On the ethics of dating awful people

[Galloism]

Life is hard, but I'd suggest we start by building self esteem in people that they are fine to be themselves and don't need another person to make them happy.

That means ending the "virgin" insult usage and stuff like that, which implies a person is not complete within themselves. It'll probably be gradual, but ultimately the best society is where every person is content to be by themselves - and chooses to be with another person out of choice, not societal pressure.

Trouble is, if we artificially stacked the deck against the form of spontaneous sincerity that is their choice in insults, that would enable such people to disguise themselves as people who don't look down on virginity.

For comparison, suppose the most overweight of Trump's critics succeeded in shutting up people who made cheap shots at Trump's weight. Would we have discovered their innate disgust for the overweight otherwise, or would they have been able to go about their day pretending they don't think less of the overweight?

Suppose the school board succeeded at shutting up students who call everything they don't like gay and everyone they don't like a faggot. Would we have discovered their innate contempt for homosexuality otherwise, or would they have been able to go about their day pretending they don't think less of homosexuals?

Surveys have failed, brain scans have failed, everything else has failed. Spontaneous sincerity is the last stand on Earth.

So, I'm not suggesting muzzling people exactly. Like, I don't think we should make people wear shock collars and if they say "virgin" it gives em a zap. But I do think we should look down on people who use it as an insult and as a society suggest that such things aren't really ok.

Think about what's more important:

That twitter was dominated about comments about Trump's weight and so we know that they hate fat people or,
That twitter could be dominated by actual criticisms about his policies so we know exactly how he was fucking up on the job as president

[GuessTheAltAccount]

I have already addressed this.

Any response that includes words like "picky-sexual" and "normal-normativity" can't hope to be taken as sufficient or sincere. Also, it’s gross to frame queer people as abnormal.

If the average guy doesn't give himself to whichever girl wants him the most, what's he doing attributing virginity to undesirability?

If he's not attributing it to undesirability, where did the instinct to use it as an insult come from?

People with abnormally high IQs are "abnormal" too. Abnormality doesn't have to be a bad thing. If you perceive it as such, that's on you.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Trouble is, if we artificially stacked the deck against the form of spontaneous sincerity that is their choice in insults, that would enable such people to disguise themselves as people who don't look down on virginity.

For comparison, suppose the most overweight of Trump's critics succeeded in shutting up people who made cheap shots at Trump's weight. Would we have discovered their innate disgust for the overweight otherwise, or would they have been able to go about their day pretending they don't think less of the overweight?

Suppose the school board succeeded at shutting up students who call everything they don't like gay and everyone they don't like a faggot. Would we have discovered their innate contempt for homosexuality otherwise, or would they have been able to go about their day pretending they don't think less of homosexuals?

Surveys have failed, brain scans have failed, everything else has failed. Spontaneous sincerity is the last stand on Earth.

So, I'm not suggesting muzzling people exactly. Like, I don't think we should make people wear shock collars and if they say "virgin" it gives em a zap. But I do think we should look down on people who use it as an insult and as a society suggest that such things aren't really ok.

Think about what's more important:

That twitter was dominated about comments about Trump's weight and so we know that they hate fat people or,
That twitter could be dominated by actual criticisms about his policies so we know exactly how he was fucking up on the job as president

Like, we can distinguish whether or not someone's a fat-shamer from whether or not their criticisms of Trump are valid, especially if what they have to say is backed up by real evidence.

But we can't identify people's real opinions on the overweight if we don't know they choose to use it as an insult.

[Enterprising Capitalists]

Any response that includes words like "picky-sexual" and "normal-normativity" can't hope to be taken as sufficient or sincere. Also, it’s gross to frame queer people as abnormal.

If the average guy doesn't give himself to whichever girl wants him the most, what's he doing attributing virginity to undesirability?

If he's not attributing it to undesirability, where did the instinct to use it as an insult come from?

People with abnormally high IQs are "abnormal" too. Abnormality doesn't have to be a bad thing. If you perceive it as such, that's on you.

You've harped on about "average guys" for a while now, but I highly doubt the average straight man cares this much about virginity at all.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

If the average guy doesn't give himself to whichever girl wants him the most, what's he doing attributing virginity to undesirability?

If he's not attributing it to undesirability, where did the instinct to use it as an insult come from?

People with abnormally high IQs are "abnormal" too. Abnormality doesn't have to be a bad thing. If you perceive it as such, that's on you.

You've harped on about "average guys" for a while now, but I highly doubt the average straight man cares this much about virginity at all.

Nah, just the hypocrisy of people who pretend not to look down on it until they get caught using it as an insult.

[Saiwania]

What if said person is a male virgin who wants to be with a female virgin?

Its not very practical or possible, the older you get and the longer you remain celibate. Most people I'd say, eventually let that go and don't care either way. Its okay to settle for only caring about if someone has an STI or not, as opposed to whether they've had previous lovers or not.

If the past is truly the past, people are usually focused on their current relationship and aren't comparing you to another or looking back on what was. So being insecure about the previous person they were with or making some big deal out of it, typically sabotages what could otherwise be a decent enough relationship.

