On the ethics of dating awful people

[Ayytaly]

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.

"I can change him! I can stop him from committing crime!"

[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.

"I can change him! I can stop him from committing crime!"

Yes I deserved that... I really should have said:
If they are willing to learn from you, they can become "less awful" ...

[Saiwania]

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.

STIs, sure- worry about that. But whether someone you're with is a virgin or not, usually won't effect you either way. You can't exactly hold it against them if perhaps they just lived a different life than you did prior to having met you and just happen to have had more of certain experiences.

It's more common broadly speaking, for two people to not be virgins or for one person to be a virgin but the other one to not be, the older people get. As celibate as people have become compared to how it was in the past, most people do eventually manage to have sex at least once before dying.

[The Blaatschapen]

I've dated awful people. then I learned through the course of dating that they were awful and dumped them (or got dumped because they're awful).

It happens, it's not too big a deal unless it damages people.

[Thepeopl]

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.

If you don't have that conversation, about past lovers and sexual preferences.... you really should not have sex with that person. If you don't dare to ask if they have a sti, go donate blood together. (In a country where they have very strict blood regulations). If you can donate together, you are both sti free.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

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.

If you don't have that conversation, about past lovers and sexual preferences.... you really should not have sex with that person. If you don't dare to ask if they have a sti, go donate blood together. (In a country where they have very strict blood regulations). If you can donate together, you are both sti free.

What if someone's ineligible to donate blood because of a non-sexually-transmitted disease?

[GuessTheAltAccount]

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.

Men can force women to abort, but that's both immoral AND illegal.

What we need is some incentive NOT to resort to the baby trap that offsets all natural incentives TO resort to the baby trap.

Deliberately trapping someone with a baby aside, who knows what other incentives exist to pretend she wouldn't keep the baby if the condom broke; or even pretend to be more certain than she actually is?

[Galloism]

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.

Men can force women to abort, but that's both immoral AND illegal.

What we need is some incentive NOT to resort to the baby trap that offsets all natural incentives TO resort to the baby trap.

Deliberately trapping someone with a baby aside, who knows what other incentives exist to pretend she wouldn't keep the baby if the condom broke; or even pretend to be more certain than she actually is?

It’s not even about baby trapping or whatever.

It’s about right to reproduction or lack thereof. No one should be forced to be a legal parent. We don’t force women, and men should have the same rights.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Men can force women to abort, but that's both immoral AND illegal.

What we need is some incentive NOT to resort to the baby trap that offsets all natural incentives TO resort to the baby trap.

Deliberately trapping someone with a baby aside, who knows what other incentives exist to pretend she wouldn't keep the baby if the condom broke; or even pretend to be more certain than she actually is?

It’s not even about baby trapping or whatever.

It’s about right to reproduction or lack thereof. No one should be forced to be a legal parent. We don’t force women, and men should have the same rights.

I do think forcing fatherhood on men who financially can't even afford it yet and not only throwing them into poverty but also depriving the world of a future engineer or doctor is several steps more heinous than forcing fatherhood on men who merely don't want it yet.

My proposed solution? Amount of child support owed in total; and especially amount of it owed by the biological father; MUST be based on a paternity test to prove he wasn't deceived and MUST be based on whether the courts deem it more likely that she lied about whether or not she'd keep the baby than he did about whether or not he'd stay. Anything else is a slap in the face not just to the guys who thought they were just having mutual fun with someone who wanted it, but to the women who just want some mutual fun and don't get to have a turn with guys who'd probably have been just as good in bed or more if they weren't so risk-averse.

[Major-Tom]

A fairly cut and dry question made more confounding by the OP's rant. Girls can be shitty. Guys can be shitty. People not on the gender binary can be shitty. Shitty people can and do gaslight, abuse, emotionally scar, lie and manipulate regardless of their gender.

A well-known and well-accepted "secret" to a happy life is not to date these people. That isn't always easy, the red flags of an "awful person" can be hard to see when you're feeling infatuated or when you've been manipulated. I would know, I've had a relationship that left me emotionally abused and with a large therapy bill. Took a while to recover, and I hate admitting that to myself. On the bright side, now I know how to spot the red flags better, and that it's some degree of unethical to date awful people if you know they're awful from the get-go.

[Cannot think of a name]

I've dated awful people. then I learned through the course of dating that they were awful and dumped them (or got dumped because they're awful).

It happens, it's not too big a deal unless it damages people.

I think I've been the awful person in most my relationships. Not the weird shit in the OP, but...objectively not the hero.

Hopefully all I did was take up some of their time. I'm friends with half of them, they seem fine.

[Xelsis]

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.

