Skip to content

A long Facebook thread-dump on promiscuity


I’ve been intending to write a piece about slut shaming when Rush Limbaugh gave me a perfect jumping-off point. Before that, though, here is a long argument from Facebook I recently got into with my brother. He skipped movie night at my place to wirte a blog post about this, which is apparently not yet done. I may have done a bad thing and sicced the Pharyngula hordes on him via the endless thread. I will follow-up with more later, I’m sure. I asked my friends about this. I think the best response I got was a suggestion to punch him in the head and tell him all my slutty friends think he’s the world’s biggest douching pussy. After all, it’s not bullying, just a way to inform him that I disapprove of his behavior and telling him about the label he chose for himself. If you want to jump in, here is a link to the thread.


When I use the word promiscuous (or a derivative there of), I am using it derogatorily. Insultingly. There is nothing wrong with sex when applied in the appropriate context, and everything wrong with it in the inappropriate context.

    • Daniel: So you get to decide how much sex other peopel can have and shame them if you think they have too much? Aren’t you normally against this sort of behavior? It sounds like a combination of bullying and failure to mind your own business.
    • James: I suppose I should have specified what those respective contexts are, but how much of it they have isn’t the point.
    • James: And I do generally mind my own business on it, unless they are being very up-front about it, such as asking for booty calls on the internet from complete strangers. Example: “who wants me to get into their pants”.
    • James: And it’s no more bullying than correcting someone wrong on the internet. It’s justified expressed dislike.
    • James: And I don’t use promiscuous very loosely, there’s only certain kinds of people I would call as such, and yet just about everyone enjoys sex.
    • Daniel: Bullies always think they are justified. Unless they are pestering you to get in your pants, how is it any of your business? How are the hurting you or anyone else?
    • James: We seem to disagree on how much of an issue it is on how oversexualized our society is. And is it bullying to say that a slutty person is a slut? Some insults are just labels.
    • James: Yankee is supposed to be an insult, and yet Americans treat it like a label. And it is, though an insulting one they shouldn’t be proud about calling themselves.
    • Daniel: Yes, this is in fact just about the worst kind of bullying as you are telling someone they are essentially worthless except as a disposable sex object. I don’t see how society can be oversexualized unless people are being pressured into more sex than they want, in which case the problem is not the alleged sluts.
    • Daniel:
    • Daniel:
    • James: I wasn’t applying slut, I was using it as an example of how some things that are supposed to be insults are simply labels. And I’m not questioning anyone’s worth, I’m expressing my disapproval of their morally deprived choices.
    • Daniel: Calling them morally deprived sounds a lot like questioning their worth. I think Cenk put it well.
    • James: I’m not calling them morally deprived (not directly anyway), I’m calling their choices morally deprived, and no, the worst kind of bully is the kind who thinks it is utterly a crime against nature that you are a way that is outside of your control to be.
    • James: Someone who complains about a choice they have the full capability to not do is much further down the list.
    • James: So far down the list, it would be more accurate to call me a prude than a bully.February 29 at 11:50pm · Like
    • Daniel: Unless you got called a slut a lot growing up, you are not in a position to say what it’s like to be on the receiving end. Trust me that this is a huge deal. Can some of the ladies weigh in here?February 29 at 11:53pm · Like · 1
    • James: The key phrase in the second video: when they are emotionally ready for it. And I think people greatly underestimate the amount of impact sex can have on a person.
    • Daniel: And calling people names fixes this problem how?
    • James: I disagree on what point in which people are ready for it and people who intentionally throw such concerns to the wind, not against the act itself.
    • James: You call it name-calling, I call it notifying them of their label they made for themselves.
    • Daniel: Like fags and wusses?
    • James: Some people wear titles proudly. Lazy and nerd are supposed to be insulting, and I am not insulted when I am called as such. And yes, I do actually know people who call themselves “proud fags”.
    • Daniel: But is it OK to call someone a fag if they don’t want you to?
    • James: It’s okay to call people homosexual if they are as such, but not okay to use the more insulting synonym, which is why I say promiscuous instead of whore.
    • Daniel: But you said you mean it to be derogatory, so what’s the difference?
    • James: There are varying degrees of insults, and varying degrees of when it’s okay to use such an insult. I use the appropriate insult in the appropriate situation.
    • James: I disapprove of people having sex prematurely (in terms of how advanced the relationship is, not in terms of age) for the same reason I disapprove of people skipping to the last level of a video game without having played through the rest of it, or using stronger cheats (there are acceptable forms of cheating and unacceptable forms of cheating though. Example: in Batman Vengeance, it’s okay to use the infinite handcuffs cheat, it’s less okay to use the infinite batarangs cheat, and it’s very not okay to use the infinite health cheat).
    • Daniel: And who made you arbiter of when other people are ready?
    • James: I’m not, I’m enforcing rules that were already there that people don’t seem to care about anymore.
    • Daniel: Rules don’t just exist like rocks. Where did these rules come from? Why are they justified?
    • Daniel: For that matter, why is it your job to enforce these rules?
    • James: They came from the rise of civilization and culture by people who thought that we should be set apart from all the non-sentient races by having our natural functions such as sex have meaning rather than just reproduction an such. And as for why I feel the need to enforce these rules, because I see society back-tracking, progressively sinking, and if I can’t save it from sinking, I can at least try to save a few people on board from going down with the ship.
    • Gabriel: I’m going to weigh in here. James, you are absolutely wrong. Is it okay to call black people “nigger” because that’s just a label describing what they are? I don’t know how you can use labels with malicious intent and not say it’s bullying.
    • James: See above reason why I said it’s okay to call someone who is homosexual as such, but it’s not okay to call them a fag.
    • Gabriel: How is “slut” any different?
    • James: And it’s not malicious intent, which I also previously stated. Did you bother to read all the comments?
    • James: You use the word slut to describe people, you tell me.
    • Daniel: James, that makes no sense. Sex isn’t just for reproduction, so we should be careful not to have it too early or too readily? How does that follow?
    • Daniel: So it’s derogatory, but not malicious? How does that work?
    • James: You completely missed the point of what I said. I said that civilization gave it meaning above and instead of just reproduction. And yes, my objection is exactly having it before the appropriate level. Do you not remember my video game analogy? And derogatorily is just negatively, maliciously is very strongly negatively.
