd be expecting it to go all wrong as soon as I get it.

Your choices are your own OP. Just know that it will care of potential relationships later.
>>
>>18143679
That metaphor doesn't make any sense.
A woman doesn't get ruined after a certain number of partners. You wouldn't be able to tell unless she told you.
>>
>>18143649
It's wrong because humans should strive to achieve something greater. They should aspire to ascend. That's what gives them dignity.

If you do nothing but indulge yourself in earthly pleasures all day long, you're worth nothing more than a bonobo.
>>
>>18143683
Alright, a car with 500,00 miles that the owner rolled back the odometer one. You suspect something and one day it'll go bang and you'll realize it had a lot more mileage than it said.
>>
Promiscuity is seen as a lack of self control and indulgence in one's own desires.

Therefore, a promiscuous person is seen less trustworthy to maintain faithfulness.

Another main issue for men, is that being solely desired by a woman is an important goal. Especially if it requires winning their affection. To be desired by someone who requires no effort is not satisfying and does not provide any self worth.

TL:DR

Sluts can't be trusted and no one cares to be wanted by a slut who will fuck anything that moves.
>>
>>18143649
Nothing. However, people who hold sex as important will not want to go in a long term relationship with you later. Not because it's unethical, it just doesn't fit in with their lifestyle. But if that restriction later on doesn't bother you, then go ahead
>>
>>18143691
Again, it doesn't make any sense.
While usage ruins the car, sex doesn't have basically any effect on the vagina.
Also - fucking 1 guy 100 times or fucking 100 guys one time doesn't make any difference in terms of "usage". In your metaphor, does it make any difference if the car is driven for 200 000 miles by one dude or if 10 dudes drove it for 20 000 miles?
>>
>>18143699
I was talking mental mileage, not physical mileage. It will have an effect.
>>
>>18143649
There is nothing ethically wrong with it.

Similarly, there is nothing ethically wrong that men absolutely HATE whores who fuck and cheat at every turn.

If you want to be a cum despensary then by all means, gon for it. But never expect to be seen as anything respectful or worth a damn to be cherished in the eyes of a man.

Men view women as precious . They create life. They do amazing things. We want to protect them and make them happy. We want provide for them.

If a women is out being a hole to be fucked by every man then she loses her value to most men as a potential mother to our children. Sluts are good for cheap fun and sex, and that's all she become good for. She isnt to be taken serious. We wont ever love someone like that. We wont ever want to settle for someone like that. She becomes unfit to raise a family with.

Its not unethical to be a slut. Its your choice.
But dont turn around and become angry that men do not prefer you or see you as something serious. Simple as that.
>>
>>18143703
I am sorry, I deleted my post and wrote it again.

I don't think it necessarily has an effect - unless you are mentally unstable and use sex as a way to cope, I can't see how it does.
A lot of people have casual sex just because they enjoy it.
>>
>>18143707
>Sluts are good for cheap fun and sex

So, as a man, you want to fuck a lot of sluts (thus becoming a slut yourself) but still be valued the same way as a virginal woman?

Interesting.
>>
>>18143649
Imagine a universal key that could open everything: wouldn't that be awesome? Of course!

Now, on the contrary, imagine a lock that could get opened by any single key. Wouldn't that be a shitty fucking lock?

Here's your answer, roastie.
>>
>>18143649

People are taught certain life values while they grow up, good things or bad ones. It's all based on society's of what's ethically right or wrong but does all of this make it the absolute thing to follow? In the end, if you don't want to live a life of social rejection, you make sure to not go beyond what's going to far or you live your life of your own free will.

You simply need to respect the boundaries of your playmates, making sure they understand your point of view and the sexual curiosity behind of it all. Just know that at a certain point, age will catch up to you and you will need to hold on your horses by that time. In the golden age, the game changes to a whole new level... it's another new game. Life is short, make it count but not at the price of others.
>>
File: 1486828247493.jpg (59 KB, 414x479)
59 KB
59 KB JPG
>>18143683
>>
>>18143702
guys don't want a fucking whore get the hell over it holy shit
>>
File: FB_IMG_1482122041911.jpg (28 KB, 480x278)
28 KB
28 KB JPG
>>18143702
There is a massive difference. Even if you're as safe as YOU can be, a lot of STDs are still transmissible with a condom on. There is also the major factor of relying on the other person to be clean and safe as well. The "usage" definitely differs because you can't trust that everyone knows how to drive the car well.
>>
nobody likes condoms
you will not tell a guy to wrap up when you are in heat, its enough to happen once with the wrong person

you are not honest, it sounds very cool and clear but feelings and horniness make things complicated, you will rationalize, you will cheat, you will make others cheat, its never ever completely honest
a slut is always a liar aswell

this is all nice on paper but the reality is sluts harm others and themselfs too, cause trouble and contribute to spreading of STDs

its not even about ethics, its about hurting or harming other ppl
>>
>>18143720
Not him. But no, as a man I value sex and don't engage in it casually. I'm tempted like anybody else, but I wait, patiently for the right person.

Sluts aren't patient, they let desperation get the absolute best of them, and when put to the test (raising a family, being faithful, passing on good character building traits) she will more than likely fail, if she hasn't already merely by having a child with a man who left her long ago, and she can't even tell which guy it was.
>>
>>18143726
This metaphor makes sense only if you've accepted the conclusion and you assume that the role of girls is to keep their legs locked.

>>18143731
Doesn't exactly prove anything?

>>18143736
And girls don't want guys with short dicks and no money, but everyone settles, sweetheart.

>>18143741
This "problem" can easily be solved by having your partner taking an STD test. Not exactly an issue again.
>>
>>18143745
Normally a trip to the clinic together isn't part of casual hook ups.
>>
>>18143751
If you want to date someone long term you can, tho.
The issue was "guys don't want to date sluts long term because they have higher STDs risks".
>>
>>18143745
>Doesn't exactly prove anything?

It will prove itself to be something when a woman realizes she can barely be taken seriously.

I can even forgive such a woman, because I'm in no way perfect. But do you think after so many guys trashing her, my forgiveness and acceptance of her will be a miracle cure? I have yet to put such s thing to the test, but I assure you, I'd keep my guard up.
>>
>>18143754
You can forgive her because she had sex with other people before even meeting you? Lol.
You're basically Jesus.
>>
People think it's wrong for different reasons.

Traditional/conservative/religious reasons would be the most common. Stuff that just comes from a male dominated society trying to control women's freedom of choice.

Then you of course have the average /b/tard who either calls all women sluts because they won't sleep with him or is too insecure to sleep with a woman who has had previous sexual partners because he has a small dick or is just bad at sex.

Then there's also men who want women to fill all of their sexual fantasies but call any woman who enjoys sex a slut.

In short women's promiscuity is frowned upon because men want every girl they sleep with to be a virgin who has no expectations of their performance, but male promiscuity is not frowned upon because they want to have sex with as many women as possible and be praised for it.
>>
>>18143753
And they do in fact have a higher risk? Why would they want to date someone with a higher probability of having something like herpes or HIV?
I thought the point of this thread was to debate the issues with being promiscuous, not explaining why guys dislike it.
>>
>>18143761
They do, obviously, but dating a person with a low partner count or even a virgin doesn't mean she has 0 chance of having an STD, and the whole STD risk can easily be managed by taking a test.
I don't see it as a huge issue.
>>
>>18143758
No, I mean being a slut, trampling all over peoples lives, destabilizing perfectly good bonds, creating needless temptation where it doesn't belong, complicating people and their health, etc.

I don't mind that she has had experiences, no. If they were mostly meaningful ones, long term relationships, etc.

I don't think you're internalizing it realistically and your jesting Jesus' name shows you can't be taken seriously either. Danger is sensed in all manner of situations, a careless woman being one of those dangers.
>>
>>18143768
Two consenting, single adults who have sex with each other doesn't hurt anyone.
I don't understand how she acts negatively by acting upon her desires, and why YOU should forgive her for it.
>>
>>18143720
>So, as a man, you want to fuck a lot of sluts (thus becoming a slut yourself) but still be valued the same way as a virginal woman?

I never said anything you stated.

Most men arent being trash. Its a few men and a few women like you. And again that's fine.


Also, you have every right to look down on men who sleep with a lot of women. Its ok if they lose value in your eyes as a potential partner. Who ever said you couldn't?

Nobody.

The problem with women is that they seem not to care in the least if a man is a slut. In fact they seem to like these guys more than normal.

Are you blaming men for the fact that women do not denounce slutty men and label it as unacceptable? Because that's a job for women to do. If the majority of women have a problem with slutty men then by all means make it known and set the rules to the game.


Women do not care if a man is slutty.
Men very much do care if a women is slutty.

That's just the way it is. Just like men like trucks ajd women like Barbie dolls.

Be slutty girl. Go do you. You sound extraordinarily bitter that you arent ever going to taken serious and you're trying so hard to blame men from not being ok that you fuck every man who says hi to you. Too bad.
>>
>>18143745
>everyone settles
Don't count on it. But all things considered, it's up to you. If you want to risk nobody settling for you, go ahead and do it
>>
>>18143775
Oh I don't want to do it. I never felt any desire to have casual sex. Already engaged to the man I lost my virginity to.

I just detest the mental gymnastic people do in threads like this.
>>
Ethics are relative. You may not have any ethical qualms with taking every dick you see, but potential suitors may think otherwise.
>>
>>18143771
Why would someone even start such a thread if they weren't concerned with their character? Their actions and how society ultimately interprets them? Yes, I have already forgiven her, for all her behavior, but can she forgive herself instead of writing a thread about it all concerned? Or even pissed when others disagree? This argument is just beating a dead horse.
>>
>>18143782
>Why would someone even start such a thread if they weren't concerned with their character?
Because they're trolls, most likely.

And you don't have to forgive her for anything. She didn't harm you personally. Why would you need to forgive her?
>>
>>18143778
100% sure you are a Tumblr whale trying to argue your degenerate life philosophy yet you're getting btfo on /adv/ of all places. If you think this is bad just imagine what /pol/ would have done to your weak arguments and fallacies.

You are banished hence forth slut.
>>
>>18143785
People want to be accepted with their flaws, wouldn't consider it a flaw if you hadn't started such a thread. You don't have a problem until you can admit to yourself that you have one. And most people prefer to wait till it's too late to acknowledge they do. This thred feels like a proactive approach at deciding what someone should or shouldn't be to begin with. Implying they interpret what they do, or want to do, as somehow worthy of being disrespectful.
>>
>>18143788
Lol. Where exactly did someone give an objective reason why being a slut is ethically wrong?

Reasonably pretty and in shape, had sex just with the man I'm marrying next September, mildly conservative.

>>18143789
I didn't start the thread, tho.
>>
>>18143649
Just don't be upset when people see you as a walking hole.
>>
>>18143649
Your psyche doesn't exist on a purely rational level. Just because your rational mind is fine with it doesn't mean the rest of your mind is. Sluts end up mentally broken pieces of human excrement for a reason. They internalize the man fucking them and then leaving them as them being essentially worthless and undeserving of love. It eats away at their self esteem until there's nothing left. They use casual sex as a brief reprieve from these feelings which only makes things worse. You can't fight millions of years of evolutionary programming.
>>
>>18143792
>Lol. Where exactly did someone give an objective reason why being a slut is ethically wrong?

Your premise was out right rejected by most everyone ITT. The issue with female sluts and the way men and women perceive them was never about moral and ethical truths. The issue is preference, whether or not a man will prefer a slut like you over a well balanced respectable and decent human being.

The answer is a resounding NO. Men do not and will not prefer a slut as a serious candidate as a partner to marry and raise a family with.

>Reasonably pretty and in shape, had sex just with the man I'm marrying next September, mildly conservative.
Yeah i bet.
>>
>>18143649
Wrong? There is nothing wrong
Then again there is also nothing wrong with not wanting to date a slut
And lying is wrong
>>
Giving in to carnal desires indiscriminately is not ethical by any means of the word.
>>
>>18143806
The thread asked if being a slut was ETHICALLY wrong, if having casual sex makes you a less respectable and decent human being.
Having a preference for a virgin waifu isn't any different than having a preference for a rich man with a big dick. Superficial, stupid but mildly fine.
>>
>>18143720
>So, as a man, you want to fuck a lot of sluts
I don't
How rude of you to assume so
>>
>>18143745
>And girls don't want guys with short dicks and no money, but everyone settles, sweetheart
Keep telling yourself that, no woman has ever ended up alone after all right?
>>
>>18143702
The wear isn't so much physical as it is mental. Whores have baggage that normal women do not. It's hard dealing with the fact that you're doing something socially unacceptable and the mental gymnastics/lack of standards fucks with your reasoning ability. No one wants to deal with that shit.
>>
>>18143824
Most people actually don't end up alone.
>>
>>18143828
That's because to end up alone you need to end up in the first place and people ending up are all over 60 and belong to a different time
Some young people under 30 today already experienced as much loneliness as your average senior citizen does, hell marriage between young adults lasts on average 5 years if it happens at all
>>
>>18143832
This is crap.
Marriages that started in 90s/00s are actually lasting longer than those started in the 70s/80s.
60 years old are the ones who got divorced more and had a shittier love life.

We get married less and divorce enormously less.
>>
>>18143702
1 guy 100 times, assuming the guy is faithful, equals less chances to get STD's.
100 guys 1 time equals 100 chances to catch and spread STD's.

Now, let's say one ends up falling for said girl who slept with 100 guys. And totally loves her and shows her affection and treats her like no one ever has before. How long until she begins considering other men an option? How long till sleeping around again begins tempt her?

It's a fair concern given her trajectory. I feel the only way such a union could work in seriousness by both people moving far away from temptation, big cities, bars, clubs, etc. And exchanging it for a simpler life. Abundance destabilizes the spirit.
>>
>>18143836
>We get married less and divorce enormously less
I dobut it, I heard that in average divorce happens when the child is between ages 4-7, what are basing this on
Anyways it would make sense that if you reduce the pool of people who marry from everyone to the ultra religious then yeah only people who are extremely likely to marry end up marrying
Then again humans fuck up and if 1% of people marry for the good reasons then 3% must marry for the bad ones (96% left don't marry at all)
>>
If I started dating a girl and found out she's been with 10 guys. That would be a major turn off to me.
>>
File: Heritage.jpg (56 KB, 633x360)
56 KB
56 KB JPG
>>18143683
Actually...
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/index.htm

Pic isn't from paper, but illustrates the point.
>>
>>18143814
Again your premise was outright dismissed by everyone.

