Skip to content

Promiscuity Facebook dump continued


Here’s the continued dump from yesterday after I solicited some people to back me up. James posted another thread complaining this was unfair, but no one would help. I have some good non-Facebook stuff coming up in the coming days, so stay tuned.

    • Sally Strange: Hey there gentlemen. Self-described slut here, although it’s been a few years since I indulged in any sex-clubbing or one-night stands. I’m one of those women who’s trying to reclaim the label in an effort to show that casual sex without commitment isn’t any worse or better than sex within the context of a long-term relationship. As it happens, I’ve done both. I defy anyone to put the blame for any of society’s problems at my doorstep on account of my sexual history. That’s scapegoating, nothing else.
    • Sally Strange: As for the idea that a rapist is a “horny person without any integrity,” that’s objectively false, and flies in the face of research that has been done into the psychology of rapists. They rape because they want power, not because their sexual urges are too pent-up. In any case, that sort of contradicts the whole idea that people having too much sex too early causes societal problems such as rape–if it were true that rapists rape because they’re horny then logically it should follow that increased frequency of casual sex would lead to a decrease in rape.Logical inconsistencies of this magnitude are often a clue that the person making such huge errors is trying to make excuses for bigotry.
    • Mona There is no word for men that implies such a lack of self-respect as does “slut.” Consequently, there is no word I can call you sexist misogynists that will make you feel the sting of what you are dishing out. But a word of warning: if you use it in real life, don’t be surprised if you get punched.
    • Sally Strange: Yoo-hoo! Some actual ladies here, willing to listen to you explain how our sexual proclivities are causing the downfall of civilization! What’s the matter?
    • James: I sincerely doubt that all rapists just want authority. And it isn’t bigotry if I think it’s only bad in certain contexts, a bigot says it’s always bad in every context regardless. And all civilization, no, the morality of this era in civilization, yes. Quit misquoting me, everyone this entire comment string has been misquoting me.
    • Sally Strange: Oooh, you “sincerely doubt” the conclusions of researchers who have actually studied the issue. Is that supposed to convince someone, or are you just trying to demonstrate your affinity for the fallacy of arguing from personal incredulity?
    • James: And @ Mono, for like the 8th time, I don’t call people sluts (though I might say someone acts slutty n strong cases), I don’t even call people promiscuous unless it’s a strong case.
    • Sally Strange: And yes, you are a bigot for supporting slut-shaming.
    • Sally Strange: Embrace the label if you like, but don’t try to pretend that that isn’t what you’re doing.
    • James: Did you actually read the comments up til now? What part of what U said made you think I support slut-shaaiming?
    • Sally Strange: Yeah, I read through all of it. And I see you right here, just now, defending your right to do it again, only just in “strong cases,” which is complete bullshit.
    • Daniel: Perhaps “power” is a better term than “authority.” I actually linked to some info about the studies upthread. Your typical rapist is a sociopath who gets off on controlling people, not a horny idiot who doesn’t known what “no” means.
    • Sally Strange: ‎”Slut” or “slutty” are meaningless terms that exist only to reinforce the idea that women who enjoy sex a lot, or with a lot of different partners are bad and wrong. Failing to reject that label in all cases is supporting misogyny.
    • James: And where did they get the test subjects for said studies? Did they get a bunch of rapists to volunteer, did they have police bring a bunch in?
    • Sally Strange: You can call me promiscuous if you like–it’s freaking accurate. I’ve had 50+ sexual partners, of both genders, and engaged in sex with more than one person at a time. The problem is that you think that you have the right to judge me as being worse than you because of that.
    • Sally Strange: Hmmm, maybe you shouldn’t be spouting off about a subject of which you’re completely ignorant. You know there’s this thing called “google,” right? Next time use it before you start making assertions. Try looking up this phrase: “meet the predators.”
    • James: No, I use slutty to mean someone who tries to get with as many people of their sexual orientation as possible. I knew a girl who went through guys like I go through socks and will stick her tongue in their mouth within a week of meeting them and try to get in bed with them, she practically molested me on more than one occasion. I wonder if slut is too strong a term for even her.·
    • Sally Strange: Is there something inherently wrong with trying to have sex with as many people as possible? I mean, it’s kind of a silly goal, but assuming that all the sex is safe and consensual, there’s really no harm. If a girl is molesting you, then that’s not good, but that’s bad whether she’s had 1 sexual partner or 100.