    • Gabriel: Yes I did. And you’re deluding yourself. Are you listening to what you’re saying? You’re saying you go around and negatively use the word “slut” to shame people into being more like you think they should be. You are just as bad as the people who yell “fag”. Everyone is different. Everybody’s minds work differently, which you should know as well as anyone. Just because you can’t understand why people do what they do doesn’t mean that they’re wrong. As long as they aren’t hurting anyone, why care about what anyone else does?
    • James: No, not the word slut, slut is too strong a term for the contexts I’m speaking of, you totally missed the point of what I was saying about varying degrees of insults. As is fag. And I do understand it, I just disapprove of it.
    • Daniel: What makes early civilization morally authoritative? This started as a way to control other people, especially women. Early civilization was also big on slavery, brutal warfare over prime land and monarchies who killed anyone who wouldn’t get with their program.
    • Gabriel: Okay, what contexts are you speaking of? You’re being really vague. No sex before marriage? No sex outside of relationships? What?
    • Daniel: You seem to be arguing that people should do what society tells them because it’s always been that way and society says so. I’m taking your counter-culture card.Thursday at 12:41am · Like
    • James: ‎ @ Dan, Is what we have now so different? Slaves are now either paid (though not very much) or now have the choice whether or not to be a slave (such as interns). And Politics won’t kill you, but it will attempt to damage your reputation and/or career.
    • Gabriel: Are you fucking kidding me? Interns choose to do that. It’s amazingly valuable job experience that can lead to incredible careers. If you can’t kill someone on the spot because they’re your property, it’s not slavery.
    • Gabriel: I think we’re straying too far here from the original point. Please explain some of the vaguer parts of your status. How do you define appropriate context, and what are some of the things that are wrong with it in the inappropriate context?
    • Daniel: Also, your reference to early civilization isn’t very meaningful as it’s not like all early civilizations had the same sexual mores or that they were the ones you were promoting.
    • James: and @ Dan, I dislike many of the practices of many cultures, but I don’t dislike absolutely, nothing is absolute. And @ Gabe, any time the relationship gets to a personal enough level. If you don’t like the practice of marriage, fine, don’t get married, have sex without it once it reaches an ill-definable personal enough level. If you do like the practice and claim you value it, ACT LIKE IT. And No, I’ve had several temp jobs, the job experience isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.
    • Gabriel: James, you’ve had shit temp jobs. You can’t assume that everyone’s experiences are the same as yours.
    • Gabriel: And what about people who don’t really like relationships at all? Are they just supposed to stay sexless their entire lives?
    • Daniel: Well, some people have a very low bar for what’s personal enough. Who are you to second-guess them? I’d say they are in a better position to know what their boundaries are than you.
    • James: I said it was ill-definable didn’t I?
    • James: And @ Gabe, yes. But the fact that people are against relationships is another topic I have addressed in my studies, read my blog entitled “finding a pack to run with”.
    • Daniel: Right, but when you decide someone isn’t behaving right and degrade them with a label, you are defining that line for someone else.
    • Gabriel: What do you mean by “ill-definable”? It’s up to each person to define it on their own? Because all that you’re doing is degrading people for doing exactly that.
    • James: And my cleared up misconceptions about dating in … I think it was the second part of my 3-part courtship blog.
    • Gabriel: I’m not going to track down or read some long blog. Just say it now, what do you have to say about people who don’t like relationships?
    • James: a Pack to Run Withelfos64.xanga.comHumans are social creatures. We form groups, and live mutually with the other me…See More
    • James: Sorry you have to read through the off-topic parts to find the on-topic parts, but here it is.
    • Gabriel: James, I just said I’m not going to read some long blog. If you have opinions, and they’re strongly formed, you should be able to recite them in ways that are relevant to the discussion at hand at any given time.
    • James: And ill-definable is exactly that: you can’t make any rules to really say when it is, but it is often recognizable when that point is reached. And it does somewhat vary relationship to relationship, but key word there is somewhat. You obviously shouldn’t have sex with someone you met 3 days ago.
    • Daniel: So you can’t tell people what the rules are, but you’ll publicly degrade them if they break them?
    • James: And hang on, it will take some time to recite, seeing as how it’s a lengthy explanation.
    • James: I can’t describe when such conditions are met due to my poor ability to transfer thoughts in my head into words from my mouth (or keys to my fingertips as case may be). I hope to address such a topic in the future on signs to recognize the potential of a relationship. As i recall, you got after me for a similar thing on my three-part blog, and I told you then also I may need to cover that topic in a future blog. So hold your horses.
    • Gabriel: Quick question: How do you define “wrong”?
    • James: Here are the relevant parts of my “finding a pack to run with” blog that are relevant to the point you brought up.Humans are social creatures. We form groups, and live mutually with the other members of that group. But many humans don’t understand this fully. Many will mistakenly think they need to live alone, the lone wolf, no dependents or dependence. Many people will think they are alone in the world, that they don’t belong anywhere, that no one else can ever understand them. None of these are true, ALL people have their respective packs to run with, you just don’t have them right away.
      Many people have trouble in the department of making friends. I think that’s a big misconception, I don’t think our goal as humans is to make friends, it’s to FIND friends. But, who IS in your pack can be just as difficult as who isn’t. Some members of the pack may be a bit… off from the rest, but just because they play a different position doesn’t mean they aren’t part of the team. You need to know your herd to avoid being trampled, and the trampling upon others.
      Our culture seems to almost encourage minimal social interaction. My evidence to support that claim: do you know your next door or across the hall neighbor’s name? How many people do you know/ have talked to at work? Do you see that same people in the cafeteria most of the time you’re there, and have you talked with these people you have seen several times? See my point? There’s lots of great people out there, and we never try to learn or their existence. We just spend the time disliking the undesirable people who make themselves known to you and several other people (the undesirable people seem to be more bold for some reason). Since you already know dislikable people, how bad could getting to know potentially preferable company be? I guarantee you there’s at least a few people who would be good company to you, no matter what you’re like, it just may take varying degrees of searching. Sure you have to dig through several shovelfuls of more undesirable people before you find the people I guaranteed you’d find, but trust me, they’re there. You can start by knowing where to look.
      This is hardest for shy people, because they make little to no effort to make themselves known to the world. Remember how I mentioned how our culture almost encourages minimal social interaction? Why are shy people shy? Because they are afraid of what will happen when they try to stretch out a friendly hand. My girlfriend is one of the shyest people I’ve ever met. She’s agoraphobic, meaning she’s afraid of public places and large crowds. But can you blame her, with all the bullies and bad-attitude people out there who will bite any hand that tries to pet it (metaphorically speaking)? Our culture isn’t exactly the warm, friendly, welcoming committee in more ways than one.