[Galloism]

So, I'm not suggesting muzzling people exactly. Like, I don't think we should make people wear shock collars and if they say "virgin" it gives em a zap. But I do think we should look down on people who use it as an insult and as a society suggest that such things aren't really ok.

Think about what's more important:

That twitter was dominated about comments about Trump's weight and so we know that they hate fat people or,
That twitter could be dominated by actual criticisms about his policies so we know exactly how he was fucking up on the job as president

Like, we can distinguish whether or not someone's a fat-shamer from whether or not their criticisms of Trump are valid, especially if what they have to say is backed up by real evidence.

But we can't identify people's real opinions on the overweight if we don't know they choose to use it as an insult.

So what if I think people's real opinions should be that they look down on people who use overweight (or virgin) as an insult?

[Enterprising Capitalists]

You've harped on about "average guys" for a while now, but I highly doubt the average straight man cares this much about virginity at all.

Nah, just the hypocrisy of people who pretend not to look down on it until they get caught using it as an insult.

And this hypothetical portion of the population is large enough to draw any attention to it? Again these examples feel weirdly specific.

[Ayytaly]

If the average guy doesn't give himself to whichever girl wants him the most, what's he doing attributing virginity to undesirability?

If he's not attributing it to undesirability, where did the instinct to use it as an insult come from?

People with abnormally high IQs are "abnormal" too. Abnormality doesn't have to be a bad thing. If you perceive it as such, that's on you.

You've harped on about "average guys" for a while now, but I highly doubt the average straight man cares this much about virginity at all.

The average man of today is quite different from those the previous decades, and said "average man" is indeed less sexually active.

[Latvijas Otra Republika]

I really, really, don’t understand anything the OP has written down- just one sentence gave me a stroke mid-read.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Nah, just the hypocrisy of people who pretend not to look down on it until they get caught using it as an insult.

And this hypothetical portion of the population is large enough to draw any attention to it? Again these examples feel weirdly specific.

The fact that the average person doesn't actively call them out on it is pretty telling.

[Enterprising Capitalists]

You've harped on about "average guys" for a while now, but I highly doubt the average straight man cares this much about virginity at all.

The average man of today is quite different from those the previous decades, and said "average man" is indeed less sexually active.

I recall reading a similar article myself. Not entirely sure what to think about it, but hopefully it'll stop any weird fixations on virginity. Be they instilled from religion, culture, or misogyny.

And this hypothetical portion of the population is large enough to draw any attention to it? Again these examples feel weirdly specific.

The fact that the average person doesn't actively call them out on it is pretty telling.

You need to meet better average people if the ones you know don't discourage said behavior.

[J o J]

I really, really, don’t understand anything the OP has written down- just one sentence gave me a stroke mid-read.

It's overcomplicated but basically, if I myself understand, it's saying that:

- If a shitty girl gets a guy, other women aren't likely to imitate that behavior to get guys as well.
- On the other hand, if a shitty guy gets a girl, then other guys are likely to imitate said shittiness in order to also get girls, which spreads shittiness.

There's other things in it and some people allege there is sexism embedded in the OP but I don't really give a hoot about any of this because this thread is kinda stupid on an existential level, because all you have to do is just not date shitty people. People won't imitate shittiness if it doesn't get them anywhere. Like others have already said, "be the change you want to see"

[GuessTheAltAccount]

The average man of today is quite different from those the previous decades, and said "average man" is indeed less sexually active.

I recall reading a similar article myself. Not entirely sure what to think about it, but hopefully it'll stop any weird fixations on virginity. Be they instilled from religion, culture, or misogyny.

The fact that the average person doesn't actively call them out on it is pretty telling.

You need to meet better average people if the ones you know don't discourage said behavior.

Oh, I go to the pub for mojitos and stuff like that every now and then. If other patrons don't remember how good I look, the surveillance cameras will! ^_^

But I'm referring more so to online than in-person. My town has a reputation for politeness, so maybe it's more out of politeness that they don't do that sort of thing than out of any actual respect for virgin males.

[Saiwania]

The average man of today is quite different from those the previous decades, and said "average man" is indeed less sexually active.

Its more important these days to avoid getting any woman pregnant and maybe getting stuck with child support or perhaps getting #MeToo-ed with sexual harassment or rape allegations and all the other pitfalls of contemporary struggles between men and women's interests.

One hour or day of physical pleasure, probably isn't worth all of that negative baggage that comes with it.

In the future, men will perhaps by default- have all of the qualifications to become Catholic priests were they actually religious and had the education. We're at a point where people got the celibacy mastered, because it is easier for many to stay alone than to actually go out and meet someone and take enough risks to elevate the courting to where intimacy might happen.

[Ifreann]

I see we've fallen into the usual pattern for these threads. OP says some dumb shit, people point out that it's dumb shit, the OP engages in ill-conceived sophistry to try to somehow prove the dumb shit to be something other than dumb shit.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

I really, really, don’t understand anything the OP has written down- just one sentence gave me a stroke mid-read.

It's overcomplicated but basically, if I myself understand, it's saying that:

- If a shitty girl gets a guy, other women aren't likely to imitate that behavior to get guys as well.
- On the other hand, if a shitty guy gets a girl, then other guys are likely to imitate said shittiness in order to also get girls, which spreads shittiness.

