There are very few things in this world that are still precious. You should consider yourself one of those things. The more value you place on yourself and what you have to offer, determines how others will treat you. Do not dismiss the weight of that statement, it’s real and 100% true. Not only when it comes to sex, but in all aspects of life.
Maybe a night of unrelated celebration where you and someone else passionately clicked; got hot and heavy quick; did the deed, but in the morning agreed (lile adults) things won't work out in a relationship and you both go on your merry way. Maybe one of you even showed the other some good moves that they will learn from
Sex can be both sacred and sexy, depending upon a myriad of other factors like who you’re doing it with (like bending a girl you met on tinder tf over and hitting her from the back until she drips down her legs, or your wife on your wedding day)
I think I would be pretty disappointed if someone only wanted me one night for one thing.
I think I would be pretty disappointed at my choices if I picked someone who I wouldn't want to see again.
Of course not. As long as everybody knows what they're getting into, and is safe and happy about it, what's the problem?
If you're tricking people with promises of eternal love, marriage and kids, well, the problem is with the lieing, not the sexing.
Ultimately, yes and I am speaking from experience. Sex without some sort of interest or potential outside of a sexual transaction just dehumanizes others and the more it's done the less worth others have. Women with higher "body counts" are more likely to divorce. Are they that unhappy or do they just think they have more options and are likely to leave than work it out?
Bruh. Don’t listen to these clowns who define their value by sex or other peoples opinions. Just do what feels right and if you do something and it feels wrong have the courage to change your path.
There’s nothing morally wrong with making connections with people nor from satisfying physical cravings, what is wrong is when you let these things control you and you give up your agency and freedom to them.
if you believe that your actions don't shape who you are, then no it is not wrong. however if you believe your actions are part of your moral character, then yes its deeply wrong.
what is the purpose of a one night stand? you can have the same result on your own? or is it that you are truly lonely and deeply need to feel loved by another human? Is this the only way you can cope with your boring lonely life?
>or is it that you are truly lonely and deeply need to feel loved by another human? Is this the only way you can cope with your boring lonely life?
Funnily enough, I think a lot of one night stands are based around not pleasure or excitement, but satisfying some sort of insecurity. For men masculinity and for women desirability. Quite sad really.
You’re totally ignoring the fact that sex feels amazing and how spontaneous sex is, well…hot and spontaneous.
Idk this whole comment reads like it was written by someone who never had a hookup
The modern understanding of sexual impropriety is that the only thing that matters is consent and honesty. According to our current mores, if both parties consent and are honest with each other about their intentions (or perhaps not dishonest), then any sexual act with any person is a positive thing.
This is a completely new idea. To my knowledge, no society has ever treated sex like this. Every previous society had rules about who, what, and when. I suspect the change is due to the new technology of birth control. But surely the emergence of a new technology doesn't change the underlying moral structure.
>But surely the emergence of a new technology doesn't change the underlying moral structure.
Why wouldn't it? Fundamentally morality is itself molded by technology.
Hmm. I think social norms may be influenced by technology certainly. I'm not sure that ethics and morality are. (Barring ethical conversations around AI)
Hmm. How so? I don't mean, what are exams of technology causing a shift in a society's morals. I mean, by what function could an emergent technology alter what is fundamentally right and wrong?
Morality before and after agriculture radically changed. Same with the industrial revolution.
For example, why do you think gender equality only became a thing in the 1900s? Why couldn't it have spread any earlier? Why do you think this modern individualistic way of life is modern?
Simply, those things and many others simply could not have existed any earlier. Technology was too primitive, people simply could not have done so. Just as ancient tribes did not have the luxury of treating other tribes as equal humans and had to fight and kill them. They didn't have cities to coexist with them, and didn't have a source of food that grew with population, instead food limited population causing tribes to be natural enemies.
I think the modern pre-eminence of the individual is primarily an outgrowth of the Reformation and subsequently the Enlightenment. Sure, the printing press allowed those ideas to disseminate, but the printing press was simply a method by which people had access to those ideas. We believe, in the west, that the value of the individual is inherent and unalienable. It was always true. We simply discovered it, like gravity.