This topic has been around for decades and Its never been a debate about ethics. No ones going to argue against something that doesn't exist. Its generally agreed that nothing is ethically wrong with being a slut in western societies.

And most people will say as much, and then go on to say "but i do not prefer a slut because..."

And thats where your problem truly lies. You're upset that slutty women are looked down upon in society by men and are not seen as respectable. That's a preference problem and has zero to do with high ethics of what is morally right and wrong to do in life.

Its ethically wrong to kill someone.
Its not ethically wrong to be a slut.

Again, your premise has been denied outright or subconsciously denied and people just answered and assumed you were asking why being a slut is socially unacceptable. To which that question has been answered ad nauseum itt

And the answer always comes down to male preference. End of the discussion. Good day to you tumblrina. Delete thread.
>>
desu I don't think there's anything ethically or morally wrong with being a slut. There's still a huge stigma in my brain about it tho, and it probably won't change any time soon
>>
Its a work like other. A employee who sold his soul and body to a company for low wage is really diferent for a prostitute?
>>
>>18143839
Here some studies. Marriages that started in the 90s will probably have kids that go to high school. My parents married in 1989 and I graduated college already. Yet, they're divorcing much less than people who got married in the 80s/70s.

http://www.thisisinsider.com/millennial-marriage-divorce-rate-2016-09
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/02/upshot/the-divorce-surge-is-over-but-the-myth-lives-on.html

>>18143842
Rate is very similar for people who had 1 and 4 partners.

Also - for a 30 year old to be in a stable 5+ years marriage it means that she had to be married before she turned 25. Usually people date a couple of years before marrying. So for them to be in a stable marriage at 30 it means that they'd have to have stopped fucking around at 22/23. I don't exactly know many people who fucked every other guy for 5 years and then settled and married super young.
Maybe people who enjoy fucking around don't get married straight out of college?
>>
>>18143848

What bothers me is that sex is an intimate act. So if someone is so casually able to share this act and experience with so many different people, then it just shows to me that she doesn't value the guy and doesn't value herself. If she's so easily able to spread her legs to random men... that's very trashy.

Just thinking that she's so ok with swapping bodily fluids with so many other people so freely is very gross
>>
>>18143649
Brains dead tee hee feminists claim people think sleeping around is morally wrong
In reality nobody ever said it's morally wrong, people just say thats undesirable and makes you undesirable like being fat or short does

>Ugh why does everyone keep telling me I'm a bad person for being a slut

>We dont
>>
>>18143851
I checked my own sources and apparently divorce rates lowered in the last three years but also marriage is overwhelmingly low even if it's marginally better than last year
So yeah nobody gets married, every year 32 out of 1000 girls do
It's a luxury reserved for the elite and when our generation gets to the dying alone phase it won't be pretty
>>
>>18143851
Most people want to have a Happy relationship and not be alone
We went from everyone keeps giving up to nobody even tries anymore and you pay yourselves in the back and call it a success
>>
>>18143857
The Jewish social engineering has been successful.
>>
>>18143853

I'll agree to this.

A girl being a slut doesn't make her a "bad person".

But being a slut is very very unattractive, and a big red flag.
>>
>>18143857
Divorce rates have been lowering steadily since the 90s.

Getting married isn't seen as a necessity anymore, and it's a good thing. Not being married doesn't mean being alone, also.
>>
>>18143842
To me, these numbers mean nothing because rather than "abloobloo a slut will never settle down", what I instead read it as is "someone with experience in many relationships will know to leave when a relationship is over"

>>18143841
That's fine as long as you hold yourself to the same standards
>>
>>18143865

>That's fine as long as you hold yourself to the same standards

and I do. I've only been with 2 women, one time each. I'm 28 years old.
>>
>>18143864
Here is the thing sweet cheeks
We actually know the numbers of married people because they are you know married Wich is something we keeps tabs on
When it comes to cohabitation it's anyone's guess
We keep hearing that people don't marry but still live married lives and have kids but who can actually back that up on any meaningful way?
Don't assume based on your shitty desires and life goals
>>
>>18143649
"Ethics" is different from "Morals." This sounds lame and snooty, but really. There's an important distinction there.

So assuming you're really referring to ethics, there's nothing inherently unethical about it. However, having more sex increases the chance you could catch an STI or have poor or damaging experiences. Crazy people exist. So it's ethical assuming your code of ethics allows for it but perhaps not practical.

Personally though, there isn't enough time in the day for the amount of ass that I could get. And now that I really have had many, many different types of women and experiences, I can say from experience that it's not the quantity, it's the quality. It's the unique and fun experiences that I remember now. It's rollin through my girl's place on my lunch break from work, fucking her ass in a suit while I blaze up her weed.... nutting in it... eating her foood, and returning to desk at work... where I fondled the assistants' asses and made out with them over copiers and had them bending over in low cut tops and skirts at my cubicle. It's like women can sense when you've just been fucking. They're lucky I didn't make them taste my girl's ass on my dick.

So to me it's about the experience, not the label. Girlfriend. Slut. Not slut. Who cares? I just want to ass fuck girl's on my lunch break and smoke their weed.
>>
>>18143870
The fucking Census.

>In 2011, the Census Bureau reported 7.6 million opposite-sex cohabiting couples in the country with a separate report listing the number of cohabiting same-sex couples at 514,735 as of the 2010 Census.

No one can do shit without the government knowing about it.
>>
>>18143874
>>In 2011
ongratulations you know how to count to 11
how many of those couples are still together?
also 7.6 million is a low number for the us, really fucking low. That doesnt make up for no marry
>>
>>18143920
>That doesnt make up for no marry

that and ALOT of couples who cohabit and dont get married have no intention of having kids

i see it alot with of people my age
>>
>>18143683
LMAO yes it makes complete sense. The more sexual encounters you have the more numb you are to the idea of it. Believe it or not but a lot of people see sex as something more than a hobbies and expect their partner to take it just as seriously.
>>
Problem is to first define what ethics is. Clearly not everyone has come to an agreement as to what it is....
So honestly, it's pretty pointless to argue whether it is ethical or not.

Now if your partner has an issue with it, ethical or not, if you really cared for him, you'd respect his concern or just end it with him if you can't live with it.
>>
>>18144011
>i see it a lot
good for you
but in the real world people just dont and its pretty evident
people may cohabit for a year maybe two and then thats it and the more they age the less it happens
also if ki,ds dont get born then society goes to shit and its not just me saying so
>>
>>18144043
yeah, thats what i was getting at. more sluts means less commitment and kids leading to the death of society itself.

and when you think if it this way you see what is wrong with being a slut. if you think about it affecting society there really isnt a way to rationalize it without coming off as greedy
>>
>>18144025
So if I am dating my boyfriend, I had sex with him 1000 times, then we break up and I find someone else, sex with him won't mean shit to me because I had numerous sexual encounters?
Sex is physically pleasurable every time you have it, and might be emotionally fulfilling if you have sex with someone you care about.
The number of times you do it doesn't change your whole perception of sex.
>>
>>18144055
number of times, no
number of people, definitely

the more people you have sex with, the less you are able to pairbond with people, which is essential if you want to have a happy marriage later on

"you can turn a hoe into a housewife" is more than just a saying
>>
>>18144066
That's not scientifically demonstrated. The only sources that claim so are redpill subreddit.
>>
>>18144074
That's just a cop out, it's clear to everyone that a person that has sex with anyone can't truly connect with them.
>>
>>18144079
i.e. true connection needs time. Plus empirical science is useless for this subject matter.
>>
File: marriagevpartners.png (101 KB, 640x363)
101 KB
101 KB PNG
>>18144074
ive tried to disprove it, ive researched it extensively and even have tried to ignore it. believe me when i say i wish to god you were right but that isnt the case.

try to deny it all you want, but if you do the research youll find the evidence to be overwhelming. theres a reason why almost every religion is against whoring around and trust me theres more to it than just stds and unwanted kids
>>
>>18143814
See >>18143853
>>
>>18144079
It's a choice to not connect with them. This doesn't mean that in case you choose to connect with them, you won't be able to.

I talk with 20-30 people every day because of my job, I don't feel connected to them because I choose to do so.
I still have friends, family and a partner I love.
>>
In my opinion, it stops being fun if you start consequently hurting other people's life or relationship with other people knowingly.

Otherwise, have fun with slutting around.
But then, what do I know?
I am just an oldguy who had his first and last time with a prostitute and understood that he craves more than sex alone but can't because he is not social.
>>
>>18144085
>theres a reason why almost every religion is against whoring around
Yes - bloodlines.
Virginity was fundamental back then because, unless you have sex with a virgin, you cannot prove that the child she is bearing is yours.
That's the reason why it was the first child who got the throne. Because the first child was the only one that was surely their biological child.

Anyway, that own picture shows how there basically is no difference between having 2 or 10+ premarital partner.
I'd say to not consider 0 premarital partner as the only people who argue to stay virgin till marriage are religion nuts and they aren't exactly the first divorce supporters.
>>
>>18144090
Le strawman

Sexual intimacy=/=work related communication

totally the same on every level, totally.

Okay, well let's imagine now than an ex bf who used to fuck you hardcore walks in the office applying for work. You have a new bf now and he remembers you, and you both remember fucking, all of a sudden your conversations aren't so casual anymore, they're destabilizing and awkward.

He be like, das ma main thot right there. And you will probably start wanting to quit your job.
>>
>>18144102
Some people enjoy sex without wanting to have emotional intimacy with their partner.
For example, people who hire escorts don't seek an emotional connection with them, same with people who have ONS/FWB.

Your example honestly doesn't make any sense. My ex boyfriend would be a person I have an emotional connection with, "that dude I fucked once at my best friend's birthday in 2007" isn't exactly someone I care about.
>>
>>18144055
But the number of people you do it with starts to change your perception of it and your perception of your current and future partners.
>>
>>18144112
But it'll definitely bother you. You can dodge it all you want, but deep down you know I'm right. I understand your perspective, but running into mine will definitely shake you, or anybody else about that life.
>>
>>18144114
In what way? Why should it have that effect on me? Why should it even have a negative effect?
>>
>>18144121
cont. especially if it was a fling and you are now in a commited relationship.

Type a shit women drag under the rug not to give their bf a bad impression. But it's real life consequences.
>>
>>18143772
i like how down to earth you are. seriously. your right. It evolutionary even makes sense if you think about it. Same reason why men were the ones who had to fight and women stayed safer. Men are able to impregnate a lot of women, while the woman is the one producing another human, which takes a long time. So maybe its just an instinct kind of thing, that makes us women be finer with slutty men
>>
>>18144122
Would you feel better about yourself if there was no slut shaming?
>>
>>18144121
I don't feel bothered when I see someone I was involved with sentimentally or physically. I barely care.
I also don't sit around and discuss about previous relationships with my ex boyfriends.

It'd only make me feel awkward because who the fuck walks up to someone they hooked up years before and discuss about it.
>>
>>18143649
>Sure, sex might lose a large part of its importance and bonding power


you answer your own question op sluts are bad if you want to have a family with them. also you hurt your own children in divorce because women get custody of children and statistics show single mothers are shit parents. sluts will initiate divorce or lead to divorce.
>>
>>18144129
It wouldn't change a thing about my life, I'm honestly not interested in casual sex at all. I find it very hard to be sexually attracted to people I'm not in love with.
I am sorry for girls who actually get shamed, but it doesn't matter much.

I do understand the desire to not have casual sex from a personal standpoint, but frankly I don't understand how you can legitimise slut shaming in an objective way.
I do understand if someone says that he wants to abstain from casual sex and wants a partner who shares his point of view, I don't understand people who think that fucking around is fine for men and not fine for girls.

Which is why I am interested in the thread, since OP wanted an ethical explanation on why being a slut is wrong.
>>
>>18144122
Because you value intimacy less. In all your abundance and fling life you have depleted your ability to truly appreciate someone. So much so, that deep down, if the sex wasn't great with your future bf, you'd probably be thinking about everybody else who fucked you good instead. If not at the beginning, eventually.

The more you use yourself up outwardly, the more you destroy yourself inwardly. And it begins to show on the outside.

That said, I personally don't have a problem with a girl who made a few poor choices down the line, I wouldn't judge her. I'd still love the girl no matter what. But if she thinks that behavior is a norm, and she thinks if we have kids together, she will normalize that behavior for our future daughter, she's got another thing coming.
>>
>>18144130
So you'd feel awkward, the end.
>>
File: 1487043317464.jpg (177 KB, 684x744)
177 KB
177 KB JPG
>>18144085
>showing scientific facts and statistics to women who lack abstract thought.

women don't give a shit about facts and reality they only care their feelings. don't argue with women they are fucking retarded.
>>
>>18144157
id rather not argue this stuff with them but its very, very important that they know this. its more than just losing one girl. MOST girls in the western world are starting to think like this and itll seriously fuck up civilization if it continues

so in the end its either tell them the truth and make sure they get it OR

go back to 1800's womens rights for their own good

and i dont see the latter happening any time soon
>>
>>18144148
I don't understand what you're trying to prove, but okay.

>>18144144
This is the point I don't get - why should sex with my boyfriend be inferior to sex with other people?
Why should having casual sex ruin my ability to appreciate someone on a personal level? Why should I value intimacy less? Couldn't I just want sex with 10 people and then seek for intimacy with another person?
>>
>>18144157
>>18144169
I can't wait until you bizarre redpill robot memers die irl
>>
>>18144174
Don't waste your time, most of these nutcases have never been with another person, let alone with enough people to feel the huge difference between casual sex vs intimacy with someone you love and understand
They will never get it
>>
>>18144174
That' means your are just using those guy as you see fit, as bi dimensional characters for your own pleasure. I'd be wary of a woman like this.
>>
>>18144178
>bizarre redpill robot memers

read what every person in this thread is saying and youll see its the same thing

its not the r9k "hurr sluts are bad because they dont fuck me" its "everybody fucking everyone is negatively impacting peoples lives"

i dont blame you for getting angry at it though. before you know all the facts it just seems like people are mad a sluts for no reason
>>
>>18144184
You're not using anybody unless you're not honest about your intentions. Two adults telling each other that they're going to have sex with no strings attached isn't a cruel war crime.