There's other things in it and some people allege there is sexism embedded in the OP but I don't really give a hoot about any of this because this thread is kinda stupid on an existential level, because all you have to do is just not date shitty people. People won't imitate shittiness if it doesn't get them anywhere. Like others have already said, "be the change you want to see"

Firstly, let me take this opportunity to congratulate you for having a... relatively more accurate interpretation of the OP than everyone else in this thread thus far.

That said, might I ask what you make of my reasoning for why I don't think the average male has quite enough willpower to "be the change you want to see"?

[Ayytaly]

What if said person is a male virgin who wants to be with a female virgin?

Its not very practical or possible, the older you get and the longer you remain celibate. Most people I'd say, eventually let that go and don't care either way. Its okay to settle for only caring about if someone has an STI or not, as opposed to whether they've had previous lovers or not.

If the past is truly the past, people are usually focused on their current relationship and aren't comparing you to another or looking back on what was. So being insecure about the previous person they were with or making some big deal out of it, typically sabotages what could otherwise be a decent enough relationship.

But isn't that a legitimate concern? Women tend to be much more secretive about their past lives, and are also more prone to be infected than men, as their organs take days to naturally clean themselves of seminal residue.

[Xelsis]

*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.

This was a bit difficult to suss out the message of, but it seems that this is basically centered around the premise of men abandoning all inhibitions when it comes to sex. This is not exactly inaccurate, statistics and sociology pretty much bear this out to a certain degree, but that does not mean it should simply be dismissed as universal or accepted in general. The proper ethics of dating awful people is that one should not be sleeping with people, awful or otherwise, when dating at all, and it is that behavior that ought to be considered culturally unethical.

[Ayytaly]

The average man of today is quite different from those the previous decades, and said "average man" is indeed less sexually active.

Its more important these days to avoid getting any woman pregnant and maybe getting stuck with child support or perhaps getting #MeToo-ed with sexual harassment or rape allegations and all the other pitfalls of contemporary struggles between men and women's interests.

One hour or day of physical pleasure, probably isn't worth all of that negative baggage that comes with it.

In the future, men will perhaps by default- have all of the qualifications to become Catholic priests were they actually religious and had the education. We're at a point where people got the celibacy mastered, because it is easier for many to stay alone than to actually go out and meet someone and take enough risks to elevate the courting to where intimacy might happen.

Hypergamy, mother of social unrest.

[Tsaivao]

The proper ethics of dating awful people is that one should not be sleeping with people, awful or otherwise, when dating at all, and it is that behavior that ought to be considered culturally unethical.

Damn, sex got canceled guys, gg. God forbid people sleep with each other, that'd be horrible.

[Ayytaly]

The proper ethics of dating awful people is that one should not be sleeping with people, awful or otherwise, when dating at all, and it is that behavior that ought to be considered culturally unethical.

Damn, sex got canceled guys, gg. God forbid people sleep with each other, that'd be horrible.

God forbid STD epidemics, abortions, single motherhoods, and infidelity that--even when proven by the spouse--isn't enough to warrant a divorce without alimony.

[Thepeopl]

The ethics of dating awful ppl...
Right.
If you date/ are in a relationship with an "awful" person, you could bring the best out in them. Thereby reducing the "awfulness" and creating a better world.
On the other hand, they could bring you down to their level, and thus spread more suffering.

Millennials have less sex with other persons, more "selfsex".
https://www.bustle.com/p/how-millennial ... 18-9121392

And the pandemic isn't helping either.

Married ppl have the most sex. Means, motive and opportunity.

As Galloism has said, women can walk out on children too. Men can force women to abort. Too many people have children in an effort to "save" the relationship.

We should educate every person to be responsible, capable, caring and confident. By caring I want to stress that self care is most important. You need to love yourself before you can love someone else. To know you are worthy of love is the best basis of a relationship, imo.

[Ifreann]

*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.

This was a bit difficult to suss out the message of, but it seems that this is basically centered around the premise of men abandoning all inhibitions when it comes to sex. This is not exactly inaccurate, statistics and sociology pretty much bear this out to a certain degree, but that does not mean it should simply be dismissed as universal or accepted in general. The proper ethics of dating awful people is that one should not be sleeping with people, awful or otherwise, when dating at all, and it is that behavior that ought to be considered culturally unethical.

GTAA doesn't understand that stereotypes aren't natural laws.

[Enterprising Capitalists]

The proper ethics of dating awful people is that one should not be sleeping with people, awful or otherwise, when dating at all, and it is that behavior that ought to be considered culturally unethical.

Damn, sex got canceled guys, gg. God forbid people sleep with each other, that'd be horrible.

Yet another victim of senseless cancel culture

Damn, sex got canceled guys, gg. God forbid people sleep with each other, that'd be horrible.

God forbid STD epidemics, abortions, single motherhoods, and infidelity that--even when proven by the spouse--isn't enough to warrant a divorce without alimony.

Ho boy, this thread is reaching its natural conclusion of absurdity pretty quickly