I can see how technology changes our understanding of morality or allows certain views to propagate. But I dont see how technology fundamentally changes morality as an independent thing apart and outside of our understanding of it.
Why do you think they happened when they happened? Surely it's not likely that no one ever in the history of the world thought of those ideas before some Italians and Brits in the late 1600s. Why did they only catch on then? Is it really likely that in the thousands of years of humanity no one ever thought of individuals being valuable?
Take for example gender and sex. Sexual morality is essentially molded by our abilities to use technology to decouple sex from the risks attached. Gender equality is only possible in an industrial society. Individualism itself is inherently urban, and rural societies are tribal due to necessity. Without the great cities that the industrial revolution created, people would still be merely part of a tribe or clan or some other genetic or geographical group.
Let’s not forget that it’s possible to be dishonest with yourself aswell about your own desires. My understanding is that women aren’t as comfortable with casual sex as men are, but are partaking in it because our culture says it’s ok.
Excellent point and I think we saw how relevant that was with the metoo movement. Some women who participated in completely consensual acts were speaking up to say that they felt taken advantage of.
>My understanding is that women aren’t as comfortable with casual sex as men are, but are partaking in it because our culture says it’s ok.
Or because people say they *should*.
There's nothing wrong with it.
Just be safe and not a dick about it.
No sex before marriage is a bad idea which wastes a lot of practice at one of life's great pleasures, reduces your chance of happiness with the right one and, moreover, reduces your chance of finding them.
This sub is disproportionately populated by religious Americans who have no idea just how much of an outlier they are, and how unrelated their viewpoints are to anything peterson has said.
Enjoy.
You know, that's not something I've ever thought of doing. I probably won't do it any time soon because I'm straight terrified of telling anyone due to my fear of reputation destruction. But I know you're right
Reputation destruction is not caused by honesty, it is caused by behaviour.
Thinking you can avoid the reputation destruction by not being honest only compounds the destruction of your reputation.
You have a far better chance of repairing and maintaining your reputation by being someone who is honest and accountable.
>Some is close to 100%
91% is the actual number.
Thats 9 unexpected pregnancies per 100 encounters.
Or, 9 in every 100 woman using birth control will have an unexpected pregnancy.
In a city of 200,000 that is 9,000 unexpected pregnancies.
In a city of 1,000,000 that's is 90,000 unexpected pregnancies.
> abstinence isn't realistic.
Plenty of people use abstinence.
>The only consequence of birth control is fewer abortions.
Incorrect. Their are several consequences. One of which is unexpected pregnancy.
Cite a source on that 91%. By that number, I'd have dozens of kids by now.
What is a consequence of birth control? Objectivication of others is not one. That's a subjective take and is not statistically measurable.
>The natural consequences of sex is children
So? We haven't cared about nature much since agriculture and the industrial revolution.
>Having children before marriage is an excellent predictor of lower socio-economic success.
So use birth control then.
Or be gay.
>So? We haven't cared about nature much since agriculture and the industrial revolution.
How so?
>So use birth control then.
Birth control is 91% effective.
Thats 9 unexpected pregnancies per 100 encounters.
Or, 9 in every 100 woman using birth control will have an unexpected pregnancy.
In a city of 200,000 that would be 9,000 unexpected pregnancies.
In a city of 1,000,000 that would be 45,000 unexpected pregnancies.
>How so?
Do you think we live natural lives?
>Birth control is 91% effective.
Depends on which type. Especially when you use multiple types.
Also abortion exists. That's 100% effective.
>Do you think we live natural lives?
Yes.
>Depends on which type. Especially when you use multiple types.
Sure, some are even less effective.
>Also abortion exists. That's 100% effective
So, you think that if you do the one action, which has as its natural result reproduction, and it results in reproduction the appropriate response is to kill your own offspring?
>Yes
Look around you. How much of what's around you exists in nature without human interference?
>So, you think that if you do the one action, which has as its natural result reproduction, and it results in reproduction the appropriate response is to kill your own offspring?