      So, in conclusion, you may or may not have found your pack yet, but I assure you that you do have one; you just need to find it, and when you do, always stick together, never abandon your pack; a house divided upon itself will surely fall. To turn away a hand in need welcomes another to do the same to you.
    • Daniel: And that would seem to go against everything you’ve been arguing. How does degrading people help with anything in that post?
    • James: As for how I define wrong: The common traits among people that are largely responsible for the current bad state the world is in.
    • Gabriel: How is sex responsible for anything bad?
    • Gabriel: And I agree with Dan, you said that we lump together the undesirables and judge people based on their traits, when this entire post is about you judging people based on their traits and labeling them as problems.
    • Gabriel: James, I’m sorry to break it to you, but you are the problem with society. The only thing that can save the world is kindness.
    • Daniel: I would think that trying to shame people for harmless behaviors out of cliquishness or a desire to make yourself seem better by comparison is wrong by that definition.
    • James: Bad things sex is responsible for: Over population, rape, the “necessity” to have it society seems to create, part of how over-marketed 1st world countries are, Human trafficking, STDs, I can keep going with this.
    • Daniel: Do you think having less sex would make it less marketable?
    • Daniel: It’s usually the people who aren’t getting laid who will believe ads for Axe body spray.
    • James: By part of over-marketing, I mean: do you deny the common use of sex appeal in advertising? Motorcycle magazines are nothing but naked women sitting on whatever motorcycle.
    • Gabriel: Statistics prove that suppressing your sexual urges makes sex related crimes like rape and sex slavery increase. Having casual sex with other willing people with no strings attached does not cause rape. STDs and overpopulation can both be restricted by wearing condoms when you do it; sex isn’t to blame, irresponsible sex is, and I would hardly call STDs “the problem with the world” anyway. Try again.
    • Gabriel: How is using sex in advertising the problem with the world? No one gets hurt from that.
    • Gabriel: That has negatively effected no one ever.
    • James: But what causes the build up of sexual urges? My sources say sexual stimulation based on perception, such as a scantily dressed woman here and there and almost everywhere.
    • Daniel: Are you converting to Islam or something?
    • James: And I’ve heard you complain about how over-marketed America is plenty of times. they often ruin the entertainment industry just so they can cram in as much marketing as possible.
    • Gabriel: What causes sexual urges? Being alive does. Our body’s chemistry is wired for sex. That’s why it feels good. People don’t just have it because they want to make babies.
    • James: And no, this is not a religious belief, it is a moral, ethical, and philosophical belief.
    • James: Do you deny that the sex that is posted almost everywhere in America causes people to be more aroused than they normally would be? And besides, i thought porn was invented for sexual relief without sexual intercourse.
    • Daniel: Yes, I deny that.
    • Daniel: Besides, you could could argue computers lead to sex thanks to Craiglist, so we need to shame people into not using computers too much. Your argument from sex to bad things is just as roundabout.
    • Gabriel: James, you’re citing stupid tiny problems. You said sex was wrong, and wrong was things that are “largely responsible for the current bad state the world is in”. Slightly degrading the quality of television to slip in a sexy commercial is hardly the reason that people live shitty meaningless lives and hurt others.
    • James: Why do they give porn magazines to sperm donors? Because seeing the sexual images arouse them more than they normally would be.
    • James: Over-sexualization is merely one of the many topics I will address in my life’s work. Stay tuned for the rest of what my life’s work consists of.
    • James: The next topic I was planning on writing about (besides the previously mentioned signs of recognition) was amateur versus professional, what does it all really mean?.
    • Daniel: More telling everyone what they should do with nothing but speculation and baseless assertions for an explanation, no doubt.
    • Gabriel: The conversation’s getting sidetracked again. James, you have all these opinions and they have no basis. You have yet to name one single problem with the world that having casual sex with another willing person causes. One. Name one that can actually be substantiated with more than the fact that you think it sounds right, and you will be right. That’s all it would take. If you can’t, you must admit that you’re being baselessly judgmental.
    • Daniel: Well, for sex it can be a fine line. What if you’ve gotten paid in the past, but have always done it free lately?
    • Daniel: Yes, all these problems are only vaguely related to sex. Rape, birthrates and STDs (in states where sex ed wasn’t gutted) are all down lately.
    • Gabriel: Professional is someone who does something for their living, amateur is someone who just does it for enjoyment. There you go, blog written. That’s just in the dictionary.
    • James: You miss the point I haven’t made yet, wait till i actually post it.
    • Gabriel: Then post it. If this is a debate, and you have more to add, then add it. You can’t just say “I’m right because there’s this awesome thing I haven’t said yet”.
    • James: I don’t like having more than one issue being argued upon simultaneously, wait till this current argument has fully run its course.
    • Daniel: Actually, it’s worse than that: saying that too much sex causes rape is a fairly direct way of blaming rape victims for their predicament. It causes a good number of suicides in young women, plus breakdowns. I’ve seen the fallout.
    • Gabriel: This argument has fully run its course James. Unless you can say one bad thing that people having causal, consensual sex leads to, you lose and it’s over.Thursday at 1:54am · Like
    • Daniel: To put it another way, sex doesn’t cause rape. Degrading people who have sex causes rape because it makes the victim unsympathetic.
    • James: No it isn’t, it’s saying that over-sexualization can cause some people to get all rapey. The only thing the victims are guilty of for the most part is being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
    • Gabriel: I see you’re ignoring my posts and only responding to Dan’s.
    • James: You’re completely mis-quoting me and my train of thought.
    • James: That’s because the fact that Dan keeps posting nullifies what your last few posts have said.
    • James: This debate is still on-going.
    • Daniel: What if the victim has a reputation for being a slut? Are you not seeing the problem.
    • Gabriel: Nothing anyone has said has nullified things I said. Name one bad thing.
    • Daniel: Or here’s another common argument: She was wearing a short skirt and I got aroused and all rapey. You are saying this is a valid argument.
    • James: I’ll admit that scantily dressed woman MAY be bigger rape targets than women fully dressed, but what does that have to do with anything I’ve said?
    • Daniel: You’ve been justifying it. You’ve said seeing arousing images makes people rapey, therefore we should avoid public sexualization. So if a woman goes out in a short skirt, it sets people up to tell her she should have worn jeans.
    • James: Do you disagree that seeing something sexual makes people more sexually aroused than they would be otherwise?