    • Daniel: James, the links I posted early in the thread deal with this. If you dealt with convicted rapists,you’d only be dealing with rapists who got caught, who aren’t your typical cases. If you poll men about their sexual behavior, about 7% will report activities that meet the legal definition of rape. The studies are based on reported behavior for these particular men.
    • Sally Strange: Remember, words have meanings. “Slut” means “female, likes sex a lot, AND THAT IS BAD.” You have been asked to make the case for why it’s bad and you’ve failed over and over again. Why? Because it’s a logically insupportable statement. Its foundation is bigotry against women, which is inherently irrational.
    • James: And no for the 3rd time, I don’t make big deals out of this kind of thing out of jealousy, superiority, or just to be a bigot, I do it for legitimate moral concern, and I condemn those who do it for the above reasons, and those who falsely accuse others of doing it for those reasons. If you think otherwise, you’re as bad as you accuse me of being. And yes, I would call you promiscuous.
    • Sally Strange: There is no legitimate moral concern. You’re making that up to rationalize your misogyny.
    • Sally Strange: I already told you you can call me promiscuous if you want. The point is, that says nothing about my moral character.
    • James: I call guys sluts to, or man-whore, or whatever term seems appropriate in context. I see this as a two-way issue.
    • Daniel: I’m uncertain what kind of ethical system you’re even positing here. You sound like a utilitarian when you define wrongness, but haven’t really made a utilitarian argument.
    • Sally Strange: That doesn’t change the fact that you’re inventing this supposed moral concern to justify your bigotry.
    • James: And yes, actually it does say something about your moral charcter, it means you don’t understand the meaning and significance of sex, you just engage it for physical pleasure same as most people misuse it. And one person at a time, You guys post like 3 things before I can answer even one of you.
    • Sally Strange: Really. What does it say about my moral character. Do please explain.
    • Daniel: Why is it a misuse to engage in sex for pleasure?
    • James: And you may accuse me of lying, but I assure you that it is moral concern, and if it isn’t, I request that you kill me now so that I don’t try to get anywhere else with my life’s work to fight lack of moral content.
    • James: I mean it, kill me if you think I;m lying about doing this for moral concern. You have no idea the look of rage I have on my face right now.
    • Sally Strange: I believe that you’re sincere. It’s just that you’re dead wrong. Anyway, you were telling me how I’m immoral because (you assume) I have sex because I find it fun and pleasurable. Go on…
    • James: And @ Dan, it is on;y bad to exclusively engage in sex for pleasure.
    • Sally Strange: Why, James. Explain, with concrete examples, why it’s bad to engage in sex solely for pleasure.
    • James: I that isn’t true then please enlighten me.
    • Sally Strange: No. It’s YOUR hypothesis. If you’re right, it should be simple to point to some of the harm that safe, consensual, casual sex causes.·
    • Sally Strange: ‎*crickets*
    • Sally Strange: That’s what I thought. You haven’t thought this through clearly, and now that you’re being challenged to articulate the reasoning behind your bogus hypothesis, it’s hard to keep those posts coming.
    • Sally Strange: Note that I have no problem keeping up. That’s because I’m not engaging in cognitive dissonance right now.
    • James: I meant enlighten me if you don’t just engage in sex for the pleasure of it. And slow down with the comments, I can’t answer you all at once. And engaging in sex just for the pleasure of it is why relationships are in such bad condition. People regret other people they sleep with, people get stuck with babies they didn’t want, and the relationship falls apart from lack of foundation and structure.·
    • James: and no, I’M STILL FREAKING TYPING!!!
    • Sally Strange: Aww. Poor kid. If I can keep my calm while being told I’m responsible for the moral dissolution of society, surely it’s fair to expect you to remain chill about being criticized for your slow response time.
    • Daniel: Upthread, you said that behaviors are wrong if they contribute to social problems. You gave some social problems you though sex contributes to. Gabe and I disputed those were actually caused by sex per se and I argued that at least a couple cases were partially caused by judging people for their sexual behavior, which you are advocating. You need to either make a better case for why what you propose is better than the alternatives (i.e. that sex causes bad stuff and your proposal wouldn’t cause worse stuff) or come up with a better argument in general. Or, admit that you were just speculating about this and didn’t have a solid basis for your claims.
    • James: Never, I will keep in this argument until everyone gets bored and stops following it.
    • James: And what are you guys making this into an argument about rape. I didn’t want the thread to go that way, but you guys seemed to insist upon it.
    • James: I never once made a point about rape until you guys brought it up.
    • Sally Strange: ‎”Engaging in sex just for the pleasure of it is why relationships are in such bad condition”You’ve asserted this without presenting evidence.”People regret other people they sleep with”

      You’ve asserted this without presenting evidence.

      “people get stuck with babies they didn’t want”

      No sweetie. We’re talking about SAFE sex here, i.e., sex where people are informed about their STD status and have taken measures to prevent infection and/or pregnancy. Not applicable, so it does not support your thesis.

      “relationship falls apart from lack of foundation and structure”

      Again, asserted without evidence. Anyway, the data contradicts you. Infidelity is down, teen pregnancy is down, even divorce is down during the past 30 years. Out-of-wedlock births are up, but I can’t see how that is inherently immoral, so long as the children are adequately taken care of.

    • James: Anyway, give me several minutes to defend my position on why I think sex too early in the relationship, with the wrong person, and doing it just for pleasure rather than intimate connectivity. It is a complicated explanation that takes time to write, which you guys aren’t giving me the chance to write because you keep commenting and interrupting my train of thought to answer you.
    • Daniel: James, you originally brought up rape when Gabe challenged you to list bad things sex is responsible for, not that it’s relevant as my point that your ideas are used to excuse rape would stand either way.
    • Sally Strange: Rape is related to slut-shaming because slut-shaming is used to dismiss the evidence against rapists. It’s well-documented that less than 10% of rapes result in a prison sentence for the rapist, precisely because there’s this widespread belief that women can somehow invite rape by being “slutty” or dressing slutty or drinking and dancing and going skinny-dipping or any number of things. The assumption is that if you have sex with lots of men, you’ll have sex with ANY man.·
    • Sally Strange: It’s not complicated. You are having a hard time reasoning it out because THERE IS NO REASON INVOLVED.
    • James: I didn’t try to make a big point out of it like you guys are though. And I’m trying to look for evidence, but you guys are keeping me from that as well with your overly frequent commenting.
    • James: Yes there is, GIVE ME A FREAKING CHANCE TO PROVE IT!!
    • Sally Strange: Yeah, you’re just looking for evidence now, because you never bothered to consider whether the evidence supported your position until you were challenged to support it. Your mistake, take responsibility for messing up. And stop yelling at me. ·
    • James: You can’t just go around accusing people of not having evidence that does exists and not never give them the chance to find it.
    • Sally Strange: The point is, you didn’t bother to find out whether that evidence exists. I have, and that’s why I’m able to marshall my arguments so much quicker than you. Allow me to clue you in: that evidence does not exist. You’re welcome to search in vain, though.
    • Daniel: You can’t just go around accusing people of undermining society without evidence, either. Plus, it’s generally best to do the research before you pick a position, not try to find stuff that supports what you’ve decided to believe.
    • Sally Strange: You know you can always walk away, right? I’m not actually able to force you to continue commenting.
    • James: Anyway, I was hoping my moral explanations that you guys also refuse to let me give you would be enough to defend my position, but you requested solid evidence, and the rules dictate I have to give to it when you ask, which implies that I don’t have to give it if no one asks. And I’m not even remotely advocating that sluts are asking for rape, I never once said anything of the sort except for the extreme example Dan gave, which wasn’t her dressing slutty of having a slutty reputation, she was intentionally setting herself up to be raped without knowing it.
    • Sally Strange: No, you’re not advocating that sluts are asking for rape, you’re just refusing to stop engaging in behaviors that support people who believe that sluts are asking for rape. BIG difference.
