A guy in need of advice - girls who kiss a lot of random guys?

[KingZ]

If someone started saying "girls with short hair are ALL lesbians, they ALL lack self respect, they ALL hate men"

Dude! That is a [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy]false analogy[/url]! Cutting your hair short does not implicate another person and risk their wellbeing.

- - - Updated - - -

Because up till now I've never felt the need/want to.

OK, that's good. And you think you can't deduce anything more about a person that does feel the need/want?

[searock]

Dude! That is a [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy]false analogy[/url]! Cutting your hair short does not implicate another person and risk their wellbeing.

Neither does engaging in NSA sex with a sober consenting adult that knows that it's NSA sex. Once he knows that it's NSA sex, if he chooses to go along with it, it will be entirely his "fault" if he gets hurt.

- - - Updated - - -

OK, that's good. And you think you can't deduce anything more about a person that does feel the need/want?

Pretty much, yeah. Not anything about their moral integrity, at any rate.

[michelle23]

But you cant compare something as simple as cutting your hair short and being judged for it than being judged for being promiscuos...

The reality is most non-promiscious people judge promiscious people..a lot of promiscious people judge themselves

And its rare that two consenting sober adults will say lets just have sex once.. I mean that doesnt even make sense. I cant think of one person who has done that.

Were now talking about two completely different things

[KingZ]

Neither does engaging in NSA sex with a sober consenting adult that knows that it's NSA sex. Once he knows that it's NSA sex, if he chooses to go along with it, it will be entirely his "fault" if he gets hurt.

It baffles me that you can genuinely say that cutting one's own hair is analogically equivalent to an intrinsically risky act that necessarily involves at least two people.

[searock]

I made that analogy to explain why I am defending promiscuous people even if I am not one of them.

The act per se may be intrinsically risky, but when it comes to judging moral integrity, all that matters is intention. I knew we'd end up here again!

[KingZ]

I hate you.

[michelle23]

Lol all this talk about sex... you just wait till my man gets home

[KingZ]

Fine, let's look only at intention (which is really dumb to begin with, but I'll humor you). Assuming two adults that are mentally competent, sober, and aware, they know these things: sex is inherently risky; it can spread diseases; it leads to pregnancy (implicating way more people than the two initially involved); "friends with benefits" rarely works out; it naturally involves the emotions, even if against the will of those involved.

Even if their intention may be kosher, it's still extremely difficult to morally justify doing something like this on a repeated basis with whoever your organ impulsively decides to do it with in the given minute. I can point a revolver with one single bullet to your head and say that I didn't intend to kill you, and neither of us intended to do anything but have a jolly good time, but the 17% chance makes it pretty god damn unethical.

[searock]

In no way you can not intend to kill someone and still agree to pull the trigger, knowing that there is a 17% chance of killing the guy.

However, the chances of something really bad happening as a consequence of adult, consensual, using protections NSA sex is very, very low. Pretty much negligible I would say.

The only non-negligible bad things that can happen are those involving emotions. I see what you mean. How can you not intend to hurt someone if there is a non-zero chance of hurting them and you go ahead anyway? In that case it's a matter of trusting the other person... if they assure you that they are ok with it being NSA, and you genuinely believe them, you are genuinely convinced that the chance of hurting them is zero.

[KingZ]

In no way you can not intend to kill someone and still agree to pull the trigger, knowing that there is a 17% chance of killing the guy.

Oh? Why not? In your sick, morally perverted world based on the extremely arbitrary and fickle property of 'intention', what's wrong with them killing each other, anyway?

They're both, like, consenting adults, man.

[searock]

Oh? Why not? In your sick, morally perverted world based on the extremely arbitrary and fickle property of 'intention', what's wrong with them killing each other, anyway?

They're both, like, consenting adults, man.

Well, if someone genuinely doesn't believe that killing is wrong, even if they kill someone they aren't doing anything morally wrong. I'm speaking subjectively here.

[KingZ]

Well, if someone genuinely doesn't believe that killing is wrong, even if they kill someone they aren't doing anything morally wrong.

I feel like you're use the words "wrong" and "moral" but you don't actually have a solid definition for these things. Intentions and actions are different things, and both of them carry moral weight.

Just because an intention was good doesn't mean the action alone isn't subject to ethical evaluation. Do you agree?

I'm speaking subjectively here.

What does this even mean?

[Confused367]

Why do you even care? Its not that big a deal. If you want me to say I am a judgemental prick coz I dont date guys who sleep around-then cool. I'm a judgemental prick lol. But honestly I dont care what people think or what others do. All I care about is having someone who shares my values, who I am compatible with, who I trust and feel safe with. I think thats what OP wants too.

Maybe its not a question of morals etc to some people but to others-it is. Treating people like toys is wrong IMO and its true we wouldn't have so many single moms, unplanned pregnancies, STD's etc if people had more respect for each other and were more careful who they choose to get naked with. All you need to do is watch a few episodes of jeremy kyle so to see how f**ked up and dysfunctional our society has become.

I mean you make it sound so cut and dry-"two consenting adults having casual no strings sex" but we all no its not that simple. At least one person always feels used or hurt, or end up holding the baby while he moves onto his next victim or end up regretting it and feeling like s**t about themselves after or sticking around hoping that the person using them will miraculously fall for them. We havnt seen one successful example of casual sex in the 3 years I have been on this forum where it really was all fine after.

Ive seen friends of mine hurt over and over again by empty promises and BS coz they thought sex would get them what they wanted. People have become dysfunctional and all this FWB, casual, ONS is proof of that.

there is nothing wrong with having standards, respecting your body enough-not to give just anyone access to it, respecting yourself enough to know you can do better than a quickie with a stranger and having enough respect for others-not to use them as a cum bucket

Michelle23, I see you and I are certainly on the very same wavelength I like you haha. Especially the last sentence, you're dead on. And yes, our society has become dysfunctional, very much so. People think they have to have sex with everyone, be super pretty, attract a million desirable partners. On the other hand, unwanted pregnancies, STDs, emotional wounds, herpes....these things don't even get mentioned. Main thing someone has a hard on and needs to f*** something...jesus. What? Herpes? STDs? Pregnancies? Single mothers? What's that? Oh, I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of my di** throbbing. I completely agree with you michelle23. Our society is fu**** up. Not to mention how much I love when promiscuous people justify their actions with BS like protection, consensual sex, and crap like that, whereas they KNOW they can end up hurting someone or worse. I agree with you that most promiscuous people have issues.

Searock: I have not updated my profile because I'm not here for a girlfriend. As to your question why anyone would be ashamed to admit having engaged in consensual sex, I don't know. Why would they? Ask them, not me. Because so far, people (especially women on a grand scale) refuse to even talk about it. It's obvious that promiscuous people are ashamed of their actions. Very few are willing to openly admit it. I'm sorry, but I'm not buying into the whole "There's nothing wrong with consensual no strings attached sex." bullshit. Why? The answer is simple. If there's nothing wrong with it, why does barely anyone admit to engaging in it? It's a bunch BS. Apparently, there's nothing wrong with NSA, but no one wants to admit having done it. Please cut the hypocrisy.

The short it of is, there IS something wrong with promiscuity. STDs, unwanted pregnancies, stuff like herpes (not deadly, but who wants that shit for the rest of their lives - and even worse, could you make the morally right decision not to kiss a person if you had herpes?), not to mention you possibly end up emotionally hurting someone. I don't want to do either of these things to anyone because I don't want anyone to do any of these things to me. We have children growing up without fathers because their fathers are players with issues who are afraid of committing. Yes, promiscuity is morally wrong. Promiscuity brings forth a bunch of issues that ruin society as a whole, and some people even support that. How many people's lives have been ruined through promiscuity? Too many, I'd say. Their own fault, you say? Possibly. But this is not about whose fault it is. This is about the consequences of promiscuity regardless of whose fault it is or is not. From a moral point of view, there is absolutely no way I can agree with promiscuity. basically, searock, you're flat out wrong, as is anyone else who defends promiscuity. You've already been told this though, so yeah.

KingZ: "Subjectively" is a term philosophers use when they know they are wrong and want to be right by trying to change subjects. My brothers does it all the time. It's basically the coward's way to debate. And it's the first sign that you're right in a discussion.

[michelle23]

Well, if someone genuinely doesn't believe that killing is wrong, even if they kill someone they aren't doing anything morally wrong. I'm speaking subjectively here.

What? Why can't you just admit when your defeated? This is garbage and you know it lol

Thats like someone saying I know cheating is wrong, I didnt plan it or intend for it to happen so im not taking responsibility for it. I did nothing wrong.. seriously?

I dont even know what were talking about anymore..

[KingZ]

And it's the first sign that you're right in a discussion.

The first sign I was right was when searock first typed "www.loveforum.net" in her browser's address bar and clicked "Register".

What? Why can't you just admit when your defeated? This is garbage and you know it lol

She would never admit anything. We had the exact same discussion a couple months back and she never admitted she was wrong, even though the very source she cited disagreed with her. I lol'd heartily that night.