    • Daniel: Short-term, sure. Being aroused does not cause rape, though.
    • Gabriel: Oh. My. God. James, name ONE BAD THING for society that has ever been caused by two people having casual, consensual sex. That is all. You aren’t abiding by the rules of debate. You made a statement, I’m asking you to provide any evidence at all to back it up, and you aren’t providing it. Unless you can give us one right now, you lose, you’re wrong, argument over.
    • Daniel: No, they aren’t. Rapists are sociopaths who don’t care about who they hurt. Their sex drive isn’t necessarily higher than anyone else.
    • James: ‎ @ Dan, It can in unstable kinds of people.
    • Gabriel: ‎ ^And now you’re making up facts that sound good again.
    • Daniel: An unstable rapist wouldn’t be very successful. Are you just making shit up or do you know a damn thing about rape? finds rapists ordinary and ‘nice’ finds rapists ordinary and ‘nice’
    • James: ‎ @ Gabe, I’ve been trying to, but you guys keep posting comments that me answering has higher priority over providing proof to claims.
    • Daniel: Of A Campus Date
    • James: At this rate of commenting and link posting, it will be hours before I can provide any supporting evidence.
    • James: In other words, intermission, give a freaking break.
    • Daniel: If you use those hours to come up with a coherent position based on actual evidence instead of stuff you think ought to be true, we all win.
    • James: Not if the evidence I find proves my original points.
    • James: And Gabe, did you not see my list of bad things that sex causes earlier? I admit that’s insufficient data, but still, it’s not no data.
    • Daniel: Yes. We disute that any of those problems are caused by sex per se.
    • James: We’ll have to pick this back up this evening, seeing as how it will take me a while to read your links, plus, in spite of common belief, I do have a life that i need to attend to.
    • Gabriel: I’m going to bed. I’ll check this in the morning. Remember James, a link between single adults having casual sex that they both want, and any kind of societal problem. That’s all I ask. If you can legitimately prove that it inherently causes anything bad (and I said inherently, no ‘well what if one of them is married and the wife kills one of them over it’ sort of special circumstances), then I will concede that you are right. I sincerely hope that you’ll be adult enough to concede that you’re being a bully by insulting people for something not harmful if you can’t.
    • Daniel: Beyond that, I’d want evidence that if people having consensual sex does cause social harm, I’d want some sort of evidence that degrading said people actually reduces this harm instead of just causing additional harms on top of it.
    • New Day
    • James: I’ve found a few leads, haven’t read through them enough to justify posting them yet, but while I’m at it, I want you guys to find evidence to support your claims. All your argument against me has been is claims that sex is harmless and your references have been other people claiming sex is harmless. You’ve never provided any hard evidence that premature sex (in terms of how advanced the relationship is, not in terms of age) causes no emotional or moral damage on some degree or another, even if only subconscious.
    • Daniel: Whether cis harmful is irrelevant unless you can show your approach makes people have less sex. My claim is that calling people names excuses rapists and does direct harm as it’s a form of abuse. It also does little to discourage sex. I have provided lots of links of evidence. Besides, burden of proof. You’re the one the one who’s asserting a positive claim, so it’s on you.
    • Gabriel: How do you show proof that something doesn’t cause harm? I guess the only way is by talking to people who have done it and have them tell you. I have tons of people who could do so, would you like to talk to them?
    • Daniel: Just watch the videos I linked to, for that matter.
    • James: I told you already, your links are just other people making the same claims you guys are. And Gabe, I can get just as many people to speak for how badly their relationships have gone downhill after Sex was brought to the table and they regret engaging in it with the wrong person.
    • James: Anyway, I have a few leads, I’ll get back to you in a few days.
    • Daniel: James, in order for that to work, you’d have to demonstrate that the sex actually caused their relationship to deteriorate, i.e. they would have gotten along fine if they didn’t and their relationship would have been just as good.I suspect that most of those people were just unsuitable for each other. They could have either ended their relationship before they started fighting or fought a bunch, sex or not.What would you consider evidence? The fact affected people say something causes emotional harm is pretty much evidence of said harm, I’d think. I could give you a bunch of links to suicides that were linked to slut-shaming (Look up Phoebe Prince, Hope Witsell or Tyler Clementi), but you would undoubtedly say the problem was the bullies didn’t criticize her promiscuity in quite the right way. I gave links with studies about social disapproval of sexual activity gives cover to rapists, who are not generally motivated by seeing sexual imagery. Here’s a news story too, if you like. blame game | Portland State Vanguard
    • James: I define slut as someone who either tries to sleep with as many guys as they can, and/or give away sex very easily and have little to no regard about how many they have done so with. Someone who dresses scantily, someone who enjoys sex, and someone who has sex frequently are not the ways I define slut.
    • Daniel: I notice you defined it so that only people who have sex with men can be sluts. Also, how can you both try to sleep with as many guys as possible and have no regard for the numbers? Going for a high score sounds like having regard for the numbers.
    • James: I’m not making this into an argument about sluttyness, you two are. I’m just trying to make this be an argument that premature sex (in my usual application terms) is bad in some cases, and undeserved in all cases with almost no exceptions.
    • Daniel: So you want to condemn people for having sex too readily, but it’s totally not slut shaming because you use a different word than that?
    • James: I said and/or, meaning they can either have some of the symptoms of the two ways, or they can have all of one way but not the other, not all of both ways. Quit misquoting everything I say, things I say only mean what they mean within context. Principles try to make are often applicable in more ways that the specific context I used it in though, but that’s getting off topic.
    • James: And for the like 5th time, Slut is too strong a term for the context that I wrote this status in, there are varying degrees of insults and I generally don’t touch the ones as high as slut.
    • James: And no, only those who have sex too soon.
    • James: Again in terms of how advanced the relationship is, not in terms of age.
    • James: Think of my video game analogy, that is the most accurate way I can think of to describe my standing point on this issue.
    • Daniel: If you are using your perception that someone has sex too readily to degrade them, you are engaging in slut-shaming, regardless of what words you use. That’s like saying “I’d never say ‘nigger,’ but black people are generally lazy and violent.”
    • Daniel: If this video game let you select any level you wanted from the menu screen, but you were insisting that you have to play them in a certain order or you’re cheating, it would be an apt analogy.
    • James: But that’s pretty much what the word means in your inaccurate comparison, I have a different definition for slut than I’m using promiscuous to be somewhat insulting in.
    • James: You’re saying I’m using different words to mean the same thing, but meaning them a varying strength, and I’m saying I’m using it to describe/ insult varying degrees on what I consider bad behavior. Besides, you can choose whether or not to be promiscuous, you can’t choose to be black or not.
    • James: What if it was a multiple save spot game that had the option to copy save spots and someone copied where someone who was significantly further than them was and tried to go off where they were rather than playing up to that point themselves? Vanessa tried that a few times and didn’t know where she was supposed to go or how to use the upgrades I had acquired throughout the game.
    • James: Or if it were like Starcraft, you not only don’t understand the storyline if you skip strait to the zerg or protoss campaign without playing through the previous sections, but also you wouldn’t understand the gameplay because the three groups have such very different styles.
    • Daniel: My argument isn’t that it isn’t OK to call people a slut, it’s that it’s not OK to shame people for having sex, regardless of what words or technicalities you use. It causes serious emotional harm to do so.This isn’t some theoretical issue. It’s real and causes real harm to real people. Just because you’ve been privileged enough to not see it first hand doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. Because of people like you, I’ve had more than a few friends who’s self-image was destroyed and some who narrowly escaped. You are presumably unaware of this because you’re young and people don’t trust you enough to talk to you about it, because you’d just pile on and hurt them worse.
    • Daniel: Let’s buy your dubious analogy for a minute and say someone played the Zerg campaign first in Starcraft. Yes, they may hurt their enjoyment of the story, but how is it any of your business? It’s not like they are cheating you out of some spot on a high-score list or affecting you or anyone else in any way.
    • James: I’m not trying to hurt anyone, I’m trying to make them aware of bad habits. And I have been bullied, how dare you accuse me of being “too privileged” to have been. I was bullied because I was different from everyone (which was probably a result of the xenophobic quality many people seem to have) and because I had more than a few… quirks that were outside of my ability to control. And because I posed little to no physical threat to fight back.
    • James: And it’s wrong that someone is playing a game that they aren’t appreciating the full value of nor the great storyline of. That’d be like trying to vote for a politician who know nothing of the standing points on issues of.
    • Daniel: I’m not saying you weren’t bullied, just that you’ve deluded yourself into thinking that picking on people for being different from the perceived norm in terms of sexual eagerness is somehow helpful whereas picking on people who diverge from the norm in other ways is mean. What would you think if I told you no one bullied you, they were just trying to inform you of things that would make you more attractive to women and whatever else they picked on you about? It would sound like bullshit, wouldn’t it? It’s the same thing.Besides, are you trying to inform people that their behavior could be self-destructive like you just said, or insult and degrade them like you said in the OP. If you think insulting and degrading people is how you help them, congratulations. You are a bullying apologist.
    • Daniel: What if they don’t play games for the story and only like the challenge?
    • James: That’s not it at all, I’m picking on them because they ARE the norm. The norm is bad. The norm is my target. The norm has caused more trouble than is acceptable to take. And that scenario still involves them not appreciating all the vastly different strategies the game would require for different campaigns.
    • James: I’m trying to give the off-norm a chance to see where it goes. It’s doubtful I could apply it to a very large group, but for the few people I might be able to convince, we’ll see if it’s better or not my way than the norm.
    • James: Think of it as a harmless experiment with little risk and vast potential.
    • Daniel: So have you backed off the insulting and degrading or is shame still your strategy for convincing people that your way is best?
    • James: I told you I was never trying to shame them, i was merely pointing out that they have bad habits. I’m insulting their habits, not them.
    • James: And I’m not trying to convince people my way is best, just that it’s potentially better than they way they were going with prior to my saying anything.
    • Daniel: Like when dad says that you are stupid for navigating with landmarks, he’s only insulting your navigation strategy, not you.
    • Daniel: And this is only to convince you that you’d be better off navigating by street names.
    • James: As was the way this whole argument started: Promiscuous is the word I use, which is a negative way to describe their behavior; not directly an insult, though has a similar connotation. And for your information, I proved him wrong about that last week.
    • James: And he was a combination insulting me and my navigation method. Which is why I’m not dad.
    • Daniel: You proved him wrong about navigating by landmarks being a major cause of traffic accidents, not that it’s superior to navigating by street names.
    • James: No, I did in a way. I was able to find my way from point A to point B by landmarks, such as the wind turbine and the fitness center, better than by streets.
    • Daniel: And I know some people who had a lot of Craigslist sex and are happy, so I guess you have been proven wrong as well.
    • James: Counter evidence isn’t absolute proof.
    • Daniel: Exactly.
    • James: But my point is that the current way relationships are going isn’t the best way; and the fact that there’s so much boyfriend/girlfriend drama on social networking sites and the fact that the divorce rate exceeds 50% is better evidence than “I’ve seen a few successful relationships by current structure”.
    • Daniel: Besides, what do you think will happen? You’ll tell someone she’s promiscuous and you mean that as a derogatory insult and she’ll understand you have nothing against her, but are only condemning her behavior, then start having sex less readily?
    • Daniel: Also, I’m curious as to what you think common sexual behavior is like.
    • James: No, I don’t expect it to be that easy, I would have to have a rather lengthy discussion not unlike this one until she either admits I may have a point or until she gets so ticked off that she blocks me
    • James: I prefer the former rather than the latter, but I don’t really have any control of that.
    • Daniel: And you think that criticizing people’s sexual behavior to the point they won’t speak to you anymore is harmless?
    • James: As I previously said, that is something I prefer to avoid and do not intend.
    • Daniel: Well, if the other option is admitting you’re right, that’s exactly what’s going to happen. This is not harmless behavior. Lots of people have been destroyed by it and a few ended up dead, including people I cared about.
    • James: And what harm does it do for someone to get mad at me? Lots of people get mad at me and blow things I say way out of proportion. I almost never say something provocative before they do, and yet they scream at me over saying something like “I disagree with you and have a theory to explain why.”
    • Daniel: They’d be mad at you because you devalued them as a person. What harm did it do you for dad to be mad at you?
    • James: no wait, there’s a third option, some people say they have some thinking to do, and then just sort of push it out of their minds, gong back to the way they previously were or sort of neutral, but are unable to come up with a compelling enough argument to justify their position.
    • Daniel: I notice you left out the possibility that you would decide you were wrong to push them about it and back off after they made a convincing argument, but I guess that isn’t very likely.
    • James: Something as minor as navigation methods are not a prominent issue of modern society, hence it was ridiculous for him to make such a big deal about it. Sexual conduct is however, that among other things.