Quite literally, yes. But, from a secular perspective, the single greatest driver of poverty in the incredibly wealthy United States is single motherhood. The country has poured some twenty trillion dollars into the War on Poverty only to end up with more or less the same poverty rate as fifty years ago, because of the dramatic increase in single parenthood as a result of the sexual revolution. One can consider casual sex perfectly fine for the adults involved, and still recognize the harm to children growing up in poverty that came as a result.

[Cannot think of a name]

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

Quite literally, yes. But, from a secular perspective, the single greatest driver of poverty in the incredibly wealthy United States is single motherhood. The country has poured some twenty trillion dollars into the War on Poverty only to end up with more or less the same poverty rate as fifty years ago, because of the dramatic increase in single parenthood as a result of the sexual revolution. One can consider casual sex perfectly fine for the adults involved, and still recognize the harm to children growing up in poverty that came as a result.

This is gonna need some charts and graphs, because there are a whoooooooole lotta factors that weigh into these things to lay it all on the shoulders of the 'sexual revolution.'

[Xelsis]

Quite literally, yes. But, from a secular perspective, the single greatest driver of poverty in the incredibly wealthy United States is single motherhood. The country has poured some twenty trillion dollars into the War on Poverty only to end up with more or less the same poverty rate as fifty years ago, because of the dramatic increase in single parenthood as a result of the sexual revolution. One can consider casual sex perfectly fine for the adults involved, and still recognize the harm to children growing up in poverty that came as a result.

This is gonna need some charts and graphs, because there are a whoooooooole lotta factors that weigh into these things to lay it all on the shoulders of the 'sexual revolution.'

The data is pretty clear, single motherhood has increased dramatically since the 60s, and child poverty is dramatically higher in such households, there's no real debate there: https://phys.org/news/2014-12-children- ... other.html. Unless, that is, your argument is that the dramatic increase in unmarried births from casual sex following the sexual revolution is unrelated to the encouragement of casual sex between unmarried partners by the sexual revolution. I don't think it's a particularly controversial assertion to note that present-day sexual mores are much more accepting of casual extramarital sex than in the past, but if you really need hard data for that, historical polling shows it directly: https://news.gallup.com/poll/3163/Major ... -Okay.aspx, https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/blog/go ... arital-sex.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

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

Quite literally, yes. But, from a secular perspective, the single greatest driver of poverty in the incredibly wealthy United States is single motherhood. The country has poured some twenty trillion dollars into the War on Poverty only to end up with more or less the same poverty rate as fifty years ago, because of the dramatic increase in single parenthood as a result of the sexual revolution. One can consider casual sex perfectly fine for the adults involved, and still recognize the harm to children growing up in poverty that came as a result.

Interesting topic, but still distinct from this one. New thread created so we can continue the tangent here:

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=507573

[New haven america]

what the fuck even is this thread

[The Black Forrest]

I've dated awful people. then I learned through the course of dating that they were awful and dumped them (or got dumped because they're awful).

It happens, it's not too big a deal unless it damages people.

Sometimes people don't realize people will drag them down with their problems. I dated a girl who was a drug abuser. Hid it pretty well for the most part. She over dossed once. Stayed with her through the recovery and she went right back to her usual routine. Her mom (dad was gone) one day advised me to stop seeing her as she was going to put her in rehab. As she said it "You are a nice kid and I don't want to see her change you." Got an apology letter once; never saw her again.

[Cannot think of a name]

This is gonna need some charts and graphs, because there are a whoooooooole lotta factors that weigh into these things to lay it all on the shoulders of the 'sexual revolution.'

The data is pretty clear, single motherhood has increased dramatically since the 60s, and child poverty is dramatically higher in such households, there's no real debate there: https://phys.org/news/2014-12-children- ... other.html.

Huh, the science people didn't reach the same conclusion that you did.

Changing the current dynamic will be difficult, the authors write. It would require giving less-educated women incentives to invest in education and careers and to use more reliable contraceptive methods, McLanahan and Jencks said. At the same time, the economic prospects of the young men who father the children also must improve.

I'm guessing it's because your solution actually increases instances of teen pregnancy, the very thing you're railing against.

Unless, that is, your argument is that the dramatic increase in unmarried births from casual sex following the sexual revolution is unrelated to the encouragement of casual sex between unmarried partners by the sexual revolution. I don't think it's a particularly controversial assertion to note that present-day sexual mores are much more accepting of casual extramarital sex than in the past, but if you really need hard data for that, historical polling shows it directly: https://news.gallup.com/poll/3163/Major ... -Okay.aspx, https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/blog/go ... arital-sex.

But again, telling teenagers to not have sex increases teen pregnancy. so your solution makes your problem worse.

[Tsaivao]

what the fuck even is this thread

GTAA's threads are on such an esoteric level of pure intellectual gibberish that it could be put in a museum so that future aliens can be just as confused. It's the purple prose of NSG threads

[The Black Forrest]

This is gonna need some charts and graphs, because there are a whoooooooole lotta factors that weigh into these things to lay it all on the shoulders of the 'sexual revolution.'