    • James: And I have been looking for said information to defend my position, you guys just refuse to let me finish looking for it and reaing to check of it’s what I’m looking for when I find it.
    • Sally Strange: How can someone intentionally do something without knowing it? You contradicted yourself within the space of a single sentence. Dude, you are so OBVIOUSLY rationalizing rather than reasoning.
    • James: She consciuosly decided to not take the necessary procautions. What would you call that?
    • Sally Strange: ‎”Necessary precautions,” please share with the class what you think those are.
    • James: And I don’t advocate for slut shaming, I agree with you guys on that point. The only point we disagree on is that they need to be told that their behavior is self-destructive in a manor appropriate to the context upon when the situation arises.
    • Sally Strange: If someone is consciously deciding something, then presumably she knows what she is doing. Contradiction: it’s either intentional, or she didn’t know what she was doing. Hey, you ARE blaming a person for getting raped!
    • James: And I already shared the necessary precautions, like doing a background check of the volunteers, making sure she had a good emergency plan if it all went badly, and the like.
    • James: And in that particular context Dan gave, yes, I do blame her, there is no way that wasn’t her fault.
    • Daniel: And you think going around telling everyone how it was her fault she got raped so they don’t behave like her is a “manner appropriate to the context”?
    • Sally Strange: Right, because women should just assume they’re going to get raped and have a backup plan, and if they don’t then they’re “assuming the risk”
    • Sally Strange: How the fuck is that not rape apology? This is precisely what I mean when I say that slut-shaming attitudes like yours cause concrete harm.
    • James: When they are right out asking for an orgy from complete strangers, yes.·
    • Sally Strange: The only person to blame for a person getting raped is the rapist. If one woman “takes precautions” then he will move on until he finds that one woman who doesn’t. That’s why mentally incapacitated women and girls 18 and under are at the highest risk of rape.
    • Sally Strange: ‎”When they are right out asking for an orgy from complete strangers, yes.”So, when I went to a sex club and tried to organize an orgy, really I was asking to be raped, eh?
    • Sally Strange: Or at least ensuring that anyone who raped me would be held blameless for his actions, because hey. I put myself in that situation.
    • Sally Strange: That you blame a rape victim at all is fucked up. It is a profoundly immoral thing to do. Who are you to lecture us on morality?
    • James: If you didn’t bother to do a background check or have an emergency back-up plan in case it went bad and such, you practically would be.
    • Sally Strange: Damn! You’re so emotional. Are you sure you’re thinking straight, James?
    • Daniel: So if you give a guy a cookie, then he beats you up and takes all your cookies, is it your fault for not being more careful who you tempted with those delicious cookies?
    • Sally Strange: Keep the fuck up, stop complaining.
    • James: SLOW DOWN WITH THE COMMENTS!!!!!!!!!!!
    • Sally Strange: Yelling at me isn’t going to make me do what you want me to do.
    • Daniel: You can wait until you’re ready to reply. You don’t need to go to the tab as soon as the notice comes in.
    • Sally Strange: James is clearly over-emotional about this issue.
    • James: You have a count of like 20 interruption violations, in a competitive debate, you would’ve been disqualified by now.
    • James: I’m upset because you’re scolding me for not doing something you refuse to let me do. It’s like the “stop hitting yourself” form of bullying·
    • Sally Strange: In a competitive debate, I’d have wiped the floor with your ass about ten minutes ago. On account of I have reason and evidence on my side, and you never bothered to do your research. So count yourself lucky.