    • Daniel: So if he’d called you stupid for not having a job, which is a relatively major social issue, that would have been OK?
    • James: And no, it isn’t likely, seeing as how they’d be advocating for the position that has been proven to be a weak one (saying that based off the results of its practice). My position would be one that hasn’t been proven to be horribly ineffective, hence they have no disclaimers against it.
    • James: Stupid no, lazy yes. I deserve to be called lazy for not having a job, but me not having a job has nothing to do with me possibly being stupid.
    • James: Besides, why don’t you think it’s wrong that so many people use virgin as an insult? Why make such a big deal about me using promiscuous insulting?
    • Daniel: I’m not sure what position you think has been proven to be weak. I think you don’t even know what common behavior is.
    • Daniel: Who said I don’t think it’s wrong to insult people for being virgins?
    • Daniel: Also, I’ve never had to talk anyone out of suicide because a bunch of people called them a virgin, so I suspect that is a smaller problem, though also not justifiable.
    • James: I can make some educated guesses on what normal behavior is judging by what people say on social networking sites and what has happened to people I directly know. People seem to feel subconsciously pressured into thinking they need to be in a relationship at any give time by society with things like Valentines day and school dances, which often leads to rash decisions about good potential partners, which eventually leads up to unjustified sex, which often causes the relationship to be built upon a poor foundation, or to fall apart.
    • James: Anyway, it’s starting to look like you wouldn’t care if I did manage to find good evidence to support my standing point, it wouldn’t matter to you.
    • Daniel: Your standing point has changed several times. What you just said is completely different from upthread. If you think it’s problematic that people think having sex will make them a better couple when they aren’t suited for each other, I agree, but think you overestimate how much this happens. This makes sense because you have established that these people have a goal and are working against it. This can be a real problem in certain situations. However, there are two problems.1. Not everyone having sex is doing it because they think it will fix their relationship. Most are doing it because they want to. Upthread, you said the problem was people having sex without caring about the relationships. Which is it? Plenty of people have sex with no desire to get into a relationship, or at least not a traditional couple or are in one, but have relatively realistic expectations about the result.2. You’ve given no evidence that demeaning individuals for their behavior would do anything to solve this alleged problem, much less that it’s better than other possible solutions.
    • James: I didn’t say because they didn’t care about the relationship, it’s because they underestimate the significance of sex within the relationship. And having sex without a relationship entirely is several times worse. And “demeaning the individuals for their behavior” as you phrased it isn’t supposed to solve the problem, it’s supposed to bring awareness to the problem, to allow it to be perceived as even being a problem. And then either their epiphany from that realization will allow them to figure out the rest on their own, or I can share with them my own results from that realization to help guide them on a different and potentially better path, whatever they feel they are better suited to.
    • Daniel: If the problem is that sex messes up relationships, why is it worse to have it when there’s no relationship to endanger?
    • James: Two things: 1, it could create a problematic relationship, or 2, it makes a mockery of the significance of Sex. It would be like using a $100 painting as a coaster.
    • Daniel: Also, why is demeaning individuals the best way to raise awareness? Why do you think this will work as opposed to hurting the people you target? If the issue is social pressures, why not look at how those pressures are applied to people and deconstruct it so people think critically instead of blindly caving to pressure? That wouldn’t be hurtful and helps people do what they want instead of what you want.
    • James: I do. Did you honestly assume I applied the exact same process and method to every individual person regardless of situation?
    • Daniel: What are some situations where you think insults and degradation are the best approach and what are some situation where they aren’t and how would you approach these situations?
    • James: There you go misquoting me again. I’m not insulting them, I’m expressing my disapproval of their actions, and how so I do that depends on the situation. And not expressing any level of disapproval won’t really help anything, you need to at least imply that you disapprove of it.
    • Daniel: You said you intended it insultingly in the OP. Are you backing off on that?Besides, it is very possible to advise people to change their behavior without expressing disapproval. Are you familiar with Socratic method? Or, you can say you are concerned their behavior may result in something they wouldn’t like rather than making it about your opinion of their behavior.
    • James: I somewhat unintentionally do both simultaneously. And no, you can express disapproval in a somewhat insulting manor. But I may have misused it in the context of the original post. All meant in the original post is that I mean promiscuous in a bad way when I use the term. And that does not contradict anything I’ve said.
    • Daniel: Can you give a concrete example of a situation and how you’d approach it?
    • James: I can think of several examples of times I’ve given advice regarding relationships, but none i can think of specifically regarding over-sexualized behavior. Except there was this one guy who was basically requesting a booty call from strangers and I got after him for it, though the conversation was mostly about how he has several stereotypical douchebag traits. And surprisingly, he didn’t get mad and block me, he actually admired my nerve and guts for saying that to him. he has yet to block me.
    • Daniel: Guys don’t typically get the worst of this. You don’t have to give an example that really happened. A hypothetical would be fine.
    • James: If I haven’t been able to get anywhere even close to publication of so much as the first issue of my comic I’ve been trying to write ever since I started writing it in 7th grade, I doubt I can imagine a very good realistic scenario within a reasonable amount of time.
    • James: I want to write, but I’m not very good at it, which I why I have to get other people to do it for me and I just pitch them ideas.
    • Daniel: I can imagine one for you. Let’s say one of your friends posts this: do you do?Soy una mujer alegre,me gusta –
    • James: First I would ask what’s wrong with them and then ask if they knew what the full implications of a gang bang are.
    • James: And then my future responses would depend on what responses they gave.
    • Daniel: Let’s say they reply, “No, please tell me what the full implications of a gang bang are.”
    • James: You may think it’s like an orgy, but harder core, and in a way it is, but probably more hard core than you want. They will be rough to the point of pain and not stop when you want them to, they will stop when THEY want to, by which point you may be screaming bloody murder, lose consciousness and sustain serious damage, or death. If it’s an orgy however you want, I would still ask what’s wrong with you and ask why you feel compelled to have multiple people shoving their genitalia in various places upon you.
    • James: And if you’d even bother to do a background check on whoever volunteered (they might have a criminal record or have STDs or something).
    • Daniel: And she replies that she likes it hardcore, will require condoms and her boyfriend will be there to make sure none of the guys gets too rough and won’t listen.
    • James: That still wouldn’t answer my question why she feels compelled to have so many random people do it.
    • Daniel: Because she enjoys it. Why should she need more justification?
    • James: I guess I’d ask what made her so sure her boyfriend could take on like 2 or 3 other guys at the same time, and what her boyfriend’s thoughts on the matter were.
    • Daniel: And she says there’s very little risk that every guy who answers will be part of some team and her boyfriend will call the police if that happens. Also, her boyfriend likes this idea.
    • James: Then I’d ask why their boyfriend is okay with a couple of strangers having sex with his girlfriend, what’s his deal (see, I try to make it somewhat of a psycho-analysis game)
    • Daniel: He thinks it’s hot. Why should he need more of a reason?
    • James: I guess I’d ask what they’d say to the police if it had to come to that. The police would probably find it as bad an idea as I do, which may give them a conflict of interest to resolve the issue.
    • Daniel: So you’re saying that if a woman got raped in this situation, the police response should be to say that she shouldn’t have been hosting a gang bang?
    • James: And I would ask what this would really accomplish. Sexual release? What would that “good feeling” really accomplish, and why she thinks her boyfriend can’t meet up to her sexual desires.
    • Daniel: Good feelings are an end unto themselves. What does playing Starcraft really accomplish?
    • James: Pretty much, what would you think their reaction would be? They would probably get down there and do their duty to chase them off, and then what other reaction would you expect from them if she wasn’t seriously hurt? And if she was, they’d probably use it as an example to discourage future instances.
    • Daniel: And that’s exactly what I meant when I said your position encourages blaming rape victims and excusing rapists.
    • James: Starcraft accomplishes refining strategic skills. I don’t like games that don’t refine some kind of skill or rely a good storyline to th point it’s practically an interactive movie.
    • James: She knowingly would have let rapists into her house with a warning that might be a possibility, and she had a poor back-up plan in such a situation. How is this in any way not her fault?
    • James: Simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time around the wrong person is one thing, knowingly allowing them to enter your house and voluntarily engaging in intercourse with them knowing that them taking advantage of her is a possibility with a poor back-up plan in such a situation is another. I sympathize with most rape victims who were just unfortunate, she was simply unhelpable.
    • James: If that were the case that occurred.
    • James: No, I’m expecting them to be apprehended assuming she was smart enough to get their names and contact information and such.
    • Daniel: So what really caused the rape here, the fact she let men she didn’t know into her house with the expectation of sex or the rapist’s expectation that the police would tell her she was askign for it?
    • Daniel: And you had a flimsy door in a neighborhood with burglars and left your house unattended with your valuables unsecured. For that matter, you’ve had people that were explicitly invited into the house steal stuff, too. How is that not your fault?
    • James: Those were Vanessa’s boyfriends you are probably referring to as the ones we voluntarily let in. I didn’t let them in, she did. An that door wasn’t flimsy, it was like a bit over an inch thick, they were just persistent.
    • Daniel: What about Justin?
    • Daniel: To clarify my earlier point, the rapists are certainly going to say it’s her fault and that’s why they are justified in raping her. This idea directly promotes rape as it moves responsibility away from the offenders.
    • James: I didn’t let him in there voluntarily either, I wanted him gone. As for the rape story, the rapists saw it for what it was: poor planning on the girls part and an opportunity to take advantage of her. Anyone without integrity would’ve done it. It was entirely her fault for having such poor foresight despite warnings about the flaws in her foresight. She was almost asking for it, I doubt she would realistically receive a lot of sympathy if people knew the full situation.
    • James: When you get down to it, that’s all a rapists is: a horny person without integrity.
    • Daniel: Regardless of what you think will happen, do you think she should receive sympathy?
    • James: If someone gave her all the warnings I did in that scenario and suggested that she take the precautions that I thought of, and she knowingly disregarded both, then no, she doesn’t.
    • Daniel: And can’t you see how being gang raped and being told it’s your fault is a lot more damaging than getting gang-raped but getting social support? This is exactly why your attitude isn’t harmless.
    • James: And then I would tell her story to sere as a warning to anyone else who thinks it’s a good idea to not listen to me.
    • Daniel: So you would also give wide public exposure to how she got raped and it was her fault and you think this wouldn’t be harmful?
    • James: Why would she get social support? That’s practically forgiving and encouraging her poor decision. No one could help her if they tried. She is simply unhelpable. The intent isn’t to be harmful, the intent is to say “I told you so, you should’ve listened to me, this is the sort of thing I try to keep from happening that people allow to happen by ignoring me.”
    • James: Many people have regretted not listening to me, and this hypothetical situation would be a perfect example if it actually happened.
    • Daniel: I purposely chose an extreme example. Let’s try a more typical one that actually happened.’s your reaction to this?
    • James: And I bet I’m not alone in thinking so. I bet if I posted this scenario as a status and asked what side they would take, they’d agree with me.
    • James: That’s the difference between me and other people and why I feel so offended that you try to say I’m doing what they do. I would ask her how she got into the situation and try to get her to learn from her mistake, other people will condemn her for her mistake. I only condemn people in vary extreme situations. And there’s only a few contexts I would call someone promiscuous in, this probably wouldn’t be one of those. The point of the original status was to say: in the few contexts I do use the term “promiscuous” in, know what I mean within the context that I use it.
    • James: This whole argument seems to have steamed from you misunderstanding what I meant. I’m getting rather sick of people doing that.
    • Daniel: And you don’t see how publicly shaming one person for their behavior as a warning to others encourages generally humiliating people who do things you disapprove of?
    • James: I wouldn’t use the example if it wasn’t a serious one, like she died or was hospitalized or something. And I wouldn’t use it as a tool to shame other people who do it, I would use it as a warning to those who wish to go down that path.
    • Daniel: That’s a distinction without a difference. And you don’t seem to understand that physical injury is not the main damage rape does.My position is that it’s fine to object to people being pressured into sex, but that you should be working on the people bringing the pressure, not the ones receiving it. If people are having sex without being pressured, that’s none of your business or anyone else’s.
    • James: I’m getting after the people promoting it. How is that now getting the people you addressed?
    • James: And there is a difference.
    • Daniel: Posting “who wants to have sex with me?” on the Internet is not pressuring anyone. Saying “If you love me, you’ll have sex with me” is.
    • James: Well getting after the people who outright promote it is a start right?
    • Daniel: Outright promote what?
    • James: That sex is okay and that you there’s no harm in doing so and that it’s ordinary within our culture to engage in it without any serious prior commitment. But I hate most things about our culture, it is highly corruptive and I intend to try to bring it to a state of moral stability, or at least be able to find a good number of people who still have moral stability and keep them from going the same way the majority has.
    • James: I will tackle the negative aspects of our culture one piece at a time.
    • James: I also intend to set the people who think that sex is always inherently bad regardless of context strait.
    • Daniel: Does anyone really think that? I think you are setting up a straw man to make yourself sound reasonable. You seem to have a broken sentence, so I’m not sure what you think people are promoting.
    • James: No seriously, I know people that refuse to believe sex is okay within the appropriate context. I can even prove it.
    • Daniel: People who think sex is always bad and icky? Not even Rick Santorum thinks that.
    • James: No I’m serious, they even were opposed to the idea of marriage under the pretext that if they were, their husband would try to have sex with them, which they wouldn’t like, and I tried to convince them it doesn’t quite work like that in this country
    • Daniel: Why do you think they have such a low opinion of sex?
    • James: Probably because she hates her nephew whom resulted from her brother having sex, and the way sex has been portrayed in modern culture, and she was raised lutheran
    • Daniel: Do Lutherans hate sex in all contexts? I’m pretty sure they are strong supporters of marital sex.
    • James: I don’t know, but I know no one else in her family has the same strong option upon it that she does. She didn’t like the nooma video about it and expressed her disagreement to it.
    • James: But we’re getting off topic again.
    • Daniel: Let’s say there’s a social problem with people watching too many stupid TV shows. I suspect we’ll agree this is a real problem. Does it follow that you shouldn’t try to get your friends to watch shows you like in general?
    • James: I don;t follow.
    • James: Are you saying the shows In watch are stupid?
    • Daniel: Scratch that analogy. Here’s my point: You say people are having sex too early because they get pressured into it. Isn’t it also possible they just have a different idea of what the appropriate time is?
    • James: Yes. People’s palette for entertainment has been greatly dulled over the past little over a decade.
    • James: Yes, and judging by the results (poor track record), they usually guess wrong. And where were you going with the TV analogy? I get what you’re saying, I was just a bit confused by your last sentence when you first tried the analogy: “Does it follow that you shouldn’t try to get your friends to watch shows you like in general?”
    • Daniel: My point was that just because some TV shows are bad doesn’t mean that everyone trying to get people to watch TV with them is contributing to the problem.
      Here are the problems with your position so far:
      1. You seem to think waiting to have sex hasn’t been widely tried. Yet, this is what most forms of the two most popular religions in the world teach. It has been tried.
      2. You argued that most people would agree with your position in the rape hypothetical. Doesn’t this show your view isn’t against the norm?
      3. You still haven’t spelled out what it is most people are doing that’s so bad. Do you think most people are putting open sexual invitations on the Internet? Putting out on the first date? Putting out on the third date?
      4. Poor track record compared to what? Can you actually demonstrate that sex makes relationships go bad rather than most relationships going bad on their own and the sex being coincidental? Quote-mining religious sources don’t count.
      5. Assuming sex is bad for relationships, why should you care if other people think it’s worth the risk?
      6. I have demonstrated real harm that comes from condemning sexual behavior. It causes depression in those condemned and encourages rape. You haven’t dealt with this at all except to say the harm is good because it helps warn other people about the dangers. However, this is circular reasoning if the harm comes from the condemnation in the first place.
      7. You seem to be moving your claim around. Is the problem people having sex earlier than they want to due to social pressure or peopel having sex earlier than you want them to for any reason?
    • James: ‎1. Tried yes, and also abandoned. Religion threw in a couple extra rules that people didn’t like. And waiting isn’t the only issue, so is understanding its full meaning and significance. And I’m not so sure there was ever a time people had a firm grasp on that.
      2. Yes and no. The norm may be to sympathize with the victim despite the fact that she made all those mistakes, by my friends aren’t quite the norm themselves. And even if they were, and it was the norm to say it was her fault, why would it matter that I happen to share one public opinion? Should I also dislike doughnuts because most people like them? I’m not THAT much of a hipster.
      3. Again, part of the problem is engaging it prematurely without enough thought as to its significance, the other is that they don’t understand its significance and meaning, and if they do they’re diminishing it from its original state, and I’m trying to revive it again I guess. Its good name and highly thought of state I mean.
      4. This is not an religious argument, don’t turn it into one. And I suppose I’m not really comparing it to anything, just the potential of how it could be as opposed to the lousy state it’s currently in. Do you deny that its current state is bad?
      5. Because previous observation indicates that if they’re wrong (which they likely will be), it will end badly and I don’t want to hear the drama about it, i would rather prevent the drama from occurring.
      6. You’re twisting what I said again. I said that if they faced a great consequence for doing something they were advised against, then the results (meaning that previously mentioned great consequence that came from the poor decision in the first place) will serve as a warning to show where that path leads. And if the Consequence was minor, then they should be pressed to learn what their mistake was so they can avoid making it again in the future but not in a condemning way.
      7. I’m not moving my claim around, my claim has always been the same, but it is upon a complex issue that you seem to consistently be misunderstanding me upon.
      P.S. My only goal is to identify and resolve the issues of the world that have caused it to get into its current bad state to the best of my ability. Right now, I see the area of relationships facing consistent issues causing it to be in a bad state and hence is one of the issues of humanity feel it is my duty to resolve to the best of my ability.
    • Daniel: So you say the problem is that people don’t understand the significance of sex. Why should I believe this to be the case as opposed to you misunderstanding the significance of sex or it having different significance to different people?The current state of what is bad? I’m still not sure what you are claiming.
    • James: There’s a lot of horrible things going on in the world collectively caused by negative aspects of humanity and horrible people. And I never once said I have the answers, all I said is that the currently popular understanding is a combination of incorrect and insufficient, and I have a slightly better understanding of it than most people, but not enough to describe it.
    • James: But I’ve never claimed to fully understand it myself.
    • James: I’m still trying to figure that out. But in the wise words of Johnathan Kent: you need to find to on switch before you can find the off switch. In this context, I’m applying that to mean to need to know wrong answer before you can find the right one.
    • James: Anyway, contrary to popular opinion, I do have a life and I have to get back to it in a few hours and I still haven’t showered or slept, so we will have to pick this up again tomorrow or at least very late later today, but more likely tomorrow or the day after.
    • Daniel: Yes, I would agree there are a lot of horrible things in the world caused by negative aspects of humanity. I would add that feeling the need to police other people’s behaviors that don’t harm is one of these negative aspects. In fact, it’s one of the biggest ones.The only people having too much sex are the people having more than they want to. Even if you were right and people were having sex too early by some objective standard, insulting what you thought were the worst offenders would still cause more harm than good.

From → Uncategorized

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: