On the ethics of dating awful people

[GuessTheAltAccount]

*DISCLAIMER: The term "guy" and "gal" are not meant to try to sound cool or hip or whatever, but to put aside the ages of those involved and focus on what teenage dating and adult dating have in common to put aside whatever they have different. I could have said "males" and "females" but then people would make me out to be some kind of Ferengi-wannabe.

Anyway, without further ado...

If a guy were to date a gal who happened to be an especially reprehensible person, I don't think much harm would be done to others not involved. If he rejected her, she would need only keep asking guys out until one of them said yes, so any harm that'd result from dating her would need a coordinated sexual boycott of these women to achieve; good luck enforcing such a boycott amidst the privacy of bedrooms. But I also don't think many gals are so desperate for a guy that they would imitate her behaviour to get guys; any gal could have a guy for the night, none could be certain to have him be hers and only hers. (As Bill Maher once said, "Hugh Grant had Elizabeth Hurley at home; he wanted Marvin Hagler in a wig!")

If on the other hand a gal were to date a guy who happened to be an especially reprehensible person, there is... possibly some cause for concern that guys who would be otherwise!better people could imitate his behaviours in the hopes of improving his sexual or romantic chances. Every guy knows that if one of the gals he has sex with before he's done college gets pregnant and keeps the baby, she has the right to go after him for child support, trapping him in dire poverty that prevents him from becoming another doctor or engineer the world may need. And yet, in the heat of the moment, any sense of obligation to the rest of the world takes a back seat to the desire to have sex with her. This isn't the behaviour of the "especially reprehensible," this is the behaviour of the average guy. If obligation to the rest of the world takes a backseat to sexual desires then and there, why wouldn't it elsewhere?

The other side of it is, different people have different opinions on what makes someone a good or awful person; politics alone presents us with many disputes over what is the right or wrong thing to do, much less what those actions say about the people who engage in them. So I would hope that we have better incentives for better behaviour than to let mutual sexual pleasure take a back seat to some social agenda or whatever. But I wouldn't count on it either.

For the record, I do not claim to know who to believe on whether or not such concerns are valid in the first place. I actually first heard of such concerns right here on NSG years ago, and thought they were valid because the people who said otherwise jumped to false conclusions about myself for even so much as entertaining them. Then I saw parallels between how I talked in response and how people had since talked about my sister over who she was dating and suddenly felt like I was on the opposite side of the issue. Looking back I'm not sure which of those times I was right and which of those times I was wrong.

[Ethel mermania]

Some serious sexism here. Enjoy

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Some serious sexism here. Enjoy

Eh, most of the people claiming to disagree it can in separate contexts be caught invoking the same stereotypes with which they supposedly disagree. I'll take their criticisms with a grain of salt.

[Ethel mermania]

Some serious sexism here. Enjoy

Eh, most of the people claiming to disagree it can in separate contexts be caught invoking the same stereotypes with which they supposedly disagree. I'll take their criticisms with a grain of salt.

Other people being sexist doesn't excuse you from it

And your OP is loaded with it.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Eh, most of the people claiming to disagree it can in separate contexts be caught invoking the same stereotypes with which they supposedly disagree. I'll take their criticisms with a grain of salt.

Other people being sexist doesn't excuse you from it

And your OP is loaded with it.

If such stereotypes' critics tend to be two-faced about it at best, and completely and utterly faking their criticisms at worst, doesn't that reflect poorly on the collective credibility of critics of such stereotypes, and in turn, well on such stereotypes?

[Just-An-Illusion]

If the person your dating is awful personality wise. Then you can just break up with them.

[Nilokeras]

For the record, I do not claim to know who to believe on whether or not such concerns are valid in the first place. I actually first heard of such concerns right here on NSG years ago, and thought they were valid because the people who said otherwise jumped to false conclusions about myself for even so much as entertaining them.

Nothing more fun than twee alt accounts laundering weird sexism because they got blowback on main last time

[GuessTheAltAccount]

For the record, I do not claim to know who to believe on whether or not such concerns are valid in the first place. I actually first heard of such concerns right here on NSG years ago, and thought they were valid because the people who said otherwise jumped to false conclusions about myself for even so much as entertaining them.

Nothing more fun than twee alt accounts laundering weird sexism because they got blowback on main last time

Blowback is one thing. False assumptions about me discredit the people making them.

[Senkaku]

*DISCLAIMER: The term "guy" and "gal" are not meant to try to sound cool or hip or whatever, but to put aside the ages of those involved and focus on what teenage dating and adult dating have in common to put aside whatever they have different. I could have said "males" and "females" but then people would make me out to be some kind of Ferengi-wannabe.

I find you guilty of heteronormativity and sentence you to be cancelled at dawn

Anyway, without further ado...

If a guy were to date a gal who happened to be an especially reprehensible person, I don't think much harm would be done to others not involved. If he rejected her, she would need only keep asking guys out until one of them said yes, so any harm that'd result from dating her would need a coordinated sexual boycott of these women to achieve; good luck enforcing such a boycott amidst the privacy of bedrooms. But I also don't think many gals are so desperate for a guy that they would imitate her behaviour to get guys; any gal could have a guy for the night, none could be certain to have him be hers and only hers. (As Bill Maher once said, "Hugh Grant had Elizabeth Hurley at home; he wanted Marvin Hagler in a wig!")

If on the other hand a gal were to date a guy who happened to be an especially reprehensible person, there is... possibly some cause for concern that guys who would be otherwise!better people could imitate his behaviours in the hopes of improving his sexual or romantic chances. Every guy knows that if one of the gals he has sex with before he's done college gets pregnant and keeps the baby, she has the right to go after him for child support, trapping him in dire poverty that prevents him from becoming another doctor or engineer the world may need. And yet, in the heat of the moment, any sense of obligation to the rest of the world takes a back seat to the desire to have sex with her. This isn't the behaviour of the "especially reprehensible," this is the behaviour of the average guy. If obligation to the rest of the world takes a backseat to sexual desires then and there, why wouldn't it elsewhere?

The other side of it is, different people have different opinions on what makes someone a good or awful person; politics alone presents us with many disputes over what is the right or wrong thing to do, much less what those actions say about the people who engage in them. So I would hope that we have better incentives for better behaviour than to let mutual sexual pleasure take a back seat to some social agenda or whatever. But I wouldn't count on it either.

For the record, I do not claim to know who to believe on whether or not such concerns are valid in the first place. I actually first heard of such concerns right here on NSG years ago, and thought they were valid because the people who said otherwise jumped to false conclusions about myself for even so much as entertaining them. Then I saw parallels between how I talked in response and how people had since talked about my sister over who she was dating and suddenly felt like I was on the opposite side of the issue. Looking back I'm not sure which of those times I was right and which of those times I was wrong.

I don’t really know what you’re saying or asking but it somehow seems vaguely misogynist/essentialist; in any case I would simply suggest not dating people you don’t like or who don’t like you

[Page]

I was FWB for a few years with a guy who I see now in retrospect was a piece of shit. We had some history as kids (he was 2 years older) that I won't go into but I reconnected with him at later in life ecause he was then openly gay and I was exploring my gay side, and then we would hang out and sometimes do things for the next 6 years. Some of the highlights of him being a scumbag include him lying to me that the girl I liked thought I was weird and creepy as some kind of jealousy thing I guess, and the worst was when he made out with me when I was blackout drunk and then someone saw it and told his husband and he told his husband I forced myself on him. He was also a racist and was always manipulating people. There was no dramatic end to it all, I just started gradually ghosting him over the course of a year.

Reflecting on it, I don't think I harmed anyone but myself, I definitely don't think I was enabling or validating his sociopathic behavior, he always was that way and always will be.

Is there an ethical obligation to not form relationships with people like that? I don't think so, I kind of see it more like a bad drug habit in that you are harming yourself and inadvertently and indirectly harming others but that it's not a moral failure, just an ill-advised pattern.

[The Black Forrest]

For the record, I do not claim to know who to believe on whether or not such concerns are valid in the first place. I actually first heard of such concerns right here on NSG years ago, and thought they were valid because the people who said otherwise jumped to false conclusions about myself for even so much as entertaining them.

Nothing more fun than twee alt accounts laundering weird sexism because they got blowback on main last time

Indeed.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Nothing more fun than twee alt accounts laundering weird sexism because they got blowback on main last time

Indeed.

I see you conveniently ignored my response to that.

[The Black Forrest]

Indeed.

I see you conveniently ignored my response to that.

You are correct. I ignored a "nuh-uh" response.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

I see you conveniently ignored my response to that.

You are correct. I ignored a "nuh-uh" response.

More like a correction of a blatant false equivalency between two meaningfully distinct things. Nice try, though.

If reason is on your side, you address things, not ignore them.

[Ethel mermania]

Other people being sexist doesn't excuse you from it

And your OP is loaded with it.

If such stereotypes' critics tend to be two-faced about it at best, and completely and utterly faking their criticisms at worst, doesn't that reflect poorly on the collective credibility of critics of such stereotypes, and in turn, well on such stereotypes?

A valid criticism is a valid criticism no matter the source. Rejecting because the source is bad had nothing to do with whether in this case the OP (post not person) is festering load of sexist crap or not.

[USS Monitor]

The ethics of dating awful people would be an interesting topic if it had a better OP without so much weird sexist baggage.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

A valid criticism is a valid criticism no matter the source.

Sexism can also be valid, depending on the sexism. "Anatomically male people cannot bear children" for instance, so long as it includes the "anatomically" qualifier, can be valid. No, how much else of our behaviour is a result of our anatomy is a bit more subject to dispute, but that's the thing; it needs to be disputed in and of itself. Calling a particular stereotype sexist alone isn't enough, and hearing it from the same people who seem to agree with the exact same stereotypes in other contexts is even worse.

So if the source is not reason enough to dismiss something, neither is whether or not it's "sexist."

[Ifreann]

Sexist gibberish.

[Ethel mermania]

A valid criticism is a valid criticism no matter the source.

Sexism can also be valid, depending on the sexism. "Anatomically male people cannot bear children" for instance, so long as it includes the "anatomically" qualifier, can be valid. No, how much else of our behaviour is a result of our anatomy is a bit more subject to dispute, but that's the thing; it needs to be disputed in and of itself. Calling a particular stereotype sexist alone isn't enough, and hearing it from the same people who seem to agree with the exact same stereotypes in other contexts is even worse.

So if the source is not reason enough to dismiss something, neither is whether or not it's "sexist."

If you think saying biological males can not have babies is sexist, I dont think you fully understand the term.

A woman can be trapped in a marriage because of a child as much as a man can. A man can poke a hole in a rubber just the same way a woman can. Both women and men stay in loveless abusive marriages because of a kid.

I agree with what monitor said, you might have an interesting topic to talk about if you unloaded the bias.

[Heloin]

My eyes glazed over trying to read that so it took me a few attempts, I feel like that was a waste of energy just to read some sexist drivel.

[Vikanias]

Just break up, nothings forcing you to stay in a toxic relationship.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

A woman can be trapped in a marriage because of a child as much as a man can. A man can poke a hole in a rubber just the same way a woman can.

She has the right to abort, though. And while some women admitted from the start they'd keep the baby if the condom broke; and I feel sorry for them and the ones who weren't sure either way at the time; the law makes no distinction, in terms of how much child support is owed, how soon, and how much of it from the gov't and how much from the father; between that and a woman who keeps a baby she said she wouldn't keep.

Therefore, while it's plausible women are just as horny as men and therefore just as likely to lose all regard for effects of unintentional pregnancy and consequences thereof to themselves and the rest of the world, it's not as plainly proven for them as it is by the fact that a guy has no way out, regardless of what she told him she'd do if the condom broke, and this still did not deter them.

I agree with what monitor said, you might have an interesting topic to talk about if you unloaded the bias.

That never stopped NSG from taking a thread and running the other way with it before, now did it?

[GuessTheAltAccount]

*DISCLAIMER: The term "guy" and "gal" are not meant to try to sound cool or hip or whatever, but to put aside the ages of those involved and focus on what teenage dating and adult dating have in common to put aside whatever they have different. I could have said "males" and "females" but then people would make me out to be some kind of Ferengi-wannabe.

I find you guilty of heteronormativity

I'm referring to the average person, not something that would have to apply to 100% of people. In my own teen years I was so obsessed with my crushes that if something would make her think more highly of me, and every other girl think less of me, I'd still have gone for it. Should I have dismissed these sorts of concerns out of hand, then?

EDIT: What if I were to call said sexual orientation at the time "pickysexual"? Would it then be "normal-normativity" to ignore it?

[Page]

I find you guilty of heteronormativity

I'm referring to the average person, not something that would have to apply to 100% of people. In my own teen years I was so obsessed with my crushes that if something would make her think more highly of me, and every other girl think less of me, I'd still have gone for it. Should I have dismissed these sorts of concerns out of hand, then?

EDIT: What if I were to call said sexual orientation at the time "pickysexual"? Would it then be "normal-normativity" to ignore it?

Everyone was that way with their crushes when they were in their teens, it's part of being a teen.

[Ethel mermania]

A woman can be trapped in a marriage because of a child as much as a man can. A man can poke a hole in a rubber just the same way a woman can.

She has the right to abort, though. And while some women admitted from the start they'd keep the baby if the condom broke; and I feel sorry for them and the ones who weren't sure either way at the time; the law makes no distinction, in terms of how much child support is owed, how soon, and how much of it from the gov't and how much from the father; between that and a woman who keeps a baby she said she wouldn't keep.

Therefore, while it's plausible women are just as horny as men and therefore just as likely to lose all regard for effects of unintentional pregnancy and consequences thereof to themselves and the rest of the world, it's not as plainly proven for them as it is by the fact that a guy has no way out, regardless of what she told him she'd do if the condom broke, and this still did not deter them.

I agree with what monitor said, you might have an interesting topic to talk about if you unloaded the bias.

That never stopped NSG from taking a thread and running the other way with it before, now did it?

In some places women can't get abortions.

Men get child support as well, whoever cares for the child most generally receive it. Plenty of women treat their kids like crap and leave the family. Women can abandon a baby just like a man can.

Your point about threads is true enough