And - most sex happens because people like feeling pleasure. Even between couples.

I can imagine you never did anything sexual if not out of love.
You never masturbated. You never watched porn. You never hired a whore. You never hooked up. You never went to a night club. You don't look at models on instagram. You're on 4chan for the constructive discussion.
You waited till you were deeply in love with your partner before having sex with her, and never, not even once, it happened that you fucked her not because you were in desperate need of emotional intimacy but because you really fucking needed to cum.
I am sure you never did anything sexual for pleasure. You always did it for the emotional intimacy.
>>
>>18144174
Why would you develop any feelings for anyone in seriousness after you've basically left treadmarks all over everybody else. Our ability to love strongly dwindles. You may develop a visual and sexual attraction to someone, but to think that you'd actually fall in love again after guys running trains on you and passing you around, it would seem more difficult to believe that you are capable of profound attraction beyond anything trivial and superficial.

Now listen closely to that. It would SEEM that way, not saying it is. But ultimately, the appearance of things plays a huge part in attracting someone.

This whole thread is basically "why!? WHY CAN'T I JUST BE A SLUT WITHOUT YOU LOOKING AT ME WITH INDIFFERENCE? WHY CAN'T YOU LOVE ME FOR ME!? Because you said "I love you" to far too many people, and if you didn't, you definitely shared yourself with far too many for someone to trust that you are able to love beyond the physical sexual experience.

Love is proven with endurance, not escapism.

And AGAIN, I do not judge a woman for having been around. In fact, I fell hard for a girl who gives me the impression she may have.. if she hasn't awesome. But if she has, I would still think she's amazing, because who SHE IS, is amazing.
>>
>>18144192
>its not the r9k "hurr sluts are bad because they dont fuck me"
lmao yes it is.

>"everybody fucking everyone is negatively impacting peoples lives"
is just the cognitive dissonance bullshit they say instead because it makes them feel better about the fact that they're not getting any. sour grapes 101.
>>
>>18144198
That's not it, I'm referring to pigeon holing people as "this one only is good for sex, that one for intimacy".
>>
>>18144202
That's just typical female manipulation, instead of arguing you jump straight to name calling.
>>
>>18144206
It is pretty normal actually.
You don't develop feelings for every person you find physically attractive. Hopefully.

Unless you lie to them, what's wrong about having sex with someone just because you think they're hot and you'd like to do them?
>>
>>18144198
Sweetheart, I have done those things..

I masturbate to porn, and feel disgusted and hate myself for it.. I got head from a friend and basically had a mental breakdown both times because I wasn't over my ex.. I even tried to hook up with girls casually but failed miserably along the way.. in restrospect I realize that most of the stupid decisions I've made are out of desperation..

I'm not exempt from sin or mistakes. I just wish others would realize what reality is..and how people perceive it.. bad as I have been, the bad I have done, has shaped me into a slightly more reserved person, as tempted as I am.. I'm not without error.. so I wouldn't judge you for your past. But in the same way you differentiate intinacy from casual experiences, men differentiate reserved women from loose women. It's just the way are visually, and in practice. Hard as it is to swallow.

Not judging, just stating facts.
>>
>>18144051
you got me wrong
nobody should give up their agency for the bigger good
if women want to sleep around until later in life thats their choice
if men want to pass on marrying them thats their choice
either thing would fix it, one side giving up sluttines or one side giving up standars would fix this but demanding that is horrible
thats the same argument for either, either argues against one sex having their sexual rights
i would rather see society die
>>
>>18144212
Sure, but defining them as "sex only" is pretty dehumanizing, both Chad and Stacey have feelings and they might want a relationship; on the other hand boring Even Steven with a secure accounting job might also want to have casual sex with women he will never see again, not just a provider for girls to settle with. People are complex and can't be reduced to such an specific identity.
>>
>>18144221
>Sure, but defining them as "sex only" is pretty dehumanizing
She never said this though, this is you putting words in her mouth. Literally strawmanning right now.
>>
File: i cant hear you.gif (2.16 MB, 350x350)
2.16 MB
2.16 MB GIF
>>18144178
this is you when you are faced with reality. also we are not dying we are growing in numbers each day because women are out of control with promiscuity and their bad behavior.
>>
File: 1433345106414.jpg (55 KB, 561x543)
55 KB
55 KB JPG
>>18144157
> scientific facts
I'm sorry, but you've been fooled by someone with 30 minutes of free time and Power Point. The graph in
>>18144085
would never make it into a scientific journal.

The "Figure 1" is a clear giveaway. Any social paper would use figure 1 in the methodology section, to state demographics of survey participants.

Also, the Y axis is unlabeled, and the X axis repeats "partners" 7 times. Exactly what you would expect from a faggot trying to slut shame.

Source: I've peer reviewed for 3 journals.
>>
>>18144215
But that's not how reality is. Most people seek sexual pleasure and detach it from emotional intimacy, you included (and me included). It's ridiculous to shame a person for wanting to feel physical pleasure.

It's fine if that's your preference, but it is a superficial preference and a girl with less partners has no objective virtue.
And I'm saying this as a girl who had sex just with her future husband.

>>18144221
I never made it about Steven and Chad. Both are allowed to have casual sex or serious relationship, and hopefully they'll get what they want.
If two people don't desire to have a relationship with each other and made it clear, how is it dehumanising to have a strictly sexual relationship?
>>
>>18144217
im not demanding it stops, but i do think that if people knew what it was doing to society, they would stop on their own

if you have a great society, and all you had to do was save it was find a wife and have kids, which has been shown to be more fulfilling for people, why wouldnt you?
>>
>>18144237
I'm not shaming anyone technically... I don't really. But no matter how right you think you are, in practice, you are also wrong.
>>
File: fuckbrazil.jpg (429 KB, 1322x688)
429 KB
429 KB JPG
>>18144226
> women are out of control with promiscuity and their bad behavior.
> women
Yes, it's always the women. Guys are never to blame. They never lie nor pressure to get sex.

That's why the Japanese have women-only subway cars. To protect innocent virgin men from sex hungry women.
>>
>>18144229
there are more figures i could show you if you want. it would also really help if you could provide something stating the opposite, because ive been looking for that for a while

also im not trying to slut shame, im just saying that there are negatives to being a slut
>>
>>18144260
Actual scientists don't generally bother to debunk "studies" that are clearly non-scientific propaganda in the first place.

Any "figure" you could provide is a statistical correlation with no further analysis into the causation so it's useless and unconvincing to anyone except people already holding such a bias.
>>
File: wuFRozj.png (27 KB, 660x230)
27 KB
27 KB PNG
>>18144260
Here.
That's clearly the main cause of divorce. The figure says so.
>>
>>18144249
cont.

Women want men to change character flaws all the time "that guys an asshole", she wont date an asshole.

And you judged him and you're probably no longer dating him. Slut is a title for a woman that is unnatractive, the same way asshole is for a man.

There's a reason ppl who wanna be serious with you don't wanna hear about your sex history. They probably don't wanna be disgusted with you. They wanna preserve a good image of you.
>>
>>18144268
i understand if you dont agree with the studies but to get angry and call them non-scientific propaganda is a little much

if youre still in the thread a few hours from now ill ill find the actual studies instead of the figures from them and you can check them out
>>
>>18144280
>to get angry and call them non-scientific propaganda is a little much
It isn't much, that's exactly what they are. The only angry one here is you at hearing the truth.
>>
>>18144281
>>18144280

Oh, and don't bother, we've all seen it before. This is /adv/ after all.
>>
>>18144258
So you are saying women aren't smart enough to figure out lies and have no self control to say no?
>>
>>18144246
because the court would eventually take my family, home and income away and im no martyr willing to sacrifice myself for the greater good
so they up the taxes since women benefit from that and men pay for it and thats statistics
and they bring migrants to make up for the aging population that doesnt reproduce to displace them
so we vote for someone new with no ties to either party
so they slander him
so we slander them
so they lose ground, viewership and revenue and try to displace our people and steal their plataform
so we fight back with memes, we make fun of them and take away even more credibility
so they make orwellian deals and 50 milion fines for facebook for allowing us to exist
so we back our people on patreon
so they try to make us invicible
so we expose every single thing they do
and so on
>>
>>18144280
There are studies that are funded to prove specific things, which are essentially propaganda. For example, the study funded by coca cola saying that sugar doesn't cause weight gain. If you do a few specific things in the study, you can essentially make it have whatever answer you want. If they're too small (which is usually what is done), then the results aren't actually demonstrative of the chances of something happening. If you flip a coin 20 times instead of 2000, then you are going to see a heads or tails bias on a 50/50 chance. Random chance does not mean it's going to be consistently 50/50 when you deal with low numbers. Random chance means that you can get streaks of one or the other. Statistically, things group together. if they were always one, then the other, it wouldn't be random chance. This is why we have "bad streaks" or "lucky streaks"

And then you have news outlets grabbing onto studies and blowing up the results to make a headline. They take a study that suggests something minor, blow it way out of proportion and make it seem like a definite, and BAM you have propaganda.
>>
>>18144286
Do you seriously think that girls who are groped by strangers asked for it?
>>
>>18144300
I was taking about the sex, don't play dumb.
>>
>>18144258
I have no problem with men lying to get sex because women lie to men about their sexual market value with makeup. also I never said anything about not blaming man either but male sex drive is important or else humans would have been extinct without it. male sex drive is the only reason men even put up with female bullshit.
>>
>>18144281
>hearing the truth

im not angry, id actually be happy if it was true since it would mean people wouldnt have to worry when marrying a girl whos a slut
but i see all this evidence supporting what ive said (and you have too apparently) and all you come back with is "is untrue because it shit" i need more than that to believe it.

>>18144296
the study funded by coca cola makes sense, since if they say sugar doesnt cause weight gain people will continue buying more coke because they believe it wont affect their health. but why would people lie about this? why would somebody fund a study only to "slut shame"? theres no money to be made or really anything to gain from lying about it
>>
It gives you the appearance that you're someone with no self respect, dignity or commitment. You give it away so easily that anybody could have you. And to men that isn't something they want in a wife lol.I'd feel the same way about a man, if he's fucking every broad then how would I know I mean anything to him? Also STDs would suck to contract.
Don't get me wrong, I don't believe everyone should be super saints about their sexuality, yeah fuck around, see what you like or don't like, but don't fuck the whole town lol.
>>
>>18144319
>the study funded by coca cola makes sense, since if they say sugar doesnt cause weight gain people will continue buying more coke because they believe it wont affect their health. but why would people lie about this? why would somebody fund a study only to "slut shame"?
There are thousands of studies made like that to push a certain political stance or ideal.
>>
>>18144319
Scientists are not immune from human foibles. Including things like confirmation bias.

People want to prove their own opinions, ideas, and beliefs. Or something else can influence them. Let's say a researcher really needs money because their rent is due. Would they bow out of a study they know is being tampered with because of moral reason? Some would. But a lot would just take the money and justify that it can't be that harmful.
>>
>>18144319
I didn't say it was shit I said it was unscientific, presenting purely correlation with no substance, and therefore unconvincing.

It's as stupid as using >>18144273
as "evidence" that margarine consumption causes divorce.

It would be helpful if you could stop being disingenuous and pretending you actually care about "evidence." People who actually do aren't buying it so idk who you think you're fooling.

Also just take a look at the site that funded and presented that study.
https://ifstudies.org/about/our-mission
If you can't tell they have an agenda you're incredibly naive.
Also all it took was literally 2 seconds in google to confirm it:
https://familyinequality.wordpress.com/2013/10/01/right-wing-family-watch/
https://familyinequality.wordpress.com/tag/national-marriage-project/
>>
>>18144336
Not participating in a study your team has been hired to do is also grounds for getting fired.
>>
>>18144319
Here's a scenario for you.

Somebody wants to prove that the sanctity of marriage is falling apart, and that birth control and premarital sex are to blame.

They fund a study looking into it.

The study comes back saying there is no correlation. The person who funded it is furious. Not only do they say there's nothing wrong when there OBVIOUSLY IS, they wasted their money on this bogus group of researchers. They must be idiots.

And so, the person demands that they redo the study. because they obviously messed something up, because if it was really done correctly it would show that there is a problem. They become pushy and demanding and threaten to not pay or to sue.

The researchers then redo the study to the client's specifications to avoid going under.
>>
File: images.jpg (9 KB, 330x153)
9 KB
9 KB JPG
>Girl has a ton of milage
>fucking slut

Don't judge me, please.

>guy has little no experience
>hah, fucking dweeb

Don't judge me, please.

>guy fucks everything that walks
>girls: ew
>other girls: he's hot, he probably has a huge cock

Chad: Hah, fuckin' roasties.
I do miss this one girl though.

>Guy has empathy for a girl no matter how many guys she's been with.
>guys: stupid cuck.
>girls: you could do better than her.
>girls who sleep around: I wish I had someone good like that, but I met this guy on tinder and he's my fwb so..

Don't judge me, please.
Don't judge me, please.
Don't judge me, please...
I love you. Don't hurt me, please.
I respect you, don't take me for granted, please. You mean the world to me, and I don't care what you've done, just be good to me, please.
>>
>>18143745
HPV and herpes undergo asymptomatic shedding. There also isn't a cost effective test for HPV or herpes if there are not active lesions.
Plus, there is a growing problem with drug resistant staph infections you can get from skin to skin contact.

If you fuck a few people a month, the odds of you getting herpes, hpv, molloscum, staph, etc, increases dramatically regardless of condoms or std screening.
>>
>>18143649
It destroys you.
The Human animal did not evolve to sustain such behavior and only modern invention of contraceptives allow it. It is vehemently unnatural and damaging to your psyche and body in ways we cannot even truly understand yet, for so little of this subject has been actually studied.
>>
>>18144371
>The Human animal did not evolve to sustain such behavior
They literally did, it's why human dick heads are shaped like shovels
>>
>>18143865
>numbers mean nothing, my feeling mean everything
Roastie detected.
>>18143857
My smugness will exponentially increase as I grow old and I see disgusting roasties who hit the wall become trainwreck cat ladies while I enjoy the fruits of my labor and a family of adopted white children and grandchildren. Let them lie down in the bed they made and call it their grave.
>>
>>18144374
You missed the point.
A "slut" in the old ages, would not be a slut by our modern definition, because one would risk pregnancy by such behavior, which, without the support of a man, would be potentially mortally dangerous to a woman.