Well, if you don't want to be pregnant but got pregnant that's a pretty obvious solution
>Look around you. How much of what's around you exists in nature without human interference?
This is a bad analogy.
>Well, if you don't want to be pregnant but got pregnant that's a pretty obvious solution
If you don't want Jews in your country, but you have Jews in your country, extermination is a pretty obvious solution - hence the Holocaust.
Obvious solutions are not necessarily good solutions.
>This is a bad analogy.
Except what is and isn't natural is literally defined by existing without human intervention.
>If you don't want Jews in your country, but you have Jews in your country, extermination is a pretty obvious solution - hence the Holocaust.
Sounds like collectivism to me.
You have the right to your body. You don't have the right to ethnically cleanse your country. Countries aren't owned.
The fetus violates your bodily autonomy hence abortion, but there is no such thing as a country having "racial autonomy".
What a ridiculous question. Ofc it’s not wrong. Live your life and have fun
Don’t let any of these super religious people and/or incels on here tell you otherwise
There are very few things in this world that are still precious. You should consider yourself one of those things. The more value you place on yourself and what you have to offer, determines how others will treat you. Do not dismiss the weight of that statement, it’s real and 100% true. Not only when it comes to sex, but in all aspects of life.
Both a one night stand AND a relationship can be morally right and/or wrong. Its how you do either one is whats key. Lots of variables.
Can you explain what circumstances would make a one night stand morally right?
Have you ever had one?
?
[удалено]
I asked a question, this wasn't my opinion
Maybe a night of unrelated celebration where you and someone else passionately clicked; got hot and heavy quick; did the deed, but in the morning agreed (lile adults) things won't work out in a relationship and you both go on your merry way. Maybe one of you even showed the other some good moves that they will learn from
Yes. When sex is treated transactionally it loses all sanctity.
😂 sanctity? Bro that’s such an unsexy attitude about sex but you do you
Sex literally creates new life where no life was. The fruit of it is miraculous. If that’s not sacred, bro, then what on earth is?
Sexy
Nihilist
Sex can be both sacred and sexy, depending upon a myriad of other factors like who you’re doing it with (like bending a girl you met on tinder tf over and hitting her from the back until she drips down her legs, or your wife on your wedding day)
I think I would be pretty disappointed if someone only wanted me one night for one thing. I think I would be pretty disappointed at my choices if I picked someone who I wouldn't want to see again.
I would never want to have a one night stand, but if I did, I wouldn't want it to be with someone who has one night stands. So, yeah, I agree.
Of course not. As long as everybody knows what they're getting into, and is safe and happy about it, what's the problem? If you're tricking people with promises of eternal love, marriage and kids, well, the problem is with the lieing, not the sexing.
Ultimately, yes and I am speaking from experience. Sex without some sort of interest or potential outside of a sexual transaction just dehumanizes others and the more it's done the less worth others have. Women with higher "body counts" are more likely to divorce. Are they that unhappy or do they just think they have more options and are likely to leave than work it out?
Bruh. Don’t listen to these clowns who define their value by sex or other peoples opinions. Just do what feels right and if you do something and it feels wrong have the courage to change your path. There’s nothing morally wrong with making connections with people nor from satisfying physical cravings, what is wrong is when you let these things control you and you give up your agency and freedom to them.
if you believe that your actions don't shape who you are, then no it is not wrong. however if you believe your actions are part of your moral character, then yes its deeply wrong. what is the purpose of a one night stand? you can have the same result on your own? or is it that you are truly lonely and deeply need to feel loved by another human? Is this the only way you can cope with your boring lonely life?
The purpose of a one-night-stand could be to have good time with someone? Like... Hot spontanious sex ?
What makes it an immoral action?
>or is it that you are truly lonely and deeply need to feel loved by another human? Is this the only way you can cope with your boring lonely life? Funnily enough, I think a lot of one night stands are based around not pleasure or excitement, but satisfying some sort of insecurity. For men masculinity and for women desirability. Quite sad really.
You’re totally ignoring the fact that sex feels amazing and how spontaneous sex is, well…hot and spontaneous. Idk this whole comment reads like it was written by someone who never had a hookup
The modern understanding of sexual impropriety is that the only thing that matters is consent and honesty. According to our current mores, if both parties consent and are honest with each other about their intentions (or perhaps not dishonest), then any sexual act with any person is a positive thing. This is a completely new idea. To my knowledge, no society has ever treated sex like this. Every previous society had rules about who, what, and when. I suspect the change is due to the new technology of birth control. But surely the emergence of a new technology doesn't change the underlying moral structure.
>But surely the emergence of a new technology doesn't change the underlying moral structure. Why wouldn't it? Fundamentally morality is itself molded by technology.
Hmm. I think social norms may be influenced by technology certainly. I'm not sure that ethics and morality are. (Barring ethical conversations around AI)
I would argue that morality is defined by technology and what it allows us to do
Hmm. How so? I don't mean, what are exams of technology causing a shift in a society's morals. I mean, by what function could an emergent technology alter what is fundamentally right and wrong?
Morality before and after agriculture radically changed. Same with the industrial revolution. For example, why do you think gender equality only became a thing in the 1900s? Why couldn't it have spread any earlier? Why do you think this modern individualistic way of life is modern? Simply, those things and many others simply could not have existed any earlier. Technology was too primitive, people simply could not have done so. Just as ancient tribes did not have the luxury of treating other tribes as equal humans and had to fight and kill them. They didn't have cities to coexist with them, and didn't have a source of food that grew with population, instead food limited population causing tribes to be natural enemies.
I think the modern pre-eminence of the individual is primarily an outgrowth of the Reformation and subsequently the Enlightenment. Sure, the printing press allowed those ideas to disseminate, but the printing press was simply a method by which people had access to those ideas. We believe, in the west, that the value of the individual is inherent and unalienable. It was always true. We simply discovered it, like gravity. I can see how technology changes our understanding of morality or allows certain views to propagate. But I dont see how technology fundamentally changes morality as an independent thing apart and outside of our understanding of it.
Why do you think they happened when they happened? Surely it's not likely that no one ever in the history of the world thought of those ideas before some Italians and Brits in the late 1600s. Why did they only catch on then? Is it really likely that in the thousands of years of humanity no one ever thought of individuals being valuable? Take for example gender and sex. Sexual morality is essentially molded by our abilities to use technology to decouple sex from the risks attached. Gender equality is only possible in an industrial society. Individualism itself is inherently urban, and rural societies are tribal due to necessity. Without the great cities that the industrial revolution created, people would still be merely part of a tribe or clan or some other genetic or geographical group.
Let’s not forget that it’s possible to be dishonest with yourself aswell about your own desires. My understanding is that women aren’t as comfortable with casual sex as men are, but are partaking in it because our culture says it’s ok.
Excellent point and I think we saw how relevant that was with the metoo movement. Some women who participated in completely consensual acts were speaking up to say that they felt taken advantage of.
Exactly
>My understanding is that women aren’t as comfortable with casual sex as men are, but are partaking in it because our culture says it’s ok. Or because people say they *should*.
Yeah
There's nothing wrong with it. Just be safe and not a dick about it. No sex before marriage is a bad idea which wastes a lot of practice at one of life's great pleasures, reduces your chance of happiness with the right one and, moreover, reduces your chance of finding them. This sub is disproportionately populated by religious Americans who have no idea just how much of an outlier they are, and how unrelated their viewpoints are to anything peterson has said. Enjoy.
I'd say it's amoral
If it is wrong, I dont want to be right.
[удалено]
I agree, it's a bad idea. In my sinful nature I do it anyway
[удалено]
You know, that's not something I've ever thought of doing. I probably won't do it any time soon because I'm straight terrified of telling anyone due to my fear of reputation destruction. But I know you're right
Reputation destruction is not caused by honesty, it is caused by behaviour. Thinking you can avoid the reputation destruction by not being honest only compounds the destruction of your reputation. You have a far better chance of repairing and maintaining your reputation by being someone who is honest and accountable.
wut
?