The data is pretty clear, single motherhood has increased dramatically since the 60s, and child poverty is dramatically higher in such households, there's no real debate there: https://phys.org/news/2014-12-children- ... other.html. Unless, that is, your argument is that the dramatic increase in unmarried births from casual sex following the sexual revolution is unrelated to the encouragement of casual sex between unmarried partners by the sexual revolution. I don't think it's a particularly controversial assertion to note that present-day sexual mores are much more accepting of casual extramarital sex than in the past, but if you really need hard data for that, historical polling shows it directly: https://news.gallup.com/poll/3163/Major ... -Okay.aspx, https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/blog/go ... arital-sex.

Well now. I am child of the 60s and of a single divorced mother. My stellar image of a male breadwinner ran out on us when I was five. I had my time of delinquency in fact my moral latitudes are what got me into the DoD. Did we live in poverty. Pretty much. There were days where I went to school without a lunch or had a piece of fruit. I donated what was available to my sister as she was little.

One things these research attempts over look are the attitudes of the time. A single unwed mother of two would get gossip going, tsk tsks and head shakes. Of course the occasional snide comment. My mom believed in the masturbation dream of conservatives of the time (I am sure they are still out there) where the man worked and the woman was at home with the children. When she was alone; she had not skills. She took government assistance and went to school. She would have a career in Labor and Delivery that went over 40 years. Not bad for wasting money on the war on poverty eh?

As to my going into poverty? There were tough times especially when the Republicans were calling the shots. Still I made much more money then my parents. More then my parent-in-laws combined.

If you want to end this kind of problem? Try supporting the women. For example; free neo natal care would do wonders preventing future problems for the country and these people. Proper food and child support would do wonders as well. The problem? "I pay too much taxes already." It's easier to bitch about it then to try and actually solve it. It's easier to do things like food shame children then see they are actually fed a decent meal.

It's not a simple problem and it's going to take better people then we have to solve it.

[Thepeopl]

If you don't have that conversation, about past lovers and sexual preferences.... you really should not have sex with that person. If you don't dare to ask if they have a sti, go donate blood together. (In a country where they have very strict blood regulations). If you can donate together, you are both sti free.

What if someone's ineligible to donate blood because of a non-sexually-transmitted disease?

Then you need to have that honest conversation about sexual partners/ behaviour and diseases.
Offer to go to a doctor together and have yourselves tested on all sti. I don't know how this is organized in other countries. In the Netherlands youngsters under 25 can be tested in STI centres of the GGD for free. If you are older, you still can be tested there, you'll just have to pay for the test. And you can always just ask your family doctor to test your blood.

[East Indian Archipelago]

I don't date awful people. Well, I used to - learned the hard way (a few times) that dating awful people would only result in hurt feelings, heartaches, etc. creates more problems than it's worth

That being said, I'm aware that in some cases "Awful" is subjective, yes, what's "awful" for some people may not be for others, e.g. expressing controversial opinions (not hate speech, of course) for someone may be considered awful while another person would be fine with it

Me personally I look at signs during early stages of acquaintanceship (platonic, friendship, non-romantic, whatever). If there are signs of incompatible values, I'd automatically disqualify the other person as anything more than an acquaintance or a (work/outside work)friend for networking purposes

[Galloism]

It’s not even about baby trapping or whatever.

It’s about right to reproduction or lack thereof. No one should be forced to be a legal parent. We don’t force women, and men should have the same rights.

I do think forcing fatherhood on men who financially can't even afford it yet and not only throwing them into poverty but also depriving the world of a future engineer or doctor is several steps more heinous than forcing fatherhood on men who merely don't want it yet.

My proposed solution? Amount of child support owed in total; and especially amount of it owed by the biological father; MUST be based on a paternity test to prove he wasn't deceived and MUST be based on whether the courts deem it more likely that she lied about whether or not she'd keep the baby than he did about whether or not he'd stay. Anything else is a slap in the face not just to the guys who thought they were just having mutual fun with someone who wanted it, but to the women who just want some mutual fun and don't get to have a turn with guys who'd probably have been just as good in bed or more if they weren't so risk-averse.

How about we just give men the same choice we give women: for some short period after birth (or knowledge) they can determine if they wish to be legal parents or not.

Cuts out a lot of paperwork and what if’s and tests and just gives men the same legal rights as women.

[Latvijas Otra Republika]

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"

It’s sound to me as a ‘nice guys finish last’ thing. Relationships and people are complicated and the op takes too many baseless assumptions, the entire concept sounds too much like a self projection to be taken seriously.

[A m e n r i a]

I'm not sure what the point is, tbh.