    • James: See there you go again scolding me for not having evidence you refuse to let me give you. You’re a troll is what you are.
    • Sally Strange: Oh, yes, you’re the victim here. Poor, poor James, why won’t people let him accuse them of being responsible for civilization’s demise without getting all up in his grill? Priceless, you really are a master of unintentional self-parody.
    • Daniel: I was about to use the “stop hitting yourself” analogy to describe your attitude toward the hypothetical rape victim.
    • Sally Strange: Yes, I am scolding you, because you’re wrong and you’re saying and doing hurtful things. Get over it.
    • James: The stop hitting yourself analogy was refering to how you guys absilutely refuse to let me defend my position
    • Sally Strange: I’m not actually stopping you from searching for that non-existent evidence. Instead of trying to get in the last word here, you could have been googling for the past few minutes. But you’re not thinking clearly, are you?
    • Sally Strange: I WISH you would defend your position. But you’re not even trying. Perhaps because, deep down, you know it’s indefensible.
    • Sally Strange: This isn’t a formal debate. Get over it.
    • James: Your wish os self-unfulfilig. You’re intentionally keeping your “wish from coming true.”
    • Sally Strange: And why not say “fucking”? We’re all adults here. Right?
    • Sally Strange: How am I preventing you from defending your position? Seriously, what is this mysterious power I hold over you?
    • Daniel: Debate is a sport. The rules of formal debate are not aimed at finding the truth. They aren’t relevant in this setting.
    • James: IF YOU DON’T LET ME DEFEND MY POSITION, I MAY HAVE TO BE FORCED TO RESTRAIN YOU (meaning I will temporarily block you until I can give all the evidence you are refusing to allow me to provide and scolding me for not proving it)
    • Sally Strange: Oh. Well, you could just go and get it. No need to block me. You do realize that the fact that I’m writing on your page does not prevent you from closing facebook and opening google instead, right?
    • Daniel: No one is stopping you from defending your position. Go research it, then come back and post. You don’t need to respond to every single thing in the meantime.
    • Sally Strange: You could, for example, say, “I’m logging off for a few minutes so I can do my research (which I shamefully did not do before leaping to my original position). Please excuse my absence for a bit while I’m gone.”
    • James: Yes it does actually, I believe very firmly in the rules of debat, which dicate I have to address every issue as it arrises.
    • Sally Strange: Interesting how you feel the need to employ metaphors of forceful restraint, though. How does THAT fit into the “rules of debate”?
    • James: It fits into the part that says you have to give everyone a chance to defend their position, which implies you can’t intentionally keep them from doing so, as you have been.
    • Sally Strange: Again, I’m not actually stopping you from doing anything. That’s a fiction. One might even say a lie which you are intentionally telling (to me or to yourself, I can’t say) in order to save face.
    • James: Anyway, intermission, no more commenting until I can defend my position like you have been scolding me for not doing and keeping me from dong so you can scold me for it. And anyone who continues to comment anyway will be temporarily blocked.
    • Sally Strange: I’m going to sleep. I expect to see well-reasoned arguments backed up with factual citations when I check in again. Probably not til the afternoon, EST. Good luck, Don Quijote!
    • James: This following may be a religious argument, which isn’t what I was going for, but it makes a couple good points. is premarital sex bad? My friend just started high school, and she’s trying to tell me that it’s