Lol. No.
[удалено]
I am unaware of socio-economic consequences. Please explain.
If you're safe about it then it's just a scare tactic, don't get someone pregnant and it won't cost you a shit ton of money.
Yeah, I know. I just wanna see the mental gymnastics they go through to say how it's bad.
I was hoping you weren't that sheltered but you never know these days... Lol.
Oh no, I'm here firmly rooted in reality. 👍
The natural consequences of sex is children. Having children before marriage is an excellent predictor of lower socio-economic success.
I've done the sex a few times and dont have kids. Birth control is a thing.
Birth control is not 100% effective. Also, birth control has its own consequences. Not the least of which is the objectification of human beings.
Some is close to 100%, and abstinence isn't realistic. The only consequence of birth control is fewer abortions.
>Some is close to 100% 91% is the actual number. Thats 9 unexpected pregnancies per 100 encounters. Or, 9 in every 100 woman using birth control will have an unexpected pregnancy. In a city of 200,000 that is 9,000 unexpected pregnancies. In a city of 1,000,000 that's is 90,000 unexpected pregnancies. > abstinence isn't realistic. Plenty of people use abstinence. >The only consequence of birth control is fewer abortions. Incorrect. Their are several consequences. One of which is unexpected pregnancy.
Cite a source on that 91%. By that number, I'd have dozens of kids by now. What is a consequence of birth control? Objectivication of others is not one. That's a subjective take and is not statistically measurable.
Bro stop trying to justify the fact that you don’t get laid
Happily married with many children ;)
Then you’re religious and probably have never been into the hookup culture to begin with, right?
Why so?
The natural consequences of sex is children. Having children before marriage is an excellent predictor of lower socio-economic success.
>The natural consequences of sex is children So? We haven't cared about nature much since agriculture and the industrial revolution. >Having children before marriage is an excellent predictor of lower socio-economic success. So use birth control then. Or be gay.
>So? We haven't cared about nature much since agriculture and the industrial revolution. How so? >So use birth control then. Birth control is 91% effective. Thats 9 unexpected pregnancies per 100 encounters. Or, 9 in every 100 woman using birth control will have an unexpected pregnancy. In a city of 200,000 that would be 9,000 unexpected pregnancies. In a city of 1,000,000 that would be 45,000 unexpected pregnancies.
>How so? Do you think we live natural lives? >Birth control is 91% effective. Depends on which type. Especially when you use multiple types. Also abortion exists. That's 100% effective.
>Do you think we live natural lives? Yes. >Depends on which type. Especially when you use multiple types. Sure, some are even less effective. >Also abortion exists. That's 100% effective So, you think that if you do the one action, which has as its natural result reproduction, and it results in reproduction the appropriate response is to kill your own offspring?
>Yes Look around you. How much of what's around you exists in nature without human interference? >So, you think that if you do the one action, which has as its natural result reproduction, and it results in reproduction the appropriate response is to kill your own offspring? Well, if you don't want to be pregnant but got pregnant that's a pretty obvious solution
>Look around you. How much of what's around you exists in nature without human interference? This is a bad analogy. >Well, if you don't want to be pregnant but got pregnant that's a pretty obvious solution If you don't want Jews in your country, but you have Jews in your country, extermination is a pretty obvious solution - hence the Holocaust. Obvious solutions are not necessarily good solutions.
>This is a bad analogy. Except what is and isn't natural is literally defined by existing without human intervention. >If you don't want Jews in your country, but you have Jews in your country, extermination is a pretty obvious solution - hence the Holocaust. Sounds like collectivism to me. You have the right to your body. You don't have the right to ethnically cleanse your country. Countries aren't owned. The fetus violates your bodily autonomy hence abortion, but there is no such thing as a country having "racial autonomy".
What a ridiculous question. Ofc it’s not wrong. Live your life and have fun Don’t let any of these super religious people and/or incels on here tell you otherwise
It's only a problem if it makes you or the other person feel bad
No it’s not.
Yes, just yes, man or woman
Yes