Modern, "liberated" sexual behavior is utterly unnatural to the human animal, and only possible due to our technological intervention that prevents pregnancy from occurring.
>>
>>18144391
>Modern, "liberated" sexual behavior
isn't modern at all, but predates the "old ages" you're talking about. and, is why certain physiology (i.e. the shape of the penis) evolved the way it did.

i didn't miss the point, your point is just wrong.
>>
>>18144391

You know what else by this definition would be unnatural? People generally living last the age of 40 (all due to modern medicine) or being able to see properly in their old age (spectacles). Calling something inherently unnatural because technology has enabled it is a pointless argument, because the tech does exits and therefore it is no longer unnatural. This is an age old argument that has been used against one thing or another, but as times advance each of those "unnatural" things have been normalised.
>>
>>18144174
You sound like those /b/tards who browse gore threads and think, "This is just ironic and it won't actually fuck my mind up" who then learn they are completely desensitized to violence.

You cannot escape psychological reality by saying you're immune. Touch is one of the primary mechanisms of human attachment as it releases oxytocin. Whenever you hug, kiss, or fuck someone you are unloading huge amounts of oxytocin. Inevitably if you have intimate feelings for one person, frequent sex with others will eventually erode the romantic parts of that relationship.
>>
>>18144391
>A "slut" in the old ages, would not be a slut by our modern definition, because one would risk pregnancy by such behavior, which, without the support of a man, would be potentially mortally dangerous to a woman.
Both my grandmothers got pregnant before marriage. And they got married at 18.
Both my grandpas cheated on my grandmas (with prostitutes, because it was acceptable for a man to fuck prostitutes) for years.
My great grandma cheated on her husband and got pregnant of the other man. In my building, two neighbours had a relationship for 30 years while both being married to other people. The dude has Alzheimer and mistaken me for the woman who lived in my flat, who died 10 years ago - he proposed me to fuck in his garage.

People have always fucked around, they just were more reserved about it.
>>
>>18144402
>isn't modern at all, but predates the "old ages" you're talking about. and, is why certain physiology (i.e. the shape of the penis) evolved the way it did.

You are flat out wrong.
The massive amount of casual sex that exists today, was completly impossible for any sane woman for vast majority of our specie's history, because before the advent of reliable contraceptives (which are quite recent), and the losening of moral values that followed that, sex carried a massive risk of pregnancy, that could in the worst case scenario, KILL the woman.

The shape of a man's dick is not related to casual sexual behavior, it is simply an adaptation to a competitive sexual environment.
Men have competed for females for ages, and females have sought the attentions of different men, but those aspects of our specie's sexual behavior are not relevant to the main point that picture and I am trying to make.
Never in our evolutionary history, were women able to engage in reckless casual sex with countless male partners, and face no pregnancy, until very recently. And to assume that this new type of behavior doesn't carry unforeseen risks to our minds and potentially even bodies, is folly. We quite simply, did not evolve to a liberated sexual behavior.
>>
>>18144411
You're a bit beyond the point.
I'm not questioning monogamy, I'm questioning the fact that a person who had casual sex before can be forever desensitised by it and never feel romantic attraction again.
>>
>>18144410
My opposition to liberated sexual practices is not just that it is "unnatural", it is because I believe it to be UNHEALTHY for us, due to such behavior being so abnormal to us.

>>18144412
I am not talking about cheating you moron. I am talking about massive amounts of casual sex that does not lead to pregnancy.
>>
>>18144402
>what is the c-section
>what is government support of children
>what is the use of contraceptives
Just because we have shovel shaped penises does not mean that its purpose is fulfilled in our current environments. We have tailbones, nipples on males, appendixs, etc. All of these things are vestigial. Males even have hirsuties coronae glandis, which is the remnant of literal penis barbs. Civilization, and by extension society, developed the way it did specifically because of pair bonding and the formation of the nuclear family. Read a fucking book, moron.
>>
>>18144419
>I am not talking about cheating you moron. I am talking about massive amounts of casual sex that does not lead to pregnancy.
I am saying that most people actually had casual sex and just made their husband raise someone else's kid, or married because "oh shit, we got pregnant".
>>
>>18144416
>The shape of a man's dick is not related to casual sexual behavior, it is simply an adaptation to a competitive sexual environment.

So if there's no casual sex going on wherefore the competition?

>You are flat out wrong.
I'm not.

>Never in our evolutionary history, were women able to engage in reckless casual sex with countless male partners, and face no pregnancy, until very recently.
But this is. This is pretty much how any sexually reproducing species evolved to where they are today and we are no different. But back then there was no such thing as "morals" "religion" "marriage." You didn't really need a "husband" to take care of you. Raising kids was more of a family and community affair. The tribe supported mothers and children. Getting pregnant wasn't a "danger" you had to "watch out for" because it wouldn't fuck over your life. Having a lot of kids and growing your numbers was actually beneficial. This is such basic shit too. You're a fucking idiot desu.
>>
>>18143649
Nothing, just don't expect a long steady relationship at the end. It's like there's nothing wrong with being a fat tub of lard but don't expect a long healthy life at the end of it.
>>
>>18144423
Then don't drag evolution into the argument when you clearly don't understand it yet want to base your entire premise on it, shithead.
>>
File: 1489973271824.png (34 KB, 470x512)
34 KB
34 KB PNG
>confession time
>moderate rightist time

I dont approve of the hookup and fwb culture or that open relationship bullshit. If you're into any of those I wanna know, so I dont have to know you.

If my gf had been sleeping with over 10 guys(im in my 20s) something's not right with her, in my mind. A slut is a slut. You can play house with me for a while, but you'll get bored, my lady. Keep with the fwb dudes, so I dont have to know you.
>>
>>18144427
>The tribe supported mothers and children. Getting pregnant wasn't a "danger" you had to "watch out for" because it wouldn't fuck over your life.
Look up mortality during pregnancy prior to modern medicine and then kill yourself, you pseudo-intellectual stack of human shaped trash.
>>
>>18144424
>I am saying that most people actually had casual sex
Your view of history is warped by modern culture if you think that the amount of "casual sex" as little as 100 years ago, came even close to the amount people fuck around in these days. The simple fact that reliable contraceptives were not around, discouraged such behavior massively.
>and just made their husband raise someone else's kid, or married because "oh shit, we got pregnant".
And thus fulfilled their biological purpose which no longer happens due to contraceptives preventing it, thus allowing far greater amounts of casual sex than ever before in our specie's history.
>>
>>18144436
>Look up mortality during pregnancy prior to modern medicine
Why? It's completely irrelevant to anything I said you illiterate cunt lmao
>>
>>18144437
>Your view of history is warped by modern culture if you think that the amount of "casual sex" as little as 100 years ago, came even close to the amount people fuck around in these days. The simple fact that reliable contraceptives were not around, discouraged such behavior massively.
[citation needed]
>>
>>18144427
>So if there's no casual sex going on wherefore the competition?

What I mean by casual sex, is not an environment where a female has multiple potential mates, which means that those mates compete with one another.
I mean an environment, where female can engage in massive amounts of intercourse without having to risk pregnancy, which drastically warps the behavior of female humans, as the risk of pregnancy is what would otherwise keep such behavior in check.

>I'm not.
Yes you are, as you seem to be utterly incapable of grasping the topic at hand. It is not about cheating, or females having many partners to chose from, it is about how the invention of contraceptives has warped our sexual behavior.

>But back then there was no such thing as "morals" "religion" "marriage."

Again, you are simply wrong.
Morals, religions (of sort), and even marriages (pair bonds) are all simply cultural manifestations of our natural traits, that our species developed because they were useful for our survival. Such things have existed for as long as we have been human.

>You didn't really need a "husband" to take care of you.
We are largely a monogamous species, and the male-female parent pair is a direct result of that trait, because a pregnant female is very vulnerable, and our offspring cannot support themselves in any shape or form for years. Fathers and Mothers have existed since the dawn of our species, and while child rearing has always had communal elements to it, the prime responsibility has always been with the parents of the child.

>Getting pregnant wasn't a "danger" you had to "watch out for" because it wouldn't fuck over your life.
Here you show your lack of knowledge of the history our species. Even with the full support of the father and the tribe, pregnancy was a massive risk for a female, that often resulted in death.
It is a risk even today, though greatly lessened one.
>>
>>18144438
Childbirth was literally a life or death affair. As little as 500 years ago, one in ten women would die from child birth. If you want to go back to pre-civilization, before the advent of crude medicine, then that number could have been as high as one in three. What you're referring to when you say "everyone was having sex lmao" never happened. Find me a fucking book or source that supports your argument, other than the trite bullshit you're pulling out of your ass.
>>
>>18144443
Study a bit of history m8.
For fuck's sake, are you really so dumb that you think that 100 years ago, let alone 10 000 years ago, before the advent of modern contraceptives, a woman could go "clubbing" and fuck 15 different guys in a month on a whim? That sort of behavior would cause her to become pregnant with a child of a stranger, with potentially no one to support her, which would in the best case scenario, severely hamper the chances of survival of her offspring, and in the worst case, lead to the death of the female.

The risk of pregnancy has always been the major limiting factor of female sexual behavior, as again, getting pregnant was until very recently, not only a tremendous financial burden, but also potentially a mortal danger.

We are a species of animals, like dogs, cats and birds are, our sexual behavior developed in an environment where a female who would act like women do these days, would simply not survive because such reckless sexual behavior would destroy.
Hence, it is foolish to think that such behavior would carry no consequences to us. We are not above nature.
>>
>>18144485
>Study a bit of history m8.
Cite your bullshit, m8.
>>
File: 50685268973.jpg (61 KB, 604x453)
61 KB
61 KB JPG
>ITT: Club sluts trying to get evaluation, and some well-adjusted people giving them the history lesson they desperately need, but can't actually contemplate.
>>
>>18144498
>bullshit

I am not going to retell you basic knowledge of human biology and anthropology or scurry the net for graphs that showcase these basic fucking facts.
This is basic knowledge anyone who has gone trough high school should know.

The very fact that reliable contraceptives WEREN'T AROUND 100 years ago, means that the sexual environment we face today, was flat out impossible, because back then, sex carried very high and real risk of pregnancy, which meant that any woman engaging in reckless sexual activity would ruin herself doing it.

Again, to reiterate, this is not about cheating, or women having multiple partners to choose from, or even having many kids. This is about how CONTRACEPTIVES WARP OUR SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, by removing the risk of pregnancy from the equation, which has historically, kept reckless female sexual behavior in check due to the life threatening consequences getting pregnant entailed.
>>
>>18144507
Its disturbing how ill informed some of these people seem to be about the history of our species.
Like, how can anyone even think that modern "liberated" sexual behavior was possible before the invention of contraceptives?
Do they not understand the massive effect removing the risk of pregnancy from sex had?
>>
File: heavy keks.jpg (25 KB, 500x500)
25 KB
25 KB JPG
>>18143649
Well, the whole "why are you calling me a slut? I'm not doing anything wrong" thing comes from a stupid sentiment. No one says morally wrong. It's frowned upon, because it's a behavior of seeking out pleasure whilst keeping a distance socially to others.

It's not morally wrong to suck off a horse (to some), but that doesn't mean it's not gonna be frowned upon by others.

Tl;dr: if you're going to be a slut, don't expect people to not frown upon you. Society won't form around your eccentric personal interests, you'll have to form around their norms.
>>
>>18144498
http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/r/renaissance-childbirth/
"Pregnancy and childbirth were dangerous times in a woman's life, and most women wrote their wills once they knew they were pregnant."

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014067360669380X
"The risk of a woman dying as a result of pregnancy or childbirth during her lifetime is about one in six in the poorest parts of the world compared with about one in 30000 in Northern Europe."

https://archive.org/details/b20442580
"The evidence is that in the past a class has risen to a position of political dominance because of its great energy and that at the period of its rising, its sexual regulations have always been strict. It has retained its energy and dominated the society so long as its sexual regulations have demanded both pre-nuptial and post-nuptial continence. … I know of no exceptions to these rules." - J.D. Unwin

Your turn.
>>
>>18144567
/thread
>>
>>18144567
You're the real MVP m8.
>>
>>18143649
Slut is a word taught by society, think about it, a women that has sex with someone for pleasure and asks nothing in return is labelled a slut, a women that asks money for sex is a whore and the third one binds herself with a exclusive contract (marriage) to only one man and is extremely expensive, this one is seen as the pinnacle of goodness and we call them a wife, the villain here is society for teaching people the wrong things.
>>
>>18144567
Again, you're citing and referring to the past few hundred years and using that as evidence and a premise for how the species evolved. If you can't see that your premise is fundamentally ridiculous I don't know what to tell you.
Trying to base your argument on evolution and then referring to "back then" as the renaissance period as your starting point is retarded.

Females weren't writing "wills" and thinking about "mortality rates" and "financial burdens" during the evolution of the species because such things as a concept did not exist, and haven't for the vast majority of the time we've existed and have been evolving as a species. Society and culture was extremely different but you can't fucking ignore it just because it doesn't fit your narrative.
>>
>>18144693
>Again, you're citing and referring to the past few hundred years and using that as evidence and a premise for how the species evolved.
Maybe because that's pretty much as far as we can go with actually having records of shit, you dumb cunt. Beyond that point, we have far less actual documented records and instead have to rely more on compartive studies of primitive cultures, bones etc archaeological evidence, and speculation.
Also, way to ignore the other sources and focus solely on the first one.

>Again, you're citing and referring to the past few hundred years and using that as evidence and a premise for how the species evolved.
Nice strawman.

>Females weren't writing "wills" and thinking about "mortality rates" and "financial burdens" during the evolution of the species because such things as a concept did not exist
Way to miss the fucking point you utter moron. No, of course, women weren't writing down such things before those things were even concept, but do you know what they were doing? They were fucking dying during childbirth, which was the whole point of that article. To show how common deaths during childbirth were even as little as few hundred years ago, hence women of that time, wrote their fucking wills upon learning that they were pregnant.

>Society and culture was extremely different but you can't fucking ignore it just because it doesn't fit your narrative.
For the vast majority of the history of our species, society and culture had no effect on the fact that getting pregnant could fucking kill you, thus reckless sexual behavior was ill adviced.
That has changed due to contraceptives, which in turn has enabled females to engage in reckless sexual behavior that would have had high changes of ruining their lives as little as 100 years ago.
Again, we come to the whole point of this picture;>>18144371 how contraceptives, have warped the sexual behavior of humanity, and the potential malign effects that warped behavior has on all of us.
>>
>>18143649
There is literally nothing ethically wrong about promiscuity.
Not wanting to be in a committed relationship with a "slut" can be explained by two things:
The first is simple jealousy. Knowing that his fiance has had sex with a lot of other men in the past hurts any man's ego and makes him fear being compared to your previous sexual partners. Not saying that's the fault of the woman but you have to accept that those feelings will arise at least to some extent - saying "you only complain about sluts because you're an insecure beta" doesn't help anyone.
Secondly, promiscuity is automatically associated with a higher risk of cheating. This doesn't mean that a "slut" is guaranteed to cheat, but to some extent it's true that the easier somebody (man or woman) finds it to arrange casual sex, the easier they will find it to cheat when unsatisfied in their relationship.
>>
>>18144718
>Maybe because that's pretty much as far as we can go with actually having records of shit, you dumb cunt
Then don't talk about the evolution of a species if you don't have any actual evidence to back up the utter shit you're spouting you fucking mongoloid.
The other sources are irreelvant because, by your own admission, they have no bearing on evolution, the foundational premise of your argument and therefore, by your own implication are irrelevant anyway.
>>
>>18144319
>but i see all this evidence supporting what ive said
That's exactly the point, no. You don't. Because it's not real evidence. You just saw something that seems to give the result you expect and didn't bother to check if the source is sound. Also, since it's you who is claiming that being a slut is unethical, the burden of proof is on you to show why, and so far it seems that you simply don't have the material to do so.
>>
>>18144718
Monogamy existed for 10-20k years, our species existed for much longer.

Even just looking at our genome, more women than men added to our genome, which means that few men had sex with multiple women for thousands of years.

Monogamy is a relatively new concept.
>>
>>18144763
but anon humans only started to exist a few hundred years ago and then contraceptives were invented and set our entire evolutionary path woefully askew to the demise of us all
>>
>>18144740
>Then don't talk about the evolution of a species if you don't have any actual evidence to back up the utter shit you're spouting you fucking mongoloid.

We have a lot of other data you fucking idiot. Again, archaeological finds, and comparative studies upon more "primitive" cultures that for example, lack access to modern medicine.

>The other sources are irreelvant because, by your own admission, they have no bearing on evolution, the foundational premise of your argument and therefore, by your own implication are irrelevant anyway.
>by your own admission, they have no bearing on evolution,
I made no such admission, and they are VERY FUCKING RELEVANT, because the second one shows how utterly dangerous getting pregnant is even today, IF YOU LACK ACCESS TO MODERN MEDICINE, and the third showcases how sexual restraint in cultures has led to greater success of the human societies that practiced such a culture.
Both are inherently related to the evolution of our species, because the conditions that the poorest parts of the world face today, are still fucking better than what our species as whole existed in 10 000 years ago.

ONE IN SIX WOMEN DIED DURING CHILDBIRTH FOR THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE EXISTENCE OF OUR SPECIES.
YOU ARE AN UTTER FOOL IF YOU DO NOT THINK THAT THIS FACT, HAS NOT SHAPED OUR EVOLUTION AND OUR BEHAVIOR.
>>
>>18144773
Dude, no. For thousands of years, women outnumbered men largely (around 1 man every 4 women) and several women had children with the same man. So promiscuity was the norm. Not because it was enjoyable to fuck around, but because fucking around was practical and the only thing possible.
Biparental families weren't a thing for most of our history as a species.
>>
>>18144434
>something's not right with her
This is literally the only thing in your post that I have an issue with. Deciding on how to live your life is something everyone does, and avoiding people who live differently isn't that weird. But thinking that any different opinion must somehow have "something not right" about it is fucked up
>>
>>18144767
That's simply because, like with most mammals, many males of our species simply did not succeed in breeding. That doesn't mean that we didn't practice monogamy, it simply means that many men were unsuccessful at it.
That only changed once we reached a "civilized" stage, where our monogamous tendencies were further enforced via institution of marriage, which made it more likely for more males to get a partner.
I am not saying that we were fully monogamous species, because we obviously were not. We however, possess monogamous traits, based around the pair bond we form with our partner that ultimately, serves to ensure the survival of the offspring.
However, monogamy is not really the relevant topic here. This whole discussion is about contraceptives and how they have changed sexual behavior.

>>18144767
> then contraceptives were invented and set our entire evolutionary path woefully askew to the demise of us all
You fucking moron.
Nobody is saying that contraceptives have "set our entire evolutionary path woefully askew". What is being said, that contraceptives have warped our sexual behavior, by eliminating the risk of pregnancy and allowing females to practice reckless sexual behavior that would have quite often, led to their fucking deaths less than 100 years ago. What is also being stipulated, is that this behavior cannot be healthy for us, because WE DID NOT EVOLVE TO DEAL WITH SUCH BEHAVIOR.

>>18144787
That has no relevance to the topic of contraceptives warping human sexual behavior. Again, this is not about females having different partners or monogamy.
Also, history alone showcases that cultures that practiced enforced monogamy and restrained sexual behavior, were the most successful ones, because imposed monogamy guarantees most males even chance of getting a mate, and thus a stake in the society, making the society as a whole, more productive.
But that is a topic wholly irrelevant to the one at hand.
>>
>>18144693
Enlighten me with a written source that more adequately explains your positions then, fuckface, because all I see is you pulling unsourced rhetoric out of your ass.

As to evolution: We have collectively evolved, culturally and physically, over the past several ten thousand years, to transition from a nomadic life style to that of a structured civilization. If you are somehow suggesting that it is desirable to revert to pre-civilization habits because "that's how we evolved and it's natural, lol" ***CITATION FUCKING NEEDED BTW*** then you're the idiot who can't conceptualize the idea that evolution is *an ongoing* process and is not relegated to something that only affected us 40,000 years ago.

Furthermore, successful development of a civilization does not generally include rampant promicuity, as history has shown. And, if the past 60 years of our culture has shown anything (an incredibly short fucking time), it is that the current gender dynamic of the western world is not working. I would provide you stats and statistics as to why that is, but you're a fucking mouth breather who obviously wouldn't appreciate it.

Now, sources for your arguments or:
https://youtu.be/nc_LIR5ExIU
>>
File: women vote.png (595 KB, 1500x3719)
595 KB
595 KB PNG
>>18144813
Actually, this whole topic could use some additional redpilling.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxpVwBzFAkw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOMkl3ApTK0&

tl;dr/dw:
Sexual liberation and women, if given the choice, will bring civilizations to ruin, due to the behavior they are prone to due to their biology.
>>
>>18144837
That post is extremely inaccurate.
>>
>>18144816
You do realise evolution usually happens on the scale of millions of years? And the civilisations you're talking about have existed for far too short to have that kind of effect?
>>
>>18144842
How about you refute it then.
>>
>sex might lose a large part of its importance and bonding power

>might

no, it will. and worse than that, love will lose a huge part of it's bonding ability. you will not love somebody the same after so many people you fuck.

by the time somebody who has deep feelings for you comes along, you will probably fall in love with the sex long before you love the person itself..

it disgusts me to think that a person can't love anymore, more than any kind of sexual fetish they may have or how many people they've been with.

ones ability to love can only only be obtained by abstaining from lust, no two ways around it.

why do you think women come here on /adv/ complaining when their bf's don't fuck them anymore because they have a porn addiction or something.

The only thing that will help us all overcome these experiences is empathy. TRYING to understand one another, and learn from one another. forgiving one another, tolerating one another, helping one another.

the very thread wouldn't exist if somehow you felt you are coming up short. but none of us are perfect, not one.

I wish though, that I could change the personality of such a woman, if indeed I was attracted to her. But I feel her ability to love me may have died.. and it sucks to think, that someone would hate you also, not for having been a slut, but for being inexperienced.. and still attracted to such a person no matter what. But she simply can't reciprocate the attraction, because she doesn't want a monogamous relationship anymore.. and there you are feeling like a fucking ...like somebody drowned you.

The only thing that will help us, is empathy. We must love each other, appreciate each other, no matter what.
>>
>>18144816
>Enlighten me with a written source that more adequately explains your positions then, fuckface, because all I see is you pulling unsourced rhetoric out of your ass.

My position is just that you utterly fail to prove the fundamental premise or validity of your argument because all of YOUR rhetoric and even sources you bother to cite do nothing to support it. The issue of contraceptives, mortality rate regarding childbirth and the state of our civilization compared to a few hundred years ago is irrelevant to evolution because that predates all these concerns by thousands and thousands of years. Women died in childbirth and still do today. That didn't stop our species from reproducing and evolving. Bearing children as a woman was not a question of if but when and how many because culture and society dictated it was necessary, unlike in modern times. So the possibility that you might die just wasn't a deterrent and that is borne out the fact that we didn't fucking die out as a species.

Your "statistics" won't prove anything anyway so keep them safe and secure up your own ass lol
>>
>>18143649
Nothing wrong if no one knew you did some slutty thing. Like i did when i was 19 but no one to this day knew. Every female want to be a slut and fuck around at least 1 time.
>>
File: 12509150951289.gif (20 KB, 633x758)
20 KB
20 KB GIF
>>18144800
It was just banter, anon. I just wanted to vent, not start an argument. Thanks for reply though, much appreciated, and you have a point.
>>
>>18144837
>ill give three reasons!
>it goes against the nuclear family, it goes against the nuclear family and it goes against the nuclear family
>and 6 for the other thing
>it goes against the nuclear family, it goes against the nuclear family, it goes against the nuclear family, it goes against the nuclear family, it goes against the nuclear family, it goes against the nuclear family
>>
>>18144874
You provided no rebuttals of the argument presented in that picture.
>>
>>18144844
Testosterone levels have gone down, average body mass has gone down, brain size has gone down, muscle mass as a percentage of the body has gone down, height (as of the last century due to change in nutrition) has gone up, bone density has gone down, etc. This is in just the last 20,000 years. Furthermore, there is a difference between macro and micro evolution, and some changes can occur through rapid evolution over just a few generations in order to adapt to a new stressor. Sickle cell, in order to counteract malaria, is an example of this.

Do none of you fuckers read?
>>
>>18144904
>Do none of you fuckers read?
Hasn't their utter lack of knowledge of history made it quite clear that most of the people screeching against the arguments and statements that have been put forth in this thread, don't read anything beyond feel good pop science at best.
>>
>>18144857
Can't hear you, senpai. Sound won't travel through that vacuum of sources you have there.
>>
>>18144837
Women ALWAYS worked. In the fields, in factories. There were whole industries (for example textile) and jobs (for example nursing, cleaning, teaching, etc) that were basically female-only for centuries.
Just very high classes could afford housewives.

In the late 1800 till 1960 women started staying at home more and being housewives, but slowly re-entered work market basically since WWII. It happened gradually and didn't destroy the job market.

We need to make more money because we need more things. Most people didn't go on holiday, own two cars, sent their kids to college, bought technology, hired people to do maintenance, had expensive hobbies, went to the gym, or have a closet full of clothes. If we lived as we did in the 60s, we could easily rely on one income. We just wouldn't be able to give our kids a decent life.

Children didn't have stay at home moms through the centuries. Kids were working in the fields before they hit puberty till 150 years ago.

Mothers didn't really teach kids. Kids didn't get any education, and if they got any it was from public school.
Most countries with a really good education system disincentive homeschooling.
>>
>>18144904
>Testosterone levels have gone down, average body mass has gone down, brain size has gone down, muscle mass as a percentage of the body has gone down, height (as of the last century due to change in nutrition) has gone up, bone density has gone down, etc.
All of these things can be and are manipulated independently of genetics. This isn't proof of evolution unless you want to explicitly prove these changes are due to a change in the human genome and not just environmental, societal, anthropological factors.
>>
>>18144913
The vacuum is between your ears, champ.
>>
File: oZ8aJ.gif (930 KB, 245x285)
930 KB
930 KB GIF
>>18144933
Selection in microevolution can occur both naturally and artificially, senpai. Furthermore, epigenetics and microevolution go pretty much hand in hand, famalam. Crack open a biology book and prove me wrong.

>>18144938
Alas, if only I had authentic and cited sources of information so that I might not be dullard. I am doomed to be forever a fool. ;_;

Faggot.
>>
>>18144857
You still utterly fail to understand the argument that has been put forth.
Let me make it as simple as I can so your peanut sized brain can comprehend it:

For basically the entirety of our species existence, getting pregnant was an extreme risk for a woman, as pregnancy had a high chance of killing a woman during childbirth.
Due to that, women who practiced reckless sexual behavior were far more likely to die (along with their offspring) due to the risks involved in pregnancy, while women with more restrained sexual behavior, picking their partners carefully, and forming strong pair bonds with them, would more likely survive, thus favoring behavior, and ultimately cultures that exhibited this restrained behavior.

Only after the invention of modern medicine, did the risk of death due to childbirth fall, and with modern contraceptives the risk of pregnancy all together has been virtually removed. This has freed women from the need of restrained sexual behavior, and allowed them to engage in reckless sexual acts that would have easily led to their deaths 100 years ago. But, because of thousands of years of evolution, during which restrained sexual behavior was far more favorable for the sake of survival, our instincts are not well suited to coping with this reckless sexual behavior.
Most men tend to reject women as viable long term partners if the women in question are deemed too reckless sexually (which before the advent of contraceptives, was basically insanity due to the risks involved), while women behaving in such way, develop increasing difficulties at pair bonding, which further devalues them as potential mates for men.

In short, contraceptives allow females to engage in sexual recklessness that would have led to their deaths during practically entirety of our existence, which is why such behavior is not seen as desirable by males, and is also probably not very healthy for the women either.
>>
>>18144973
>microevolution
Is not a real thing in science. The only people who make a distinction of "microevolution" is literally christian fundamentalists/apologists.
Whether the selection be artificial or natural, you still have to prove the change is occurring on the genetic level and not just over the span of certain individuals lifetimes due to their exposures to certain environmental factors.

> Crack open a biology book and prove me wrong.
Why don't you put away your thesaurus for a second where you found the word "dullard" and try this yourself. See if you can find the term "microevolution" anywhere.
Hard mode: a biology book not written or endorsed by Answers in Genesis
>>
>>18144991
>Is not a real thing in science. The only people who make a distinction of "microevolution" is literally christian fundamentalists/apologists.

Way to showcase the fact that you know absolutely nothing about what you are talking about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution
Microevolution is a very real concept in evolutionary biology.
What creationists do is think that microevolution and macroevolution (aka speciation) are something utterly different, whereas in scientific circles, the only difference between the two is the timescales involved.
Creationists didn't come up with the fucking terms you illiterate mong.
>>
>>18145009
>Macroevolution and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales.

If they describe identical processes why does the term even exist?

>In young Earth creationism and baraminology a central tenet is that evolution can explain diversity in a limited number of created kinds which can interbreed (which they call "microevolution") while the formation of new "kinds" (which they call "macroevolution") is impossible.[3][53] This acceptance of "microevolution" only within a "kind" is also typical of old Earth creationism.[54]

Apologetics.

Like I said, feel free to point any recent peer-reviewed scientific journal or biology book that makes a legitimate distinction between "microevolution" and any other kind of evolution. Timescale of evolution is implicitly understood by actual biologists. It only presents a problem to young earth creationists and christian apologetics which is why they are the vast majority of people perpetuating the usage of this term.
>>
File: 1490016122992-biz.png (84 KB, 360x345)
84 KB
84 KB PNG
>>18144991
How about Yale?
http://teachersinstitute.yale.edu/curriculum/units/2009/5/09.05.04.x.html

Also,
>he didn't read Dickens
>probably doesn't even have a broad enough vocabulary to know what a lexicon is.
>has never called someone a meconium for brains
o im laffin
>>
>>18145024
>http://teachersinstitute.yale.edu/curriculum/units/2009/5/09.05.04.x.html
That's some curriculum from a fucking Connecticut public school that evidently participated in some kind of program affiliated with Yale. THAT is your proof?

>o im laffin

same
>>
>>18145023
>If they describe identical processes why does the term even exist?

Because the term was coined by evolutionary biologists to specify at what scale they study evolution.
Microevolution describes evolution happening within population, in the form of genetic flow and drift, along with what traits are being selected for, which can be observed in real time while Macroevolution is evolution happening on geological timescales, during which populations diverge into new species.

Both terms were coined by scientists themselves, to better describe what they were fucking studying (because studying the evolution of bacteria colonies is a bit fucking different from studying how dinosaurs became birds).

Creationists simply co-opted those terms for their stupid bs.
>>
I don't have anything against promiscuous women who practice safe sex and care for the sexual and mental health of their partners. Hell, I would LOVE that if I were a single guy who's looking to get his dick between as many tits and ass cheeks as possible.

But the thing is, on an intellectual level, I also realize that such behavior comes with certain side effects.

Like, I'm not going to go gag people so they can only eat a balanced diet and whip them to make sure they get 30 minutes of physical activity a day. Hell, I don't really meet that metric myself. However, there is no denying that overindulging in rich, delicious foods and not maintaining your body will cause serious issues. It's the same with sex. Just because you can and you want to doesn't mean that it's a good thing to do.
>>
>>18144891
There ARE no arguments in that picture. It's just a needlessly verbose explanation about why women's rights go against the most conservative imaginable version of the nuclear family. Not exactly rocket science
>>
File: 1489360179899-pol.jpg (36 KB, 482x427)
36 KB
36 KB JPG
>>18145023
>If they describe identical processes why does the term even exist?
Because different words have different meanings? Or perhaps because the differentiation of a process that occurs over hundreds of millions of years vice hundreds of thousands is useful in identifying separate characteristics? Please tell me you're meming on me.
>>
>>18144904
Peer-reviewed scientific study that showcases any of those as a result of changes in the human genome.
>>
>>18144989
>For basically the entirety of our species existence, getting pregnant was an extreme risk for a woman, as pregnancy had a high chance of killing a woman during childbirth.
>Due to that, women who practiced reckless sexual behavior were far more likely to die (along with their offspring) due to the risks involved in pregnancy, while women with more restrained sexual behavior, picking their partners carefully, and forming strong pair bonds with them, would more likely survive, thus favoring behavior, and ultimately cultures that exhibited this restrained behavior.
This makes no sense.
Giving birth to your husband's son or to a random stranger son is equally as dangerous.
Risk in childbearing isn't any different according to the man who gets you pregnant.
>>
>>18144913
The burden of proof is on you though
>>
>>18145042
>Creationists simply co-opted those terms for their stupid bs.
So why would you be using it in this day and age if you weren't one of them?

What you call "macroevolution" i.e. speciation can also be observed in species with fast enough reproduction cycle, like fruit flies. If this doesn't make it evident why the distinction is useless I don't know what does.

>because studying the evolution of bacteria colonies is a bit fucking different from studying how dinosaurs became birds
The method of studying yes, but the basic process is identical except for the timescale. That's the entire point.
>>
>>18145055
Yes there are.
That picture presents a clear argument of how women's rights served to dismantle the family unit and trough that, dangerously destabilize our society as the shift of focus turned away from the Family to the Individual in terms of politics and economy.

You may think that is a good thing, but that doesn't invalidate the argument that picture put forth.
>>
>>18145037
Actually, I was going to lead with this, but the Yale one actually has a really comprehensive lesson plan and a solid explanation of evolution and micro evolution, so I thought it was more fitting.

https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/10612894/3589338.pdf?sequence=1

Discussion is on page 4.
>>
>>1814507
>That picture presents a clear argument of how women's rights served to dismantle the family unit
>it goes against the nuclear family QED LITERALLY SATAN
Both you and that picture literally said nothing. It's just a picture that says "conservative values agree with conservative values". It's empty words with no meaning behind them, much like yourself
>>
Sluts should be marked by a tatoo.
>>
>>18145066
>Giving birth to your husband's son or to a random stranger son is equally as dangerous.
>Risk in childbearing isn't any different according to the man who gets you pregnant.

You do not think of the whole situation.
While the act of giving birth is indeed, equally dangerous, the social situation around it lessens the danger a bit.
A woman who has a partner, who believes that the woman is carrying his child, is more likely to be supported and protected than a woman who is carrying a child no man recognizes as his own due to the woman's reckless sexual behavior. That support can be of crucial importance to the woman both during the pregnancy, childbirth, and the raising of the offspring, thus behavior which made males believe that the woman is carrying their children was more successful reproductive strategy than reckless sexual behavior.
>>
File: Jack-Nicholson-lol.gif (576 KB, 238x211)
576 KB
576 KB GIF
>>18145072

>Women's rights destabilized our society

Top kek. Ok,
>>
>>18145091
Irrelevant in a tribe. You're pulling that out of your ass
>>
>>18145071
I am not a fucking creationist you dumb cunt.
Just because creationists use the terms wrong, doesn't invalidate the use of those terms in scientific circles.

>The method of studying yes,
Hence different fucking terms you daft cunt.
Studying microevolution is basically wholly labwork, while studying macroevolution involves paleontology, especially historically, though nowadays, due to advances in genetic sciences, the speciation of the lifeforms of this world can also be charted by studying their genes.
>>
>>18145092
You again, fail to rebut the argument put forth.
>>
>>18145116
>again
it's a different person, the one you were respnding to answered here >>18145076
>>
>>18145095
>Irrelevant in a tribe.
No it fucking isn't.
Tribes aren't some sort of communes where nobody cares whose kid is who.
Tribes are still composed of FAMILIES, and the foundation of a family is that of a male-female pair bond, and their mutual children, so in a tribal society, the female has to at least convince the male that the child is his, even if it actually isn't.

>You're pulling that out of your ass
Do you often project your own faults onto others?
>>
>>18145127
>Tribes are still composed of FAMILIES
source
>>
>>18145076
>it goes against the nuclear family QED LITERALLY SATAN
That's a strawman.
You fail at understanding what argumentation is. The picture describes how women having the right to vote shifts the focus of politics from family, to individualism, and how it weakens the family unit.

You have not refuted that argument in any shape or form, you are simply screeching autistically because you disagree with the proposal of women's rights being detrimental to societal cohesion.
>>
>>18145065
Sickle cell is the low hanging fruit. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02156102

Height increase is a toss up between epigenetics and heritability of height, depending on the region.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v542/n7640/full/nature21039.html

Admittedly, a few of the other examples are more along the lines of changes in how genes are expressed as opposed to specific mutations, but even professionals blur the line between microevolution and epigenetics to a decent extent. I'll take the loss on the others, as I don't feel like searching.
>>
>>18145130
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tribe

>a : a social group comprising numerous families, clans, or generations together with slaves, dependents, or adopted strangers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribe
>>
>>18144202
No its not, holy fuck get it though your head, men don't want used up meat.
>>
>>18145139
>. The picture describes how women having the right to vote shifts the focus of politics from family, to individualism, and how it weakens the family unit.
>"it goes against the nuclear family" but stretched out on a whole line
Keep going m8 soon you'll write 8 paragraphs that say that exact same thing in a more complicated way
Oh wait
>>
>>18145116

Firstly, I'm a different person. Secondly, your retarded argument is perfectly constructed in the sense that you establish it using nothing but unverifiable claims and opinions, then basically spout off saying "Well I don't have to prove I'm right, you have to prove I'm wrong."

That's ridiculous. That's the exact opposite of a proper debate. When you claim something is "dangerously destabilizing" our society you can't lay fourth a baseless claim and then put the burden on everyone else to prove you wrong.

If I come to you and say "There are currently 6 billion Zebras living on Jupiter" you're going to expect evidence, not for me to fold my arms like a child and say "Prove me wrong."

Claiming that the inherent act of offering women a wider variety of career options and allowing them the financial and social freedom of being something other than homemakers "dangerously destabilize" our society you're first going to have to define your basis for stability and then try to somehow quantify that it was soley women's rights and not a MILLION other possible contributing factors, that dismantled the family unit.

You said something inflammatory and presumptuous, citing ONE graph posted on 4chan as evidence, childishly fumbled the entire concept of correlation vs. causation and then put the burden on US to prove you wrong while making no effort to prove yourself right.

You sir, are an idiot.
>>
>>18145150
Nice, you understand the argument, now fucking refute it.
How does feminism NOT go against the nuclear family?

My whole point has been that you have not REFUTED the argument, by simply saying that you disagree with the values of nuclear family.
>>
>>18145162
There is nothing to refute. It's just a meaningless truism. There is no argument. It just says that changes in the way we see the family unit have decreased the role of how we used to see it. Wow, how informative! Tune in for next time when we see that immigration brings people with different skin color into a country
>>
>>18145069
Logical fallacy.
That burden of proof lies with those making the claim, which obligate them to provide evidence for their claims. It does not lie on me to disprove him, but only to back up my own statements with available sources. That anon attacked my source saying that it wasn't from 30k years ago, meaning it wasn't applicable, which is ridiculous. All he had to do was cite website or video to source his claims, which he refused to do. The burden of proof remains with him.
>>
>>18145161
> "dangerously destabilizing"

Look up the rates of divorce, amounts of children grown without a father, the utterly abysmal rate of young people marrying and founding families, bellow replacement rate births etc.

Our societies have destabilized. It is fucking self evident. Our leaders have to import foreigners en mass to western countries because the current system cannot sustain itself due to westerners no longer fucking breeding.

This destabilization, is partially due to feminism, as explained by the picture.

>>18145177
Again, there is an argument. Of how feminism served to shift the focus of politics and economy from families to individualism.
And you still have not refuted that argument.
>>
>>18145146
So in short you have barely any evidence of change in the genome in the past 20000 years and you claim that this proves that sexual desire has successfully evolved on a genetical level into what would make sense in a civilised society
>>
>>18145186
Her(or his) position was that you didn't prove yours. The "source" you cited wasn't applicable, therefore no claim was proven. The burden of proof is on you
>>
>>18145187
>Of how feminism served to shift the focus of politics and economy from families to individualism.
Hahahaha now it's not just the political focus, but also economic that is being shifted by the shift of focus! Wow, you must be Einstein to have discovered that! How are you still alive?
>>
>>18145162

>How does feminism NOT go against the nuclear family?

Because feminism isn't a hive mind. Feminism, like all ideologies, have different sects and saying "Feminism" like they're all members of a cult that follow an identical mindset is logically dubious and presumptuous for the purpose of peddling your bullshit. Because technology, social evolution and paradigm shifts have reduced the need for one parent to stay at home all day and support the child.

Because while you keep squealing "NUCLEAR FAMILY NUCLEAR FAMILY" a thousand fucking times like a goddamn goat you fail to explain WHY a fundamental shift to the idea of what a functional family unit can possibly look like is a bad thing.

Kids like you really get on my nerves because your only argument seems to be "OH NO THINGS WERE ONE WAY FOR A LONG TIME AND NOW THEY ARE CHANGING OH NO." I don't really understand. Did you honestly think that society wasn't going to change? That technology wouldn't provide more opportunities for people to raise their children differently?

I mean, there are a lot of negatives that come with any big societal shift but why are we ignoring all the positive? Yes, the nuclear family was more intact 80 years ago but back then more people also got mauled by livestock and died of typhoid so... where is the correlation? What is your argument, that any change to the nuclear family is negative or that feminism is solely responsible for that negativity?

As of yet you've provided no tangible proof or a rational argument for either claim.
>>
>>18145198
Your coy attempts at mockery are not rebuttals.
Try again.
>>
>>18145204
Alright, fine, Ill give a semi-serious answer. Here is what your argument looks like:
>red is red
>therefore you must vote trump
>you must either vote trump or disprove that red is red
The only difference being that "red is red" somehow got stretched in 50 lines
>>
>>18145187

>Our societies have destabilized. It is fucking self evident.

That isn't how evidence works, kid. You have to provide it, not just state it exists. It obviously isn't self-evident because a lot of people disagree with you.

>This destabilization, is partially due to feminism, as explained by the picture.

>Look up the rates of divorce, amounts of children grown without a father, the utterly abysmal rate of young people marrying and founding families, bellow replacement rate births etc.

Lets review how logic works, briefly. The first step to proving in argument is not just to connect the action to the reaction you want but to address the entire scope of your argument to eliminate other contributing factors.

This ONE picture that you keep citing as evidence is in fact, not evidence. Lets say I look up the rates of divorce, fatherless children and marriage rates. Explain to me how that picture eliminates contributing factors such as geography, income gaps, poverty or loss of health and family planning services? Explain to me how you've at all established a foundation of "stability" before claiming that we've been destabilized? You haven't. You just keep clucking the same bullshit like a chicken without first proving anything you're saying to be true. When asked for evidence you say "Its self-evident", when asked for proof you say "Look it up", when asked to verify your claim you keep referring to ONE half assed graph posted on 4chan.

>And you still have not refuted that argument.

Unless you can properly cite your argument and make some attempt at proving anything you're claiming there is no argument to refute. You've provided no tangible basis for an argument yet you somehow expect us to properly refute. You CANNOT put the burden of us proving you wrong. You have to prove yourself right first.

If you can't do that, then there's nothing left for us to talk about.
>>
File: Ophelia.jpg (319 KB, 616x418)
319 KB
319 KB JPG
>fall in love with a girl who may have been around quite a lot
>I'm inexperienced in comparison I feel
>wait the whole night to admit my attraction because I didn't want to come off as desperate, even though I was absolutely smitten and dying to let her know
>I finally say it
>she says (ahh..uhhh)
>I ask if she's flattered
>her: yeah
>she's rolling a joint the entire time I'm here basically spilling my heart out to her
>if she was interested, she definitely didn't show it
>I left feeling half great for finally getting it out, and half dead from how disconnected she seemed..
>didn't even give her my number
>hadn't felt that in love in years
>girl can barely reciprocate it without making me feel dead

Been depressed since.
>>
>>18145203
>you fail to explain WHY a fundamental shift to the idea of what a functional family unit can possibly look like is a bad thing.

That picture made it perfectly clear, so I thought I wouldn't have to restate why it is a fucking bad thing.

But if you insist, I'll humor you.

The reason why the destruction of the family unit, and shift to individualism, is a bad thing, is because the family unit is the building block of society, of nations themselves. Like a nation, family is united by shared culture, living space, blood and experiences, a microcosm of nation, like the picture states.
An individual on the other hand, is solely defined by it's own experiences, that often have very little in common with other individuals. You cannot base a nation on utter individualism. It cannot sustain itself, because as an individual, a human is nothing more than a smart ape. It is trough the society, built by families, we have achieved our greatness.

Feminism attacks the family unit, by turning women against men, thus destabilizing the whole fucking society and destroys it's internal cohesion, which in turn, leads to people losing their stake in society, which leads to further societal problems.
Of course, feminism isn't the sole reason for these problems, but it is one of them.
In general, individualistic values, and the forgoing of systems and values that had kept societies relatively stable for centuries, have led to this breakdown.

>but why are we ignoring all the positive?
Technological gadgets and scientific advancements are nice indeed, but they hardly make up for the ongoing breakdown of our societies. I'd take a stable society with strong internal cohesion, where I felt that I could safely have a family of my own and didn't have to fear being economically destroyed by a divorce, lose my kids, and live to see my people become minorities in our own homeland due to mass immigration, over this modern mess any day of the week.
>>
>>18143649
1) It might make you less likely to form meaningful connections with people.
2) Your partners might become envious or paranoid that you'll cheat on them.

I wouldn't say it's unethical, but it has its disadvantages.
>>
Ethics.

Sex is intended to be something considered private and personal, something special that two people who care for one another share.

So naturally, when you hear that somebody has had many partners, you begin to question their commitment and significance of those partners to them. As a partner in a relationship, it is something to take into account depending on how serious you intend the relationship to be. There's no point in investing yourself seriously into a relationship if you've reason to believe your partner wouldn't do the same.

I personally don't really care. People are human, all the same, I still must make considerations of my own. I'm not going to shame somebody for doing something I was wishing I could've all through out my teens, but it is again a consideration.

There's also a bit about having less sexual experience than your partner. In perhaps a really inappropriate metaphorical sense, something akin to playing your favorite video game with a younger relative who cannot grasp the controls of the concept of the game, so they spend their time just flopping around and bashing into everything. In short, you worry whether or not you are capable of sexually satisfying your partner, which is a big part of a relationship whether people like it or not.

As per shaming, I think some people just want to be able to put somebody else below them. Some tumblretta having a bad day sees somebody doing something she wishes she could do, so instead of just doing it, makes them feel bad about it instead. It's whatever. It could potentially have some basis in religion as well.

So in short, it takes a bit of credibility from your potential as a long term partner, and then everybody else is just batshit insane and insecure.
>>
>>18145228

Should have just asked her out. Confessing feelins like that is not really okay for anyone past the age of 12. Puts everyone in an awkward positions, if it's not mutual.
>>
>>18145210
Another strawman.

>>18145223
Just because a lot of people close their eyes and deny the fact that societal cohesion is breaking down all across the west, along with a myriad of other massive internal problems that are just getting worse, does not mean that those things aren't happening.

I'm European, and the current trajectory we are heading towards is leading to repeat of the ethnic conflicts of Yugoslavia, due to the mass migrant populations pouring in that in countries like Germany and Sweden, already threaten to demographically replace the natives in few generations.

The weakening of the family unit and focus on individualism, is the reason that this mess has been allowed to get as bad as it has. The current politics, that support mass immigration, are directly harmful to the family units of the natives, and only benefit select few individuals who in most cases, simply profit from the mass inflow of cheap labor. This situation cannot sustain itself, and will lead to conflict.

Ethnic civil wars will crop up in Europe within our lifetimes.

Anyways, it is late, and I'm rambling, so I'll drop this stuff here and go to sleep.
And yeah, the sole picture is not really evidence of anything, it simply articulates the point way better I can. The videos in that post contain more info, and also sources for the claims made in the videos.
>>
>>18145277
>Another strawman.
The sad part is, it's not. You just used a lot of words to convince yourself that its alright to not accept changes of society that you can't get used to
>>
As long as you aren't fucking anyone over (ie affairs, pedo, etc) go for it
>>
>>18144317
>a woman who wears make up deserves to get lied to
Get out of your mom's basement for a little while
>>
>>18145284
Yet another strawman.
Changes that benefit the society, and the people that inhabit it, are good.
I do not however, believe that feminism has given us any net benefits. It has weakened us, and been partially responsible for the current trajectory of demographic suicide that many European peoples are facing.

And personally, I do not want my people becoming a fucking minority in our ancestral homeland, which we have inhabited since the fucking ice ages, let alone face utter demographic replacement and extinction that will follow. I want my children, and children's children to live free and peaceful lives in their ancestral homeland, without having to fear violence from muslim savages, or be subjugated by foreign peoples.

I want that one day, the songs of my people will be sung under alien suns. For that fate, our societies and cultures must be strong, and internally cohesive. Pitting men against women, like feminism has done, destroys the very fabric of society and makes any society that suffers from it weak and ripe for conquest by a stronger culture.

But again, late, rambling, gonna go to sleep.
>>
File: 1202282903379.jpg (36 KB, 300x441)
36 KB
36 KB JPG
>>18143649
>>
>>18145192
Explain to me how it wasn't applicable? As far as I know, all relevant knowledge on ancient civilization, beyond myth and folk lore, has only really been hashed out in the last two centuries or so. In fact, the book I cited was a study of 80+ plus civilizations dating from ~3000 bc to the late 19th century and their relation to sex. I cannot think of a more applicable and comprehensive book on the subject than "On Sex and Culture."

>>18145189
Actually, there's been massive change to the human genome in the last 20k years. In fact, "We are more different genetically from people living 5,000 years ago than they were different from Neanderthals."

http://news.wisc.edu/genome-study-places-modern-humans-in-the-evolutionary-fast-lane/

Specifically, it's been changes in disease resistance (and development of new diseases), but there's more to it than just that. You can find many peer reviewed papers on that here:

https://www.genome.gov/10004414/current-nhgri-clinical-studies/

Monogamy does exist genetically in certain animals, but if there's a gene for it in people it hasn't been discovered. That being said, every major culture, that I know of, for the last 3000 years or so, has had some form of monogamy, and all of the successful ones had very strict forms of control in terms of sex. Source for this is here:
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/367/1589/657.full.pdf

To answer your question though: do I have explicit genetic evidence for sexual adaptation for civilization? Nope. I only have physical observation and correlation, which I understand is not causation. However, a very strong casual relationship for monogamy and a successful civilization exists.
>>
>>18145277
This anon is 100% right
>>
>>18143649
Because there used to be no contraception and thus the woman having sex were taking ridiculously high risks.
Also, having sex freely used to spread so much STDs than entire populations were decimated as soon as the population got over 3000 individuals, this has created religious rules as having only one partner was the solution.
Nowaday we're just in conflict with our hold habits as there's nothing wrong for the group to have sex with a lot of partners
>>
>>18145302
>any net benefits
Personal freedom?

>free and peaceful lives in their ancestral homeland,
Why restrain themselves to that? There's a lot to see in the world. As for the peaceful part, the only way to achieve that is trough social reform in the middle east, which will not happen anytime soon without allowing opponents of the current interpretation of Islam to voice their own in western countries

The rest of what you wrote was just incoherent macho rambling, so yes, you do need sleep. And maybe traveling to expand your worldview too
>>
>>18145310
>very strong casual relationship for monogamy and a successful civilization
Do you have any reference sample? Or could it just be that every culture was monogamous in the time frame that you have available?
>>
>>18145337
>travel and expand your world view
Jej, says the person who doesn't go to the bad part of town and has probably never been to a third world country. Take a stroll outside your police laden city, my man. I'm sure you'll like it. :^)
>>
>>18145258

>That picture made it perfectly clear, so I thought I wouldn't have to restate why it is a fucking bad thing.

The picture made nothing clear. Again, here I am explaining how evidence works to, supposedly, a grown man. Stating that your proof exists is not tantamount to providing it.

>Feminism attacks the family unit, by turning women against men, thus destabilizing the whole fucking society and destroys it's internal cohesion, which in turn, leads to people losing their stake in society

Horseshit. You are using generalizations and blatant /r9k/ propoganda as a logical basis for your argument and its a giant steaming pile of bullshit.

Your entire post is just nothing but generalizations and weak strawman horseshit.

>I'd take a stable society with strong internal cohesion, where I felt that I could safely have a family of my own and didn't have to fear being economically destroyed by a divorce, lose my kids, and live to see my people become minorities in our own homeland due to mass immigration, over this modern mess any day of the week.

More strawman. More generalizations. And yet, again, you still have yet to do anything but use weak /pol/ fear-mongering propoganda as proof of the "modern mess" we live in. I look around and have not the slightest clue what mess you are referring to.

I fundamentally disagree with you. I don't know what societal degredation you are talking about. People like you have been spewing that shit like clockwork every 10 years when something changes. In the 50's it was rock music destroying youth in society, in the 60's it was weed, in the 70's it was "free love". And yet we still exist. We still function. Families still exist, people still in communities, and your personal freedom to start a family and live the way you want remains unaffected.

Unless you have anything else to offer that isn't horseshit anecdotal musings and /r9k/ propaganda this conversation is over.
>>
>>18145337
>Personal freedom?
Should never outweigh the collective good of your people.

>Why restrain themselves to that? There's a lot to see in the world
What part about that post was against traveling?
Traveling is a luxury however. Homeland is always more important than foreign lands, for a people without a homeland, is doomed to be subjects of foreigners.

> without allowing opponents of the current interpretation of Islam to voice their own in western countries
Most muslims in west have no interest in speaking against the "current" interpretation of Islam and are well set on their desires to islamize west.
Islam has been at war against other cultures since it's inception.
It is a barbaric faith, that seeks only to dominate and destroy those who do not submit to it.
I want none of it in my homeland, for it's presence dramatically endangers the future of my people.

And given that you think that desiring to preserve your people and see them prosper is just "macho rambling", I'm gonna have to conclude that you are a woman, which is hardly surprising. After all, women never did evolve to protect the continuation of their tribes, as evolutionary, the beneficial approach for women in face of potentially violent opposition, has always been submission.

But yeah, sleep.
>>
>>18145340
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/367/1589/657.full.pdf

Page 1 for introduction and page 10 for discussion, famalamadingdong.
>>
>>18145355
Your blindness to the ills that endanger the very future of the west, does not make them nonexistent.

Many European nations are already in a situation, where given the current rates of migration, their peoples will become minorities in their homelands within our lifetimes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF9V8POmuxg
>>
>>18145277

>Just because a lot of people close their eyes and deny the fact that societal cohesion is breaking down all across the west

This is what I love about you kids. Everytime someone disagrees with you its because their "eyes are closed". Its because we're not "woke" enough; as if the only reason people could ever disagree with you is because you are just so much more aware and knowledgeable than them.

I swear you fuckers are still going to be bleating about the "family unit" like a broken record will into the 22nd century, just like your shitty parents and their shitty parents.

Yes, the world changes. This homogenized world you are dying to live in is a fucking pipe dream. Families will still be around a hundred years from now the same way they were a hundred years ago and no amount of complaining about all the scary brown people moving to your neighborhood is going to change that. If you want to look at the real issue preventing you from starting and taking care of a family look in the mirror, kid.
>>
>>18145371

>Your blindness to the ills that endanger the very future of the west, does not make them nonexistent.

Again, more traditionalist horseshit. The only way someone could disagree with you is if they're blind. If only everyone could be as enlightened as you, then you could live in a world where no one disagrees with you. Fuck off back to /pol/.
>>
>>18143649
I dont give a shit, ill marry a slut.
Keep in mind there is a difference between just being casual about sex and being a full blown whore. As long a they can be faithful its all good in my book
>>
>>18145371

>Many European nations are already in a situation, where given the current rates of migration, their peoples will become minorities in their homelands within our lifetimes.

Oh thats so terrible that your government works tirelessly to destabilize third world countries, install and remove various dictators complicit with your interests, level them into war torn wastelands and then complain when all the scary brown people cross the borders to escape the violent shitstorm you created.

If only we lived in a world where you could bomb the shit out of 1/4 of the world then just turn your back and pretend like it didn't happen.

We see photos of children being buried under rubble and whole families being blown to pieces yet the only time we ever want to speak up is when these people want to cross our borders. We're perfectly fine to contribute to their suffering, watch it on the news and flip to the next channel so long as we don't have to face it in our own countries. So long as no one asks us to do anything about it or sacrifice even a minute amount of our comfort to stop the killing and the death.

Maybe we have an inherent difference of moral responsibility but I think thats bullshit. I think what world leaders have done to these countries and are now subsequently doing in response to the mass immigration as a DIRECT RESULT of the wars they contributed to has been fucking shameful. Maybe its time you become the minority. Then when someone bombs your country to the stone age you can listen to the same hemming and hawing you're participating in right now.

Maybe its your turn for someone to turn your country in a warzone and then ignore your pleas for help over some antiquated nationalist horseshit. Wouldn't that be ironic.
>>
>>18145374
Homogenized, you say? I enjoy it when liberals use words that have explicit meanings, when in reality they mean the opposite. True diversity only occurs when there is distinctness of one thing from another, you know. Mixing different ethnic groups together willynilly leads to homogenization of cultures and a loss of identity, not heterogeneity and "cultural diversity." More often than not, both cultures galvanize and self segregate in order to try to preserve their identity, until one is large enough to completely destroy the other. Take a look at Rhodesia or South Africa, as a nice poignant. Look at Europe and their quarterly sport of Truckscapades. Take a look at all of the "gas leaks" which have been going on throughout Europe.

You're going to love multi-culti until until all the third worlders bring their third world problems with them to YOUR neighborhood. It will be too late then, though.
>>
.>>18145401
>we see photos of children being buried under rubble
You're literally a meme. Well done.
>>
>>18145374
It has nothing to do with being "enlightened" and everything to do with actually paying fucking attention to what is going on in the world, outside of the feel good controlled tripe the mass media feeds to the borderline zombified masses.

Societal trust is at all time low, mass migrations cause only strife and conflict, whole generations have grown from broken families and fail to raise children of their own, unemployment plagues the working class and is bound to get only worse due to mass automation that is basically around the corner, cultural and social cohesion have become eroded to near nothingness, and people are increasingly losing their stake in society. The reason why the far right is rising in Europe, is because the whole continent has basically become Weimar rebublic, par the total financial meltdown.
You comparing this to whining about rock music or innane shit like that just showcases how utterly out of touch you are.
History is not some direct path towards better and better futures. There is no guarantee that the world we live in will be a better place in 10 years than it is today. To assume so, is pure foolishness, especially when all points indicate shit is about to get worse before it gets better.

>>18145401
Please tell me what middle eastern shithole (or any other country for that matter) Finland has destabilized.
Taking care of refugees is in no way, our responsibility and we have zero obligation to sacrifice our own resources and risk our future for the sake of Non-Finns.
And yes, I am perfectly fine to sit idle while other peoples suffer. They are not my concern. My only concern are my own people. Your feel good altruism is not a sustainable foreign policy.

Also, my country was turned into a warzone by the fucking allies in WW2, when Soviets invaded us. Don't preach to me about hardship, and how bad it is when people suffer. My people have suffered under the boot of foreign powers for practically all of our recorded history.
>>
File: 1473184601107-pol.png (13 KB, 548x619)
13 KB
13 KB PNG
>>18145412
You're supposed to be going to sleep, my fingolian friend. Let's not cast pearls before swine.
>>
This thread could have been so good but it was just some fag whoring for (You)s

You sicken me, /adv/
>>
File: gambina spurdo.png (41 KB, 426x384)
41 KB
41 KB PNG
>>18145455
Yes, I am, but autism about ongoing argument keeps me awake. It keeps happening, night after night, after night.
Pls help.
>>
>>18145360
>Traveling is a luxury however. Homeland is always more important than foreign lands, for a people without a homeland, is doomed to be subjects of foreigners.
What a load of horseshit
>And given that you think that desiring to preserve your people and see them prosper is just "macho rambling",
Could it be. That it's better to have everyone prosper? Instead of just "your people", however you personally make the distinction between someone white enough to deserve your empathy and monkeys
>>
File: 1482621344692-pol.jpg (63 KB, 520x820)
63 KB
63 KB JPG
>>18145618
Life is like the lottery. Many will enter, few will win.
>>18145472
Fug :DDD
>>
>>18143707
>>18143844
The OP was addressed here with the definitive response. That should have been the end of the thread 10 hours ago.

Ya'll getting trolled by a tumblr sjw ITT.
>>
>>18143683
>t. cuck
>>
>>18145394
Second. Problem is the faithful part, but trust is something you just have to place in someone. People change, they outgrow behaviors.
>>
>>18145660
it doesnt have to be
>>
>>18143649
>Considering you practice safe sex, you're honest and respectful towards your partners? As long as everybody is well-informed and consenting?

Examine what that means.

>you're honest and respectful towards your partners?

Saying "i just don't know what I want right now" isn't honest or respectful. This happens all the time with sluts.

>"as long as everybody is well informed"
Well-informed eh? "Hey Tony, I sucked Todd's dick 2 hours ago but I want fuck now pls". That's informing your partner- provided you actually do it.


If you were very clear with your intentions that you only want sex then sure thing. But sluts (men and women) tend to play the emotional game instead of being upfront. This leads to broken hearts and stab wounds.
>>
Serious question--how could you tell a girl is a slut?

>roasties

We all know that depends on genetics, and in any case she can just get surgery to fix this

>just ask her

She could lie and you'd have no way of knowing

I don't think there's a problem with not wanting to date sluts but I don't see what's stopping a woman from just making stuff up about her sexual history to fool you.
>>
File: 1485404736020.png (208 KB, 807x935)
208 KB
208 KB PNG
>>18145092
just look at the fertility rate the more rights you give to women the lower your fertility rate. also women have rights at the expense of men because men pay the most taxes but women benefit the most from social welfare. also women have legal protection at the expense of men in marriage. If you watch this video you will see that women's rights is destroying Spain.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjgBfklmYj8

notice how countries that have a good fertility rate don't give women rights but countries that gave women rights have the lowest fertility rate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependencies_by_total_fertility_rate

the devastating affects of low fertility.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxUD8E-qbyI
>>
File: 1457584639216.jpg (51 KB, 492x557)
51 KB
51 KB JPG
Sluts are ethically wrong because there is no reliable way to identify them, causing misery in many relationships. Sluts are obviously more prone to being unfaithful in relationships, this shouldn't have to be explained.

Normally, I'd be okay with them because they have a positive bonus in non-relationship sex encounters. They put out more than other girls, giving virgins and other repressed people a higher chance of getting laid. But the fact is that sluts pursue relationships like everyone else, and that's where the negatives start.

A relationship cannot be "open", it has to be built upon faithfulness and trust, and also have little to no power variation between the two consenting partners.
>>
>>18145276
She lives in NC, me, FL. It was the last day of the event and I knew we had to part ways. All I can hope for is next year.
>>
>>18145797
>>18145891
once you start dating you can always ask her friends or relatives or friends of friends. just do it discreetly.

anyway, my two cents on the matter is that ideally man sluts will end up marrying sluts, virgins to virgins, and so on. I think it's wrong for a man slut to then turn around and look for a virgin wife.

I and many other people would prefer a non ugly, non crazy girl who is in her 20s who is also a virgin. I only say non ugly because it would prove that she HAD the chance to had sex but did not because she upheld traditional values of only sex after marriage (none of that "vagina virginity" either where girls have anal and do bjs but consider themselves virgins). imo upholding such values prove she has a strong conviction to stand for what she believes and thus you can trust her to continue to do so if you marry her (aka you can count on her not to cheat).

Of course life isn't ideal and most virgin women are ugly fuggo crazy cat ladies, in america atleast. If I ever lose my virginity out of wedlock I would up my threshold to 1 relationship, and so on and so forth. hopefully I can find an ok looking 20 something girl who is from a traditional upbringing like me to marry, and if I don't fuck it, I'll die a virgin. atleast the good thing about being a virgin is that I don't lose sleep over STDs, possible kids out there I have to support, shit like that. I'm a worriwart for that shit.
>>
>>18146144

you dont deserve the thing you are looking for. you have no value
>>
>>18146191
oh ok, I guess if it's all the same I guess I'll download tinder and fuck sluts then lmao. thanks anon
>>
>>18146197

sure thing.

seriously though, what kind of beautiful woman would spend the first 21 years of her life abstaining from sex just to end up with someone like YOU?
>>
Being a slut isn't wrong until you expect to be treated the same as a woman who is there for her dude when he's going through bad parts of his life.

Sluts aren't there for anyone but themselves; they're living in a harem anime with the genders reversed. Slutty women turn guys into overly-competitive dudebros who dream of living the lifestyle a female slut can live just by keeping her weight down.
>>
>>18146202
You're either projecting or assuming a lot about me bro. I don't even know the point you're trying to make. someone like ME? as in someone who she can trust not to cheat on her after we get married? yeah I'm sure women hate that about guys right? Ugh, poor her.
>>
>>18146191
(Different poster) I really gotta give you credit for saying "you have no value" instead of the same old feminist bullshit preaching.

Men need to build value. They don't need to accept the fake philosophy which feminists are trying to give them as a replacement for their spine and testicles.
>>
>>18146210

if your wife isnt at least a LITTLE worried that some PYT is going to snatch you behind her back then you arent man enough to deserve her

>>18146216

i do consider myself a feminist in that i believe we should have equal rights. the thing is, it doesnt change our fucking biology. too many feminists live in this make-believe world where we arent sweaty monkeys that poop in fancy white buckets. women are programmed to want certain things & so are men.

im entitled to whatever the fuck i want to take from this world.
>>
>>18146144
Good theory if it wasn't for the fact that virgins at the time of marriage cheat just as well as sluts. Probably not as much and in any case it doesn't guarantee it won't end in a divorce if anything because of sexual incompatibility.
I wouldn't say that being promiscuous is desirable but wanting just virgins is at the other end of the spectrum and not balanced IMO.
Traditional values have nothing to do with the goal of procreation anyway. Show me examples in nature where a species specifically seeks out virgin partners. The so-called traditional values are just creations of religion and mental hang-ups
>>
File: 1431183430053.png (237 KB, 1634x1058)
237 KB
237 KB PNG
>>18143649
>>
>>18145618
>What a load of horseshit
It's a fucking fact.
Look at Kurds for example. They have no soveriginity and are under the rule of other peoples, which has led to many of them turning to terrorism in order to fight for the freedom of their people.

A homeland under the control of it's people, is what allows the people to be free and soverign. Without a homeland, any group of people will always be under the dominion of another group of people.

>however you personally make the distinction between someone white enough to deserve your empathy and monkeys
Yes, I make the distinction between my people, and those who are not my people.
I hold no shame for being tribalist. Tribalism is inherent to human condition, and there is no point in trying to deny that behavior.
I only care for my own people, as they are my kin. Non-Finns are irrelevant to me and I have no interest in sacrificing anything for their sake.
>>
>>18146842
>Show me examples in nature where a species specifically seeks out virgin partners.
if you really want to go that way, sticking around to raise your kids is also kind of unnatural. in the animal kingdom it is better to be an alpha who goes around spreading your seed and having many offsprings. protecting your offspring and raising them is more of a beta thing but over time female mammals starting preferring that over the good genes of the alpha.

but yes if you think of us as animals traditional values have nothing to do with the goal of procreation. neither does kissing, but we still do it. remaining a virgin till wedlock is just one of many ways to show that a person doesn't succumb to their primal animal desires, but instead aspires to higher ideals and planes of thinking, and has enough conviction to carry it through. though it is mostly people raised in traditional homes that find this desirable, it is sort of a noble idea separate of whether it is traditional or not.

but usually men buy more into the ideas of honor, valor, and chastity more easily than women do, who get more out of finding mates with good genes who will protect them while they are still young and attractive. thus it is rare to find a woman who thinks this way.
>>
https://youtu.be/us0WWRnrc98
>>
>>18145660
>Life is like the lottery. Many will enter, few will win.
But why should I make sure the person with same ancestry as me wins instead of letting the best man win?
>>
>>18143683
Alright this then. Would you rather have a brand new car, or a car that 50 different guys rubbed their cocks on? I know what I'd pick.
>>
>>18143720
No because it's different for men and women, men are the initiators and women are the selectors ,thus literally any woman can be a slut so long as she isn't horribly disfigured. Hell even fat fucking blobs can be sluts.
>>
File: smith.gif (369 KB, 480x270)
369 KB
369 KB GIF
>>18143649
Nothing at all really, just dont be mad when men dont want to be in a long term relationship or marry you because the prostitute down the street has had less dicks inside her and is slightly more monogamous than you are.
>>
>>18148320
>But why should I make sure the person with same ancestry as me wins instead of letting the best man win?

Im white so i dont really have to pick and choose between the two
>>
File: what (5).jpg (95 KB, 453x462)
95 KB
95 KB JPG
>>18143649
>ask men what's wrong with a girl being an honest slut
>they give a million unrelated analogies to prove their point
>not one of them wants to admit they just don't want a girl who has enough experience to evaluate their performance
>they don't want women to learn how to be as educated about how to choose partners
>they don't want women to learn that its more beneficial for them to be objective rather than emotional about their sexual partners like men do

There's nothing wrong with a woman who open about her sexuality as long as she's not an idiot about it. Only men who were raised to get by on male bravado but can't back it up with ability would find her a threat because she can't be emotionally compromised and will see past the BS and expect ability instead.
>>
>>18148773
Wut?
>>
>>18149280
Nigger you're completely retarded, nobody wants to "admit" what you think because they don't think the same way you do. I hate these smug faggots that think they can decide how others should think and feel.
>>
wew lad this shit always gets heated.

This is a real battle royale between the defensive and offensive, with fence sitters observing and objectives trying to straighten the facts




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.