    • Daniel: Which points do you think are good and can still stand if we don’t assume quoting the Bible is valid support?
    • James: The psychological/emotional void that people try to fill with sex, some regrets based upon impulsive sex, etc.
    • James: But this won’t be my only source, come back later and scold my additional content I have yet to post.
    • James: Debating is a team sport, you guys have 3 members on your team and I have been trying to fend you off myself, so you should have no objections to my recruiting of additional team members on my side.
    • James: You guys were bombarding me so much I didn’t even have time to correct my typos. I would call that form of ganging up bullying, wouldn’t you?
    • Shelby:‎ *whispers* -psssst- rape isn’t sex, it’s violence.. rapists are sick people to begin with them having no bad feelings for violating someone like that. Short skirts aren’t sexual they’re cuuute ;A; (find out how many rapes are comitted in a nudist colony?) almost everyone has sex with someone consentually then regrets it later on. Its very complex. Calling someone out for being a promiscuous typically gets you punched. I read all of this at 4am. I feel smarter. All of you have good vocabularies. My eyes are burning. Beddddd.

Several Hours Pass

    • Gabriel: Okay, I’m just now reading all the new stuff and there’s a lot to go through, so I’m going to post comments on things as I make my way down. With the Starcraft analogy, you’re saying that they shouldn’t skip ahead and start with the more advanced parts because it takes away from some of the richness and appreciation of playing the game, right? So you get a fuller enjoyment and better experience from experiencing it all and not just a small piece right? Well what if they have played the other campaigns first before? What if they’ve been playing Starcraft a long time and they’ve been through the earlier parts many times before with previous playings? You already know what all that is, and yeah, the enjoyment won’t be as gradual when you skip it this time, but you don’t care. You already know what that all is and you just don’t feel like going through it this time. You just want to start at the part that you like and go for it. There’s nothing wrong with that, and it certainly doesn’t lead to any problems in society. It has no impact at all beyond itself. It seems that your argument seems to mostly apply to losing your virginity and not sex itself, and I can agree that there’s something nice about losing your virginity in the context of a good and loving relationship, but not everyone wants that, not everyone’s minds work the same way, and it’s not up to you to degrade people for doing what seems good to them.
  • Gabriel: Furthermore, if a variety of experience leads to a fuller enjoyment, don’t you think that people who’ve had both casual sex and sex in a relationship are going to have more enjoyable sex? They’ve done it from more perspectives, they’ve experienced each, so they know which one they like more and can appreciate it more from also trying the one that they didn’t like as much. Who are you, who’s never done either, to tell them which one they’ll like better? Some people honestly don’t like relationships and really do enjoy casual sex more. It’s not for everyone, I know it’s not for me, but some people like it, and why should they be deprived of the thing they like more just because you don’t like it more?
  • Gabriel:Alright, I think this is going to be the last thing I say.”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. Think of it as a harmless experiment with little risk and vast potential.”So you’re being insulting and making people feel bad about what they’re doing, just so to see if maybe they’ll like it more if they try it your way? What makes you think they haven’t already tried it your way? Even if promiscuity is the norm, everyone’s raised optimistic and told that love is the greatest thing you can achieve in life and getting married is the ultimate goal and all that. Even if their parents don’t raise them that way, movies and popular culture in general do. Almost everyone does start off trying love first. For a lot of them, it doesn’t work for various reasons and they turn to promiscuity. Everyone will be happy with something different though, and although other people can possibly help guide them toward their happiness, no one can tell anyone else what will make them happy. That’s up to each person to find on their own, and almost anyone who doesn’t give up or buy into some cult will figure themselves out eventually. You insulting them (and don’t say you aren’t, you even used the word “insultingly” in the status) does not help them find their way. Not even a little. Even if you’re right about them, you’re approaching it from the completely wrong way. When have you ever taken the advice of someone who insulted you? Ever, in your entire life? ‘Your promiscuity is what’s wrong with the world’ is never going to be as effective as ‘let’s talk about it for a while and genuinely try to find what will make you happy based on your past experiences’. Making them feel bad about themselves can only lead to suicide, depression, and other things like that. Do you think anyone has ever been won over to Westboro’s side because they saw their “God hates fags” signs and it changed their mind? Aggression is never the road worth taking unless it’s in self-defense. Fuck you for trying to make people feel bad about themselves. Gabe out.
  • Kassy: I’m sorry James. But if we look up the actual rules and styles of debate. All evidence you provided and had to search for after the initial post are invalid forms of evidence. Also a debate is about evidence and speed seeing as you have neither to keep up with the debate you side has formally lost on it’s own accord of not having any supporters (including yourself for the contridictory attitude).
  • Kassy: On my lasy side not this was about Promiscious- characterized by or involving indiscriminate mingling or association, especially having sexual relations with a number of partners on a casual basis. Now if we take the time to read this we learn it is not about having sex to early in a relationship or any of those matters. The original debate was supposed to be about people having sexual relations without having an emotional relationship. And all you seem to care about supporting is having sex to early in a relationship or infidelities.
  • Daniel: This is kind of the root problem: you’re comparing what you think things are like today based on limited experience with your peers based on what you assume the past was like, based on stuff you’re heard. The story that makes it down the pike isn’t the same one you’ll hear on the ground. That’s why you have to use empirical data and not movies and rumors.

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: