<p>Oh, Nick...</p>
<p>Please stop with the self-righteous condemnation of other people's choices. You won't change anybody's mind, and you're only making yourself look silly.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think hooking up is just plain wrong - for both guys and girls. It shows you have no self-control over your emotions and feelings. That is what makes you a BAD character. I, and many people that I know would hate it if the person they married five or six years later turned out to be "loose" in the past. I just don't have any respect for these people. You may do, but I don't. I think they're extremely selfish and greedy people lacking any self-control or morals.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You can argue all you want. But I've have shown that if hooking up is immoral, then that would contradict the core principals of morals(i.e making others happy). Because as you've said, hooking up makes people happy at the moment. Now consider the case in which it is done in moderation. Here, the people are not going to be hurt in the future because it doesn't interfere with any essential things in life. Really, it only hurts if it becomes compulsive.</p>
<p>
[quote]
MightyNick I don't see how it helps you recharge? It will only make you more stressed out, since you're only "hooking-up", and not actually doing the real thing, which releases this chemical in the brain that reduces stress.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>it does because it gives you something to take your mind off stressful work, like school work. I'm not saying to ignore school work. But a respite every once in a while is a good thing. Especially if you done so much homework that you can't concentrate anymore.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Oh, Nick...</p>
<p>Please stop with the self-righteous condemnation of other people's choices. You won't change anybody's mind, and you're only making yourself look silly.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You're the silly one promiscuous girl, if you think hooking up is moral.</p>
<p>Hooray! Here comes the first ad hominem attack to support a losing argument!</p>
<p>I'd also like to issue a reminder again that this isn't a black-and-white issue. It isn't a choice between virginity until marriage ("moral") and indiscriminate sleeping around ("wickedness and dissolution"). I'll offer you a few scenarios along the spectrum; you may tell me where you draw the line.</p>
<p>Repeated hook-ups with multiple strangers.
One-time hook-up with a stranger.
One-time hook-up with a friend.
Repeated hook-up with same friend.
Sex within a short-term, not-terribly-serious relationship.
Sex within a serious long-term relationship.
Sex within marriage, and only then.
No sex at all, ever.</p>
<p>And that's not even covering everything that can be done short of intercourse (kissing, touching, certain kinds of dancing) or all possible permutations of it.</p>
<p>When my boyfriend broke up with me in October, I kissed my closest male friend on the rebound. Some clothes came off, but not all; I didn't have sex with him. We were both sober, and I was honest with my boyfriend the next day when we agreed to try again. Does that make me immoral?</p>
<p>I wasn't in love with my boyfriend the first time we had sex, or even the second or third or fourth. That didn't happen until two months later -- he said it first. I might marry him one day, but we're eighteen and in love, and we aren't waiting to find out. Does that make me immoral?</p>
<p>
promiscuous girl
One partner. Nine-month relationship following five-month friendship. We were both virgins. See above.</p>
<p>And even if I were, so what? My chastity or lack thereof is hardly my defining characteristic.</p>
<p>Men secretly want to marry virgins because they can't stand criticism...</p>
<p>I can handle criticism, and I can dish it out, too (women, don't kid yourselves, men aren't the only one's that can be bad in bed).</p>
<p>But nah, the reasons are deeper than that. A lot of guys just simply don't want a chick that's been with other guys, because she's deflowered and -ruined.- There's no logic behind this, just instinct, I guess. </p>
<p>I don't care if a chick's a virgin or not, as long as she hasn't been around, because who's kidding who guys? Unless you kidnap a chick in grade school and keep her in your closet, you're not getting a virgin, no matter what she tells you.</p>
<p>
A lot of guys just simply don't want a chick that's been with other guys, because she's deflowered and -ruined.- There's no logic behind this, just instinct, I guess.
The word is "misogyny." I've always found that double standard -- and society's fixation on female virginity in general -- deeply disturbing.</p>
<p>... And yes, there used to be an evolutionary reason for strict control of female sexuality (to assure paternity), but modern contraception has reduced it to a sad anachronism.</p>
<p>"When my boyfriend broke up with me in October, I kissed my closest male friend on the rebound... Does that make me immoral?"</p>
<p>Nope, just fickle and temporarily needing validation. </p>
<p>"And yes, there used to be an evolutionary reason for strict control of female sexuality (to assure paternity), but modern contraception has reduced it to a sad anachronism."</p>
<p>No. 10% is an often estimated figure of children who were not sired by the men believed to be their fathers. Men have a great deal to fear about getting tricked into raising someone else's seed. </p>
<p>Male and female sexuality are inherently different, pretending otherwise is foolish. Modern notions of equality cannot erase hundreds of thousands if not millions of years of evolution. It's not men tacitly conspiring to try and subjugate women.</p>
<p>^ And yet, natural =/= moral; that's the naturalistic fallacy.</p>
<p>I'm well aware of the naturalistic fallacy. When did I try and provide moral justification for anything? You're going to need to read and think more carefully than that to be successful at Harvard, doc.</p>
<p>
That statement reeks of determinism. In other words, you're saying that men are biologically unable to change their attitudes towards women? I'd say that's an unfair judgment of your own sex.
[QUOTE=Easy]
It's not men tacitly conspiring to try and subjugate women.
I never said it was. It's many, but not all men failing to examine their preconceptions (many of which are socially conditioned) critically.</p>
<p>Like I said, there's absolutely an evolutionary component, but that hardly implies a total lack of agency.</p>
<p>
Male and female sexuality are inherently different, pretending otherwise is foolish.
Setting reproduction aside for a minute, could you elaborate on that? I'm not questioning your claim, but I am curious about what specifically you're referring to.</p>
<p>"That statement reeks of determinism. In other words, you're saying that men are biologically unable to change their attitudes towards women? I'd say that's an unfair judgment of your own sex."</p>
<p>Not attitudes, but instinct--instinct can be manually overriden, but not eliminated or erased.</p>
<p>On a personal level, I of course want to pursue my own sexual self interests. Girls will pursue their own sexual self interests. Humans are flexible and will compromise, like my girlfriend and I do for a relationship, for instance.</p>
<p>"Setting reproduction aside for a minute, could you elaborate on that? I'm not questioning your claim, but I am curious about what specifically you're referring to."</p>
<p>Males and females are satisfied by different patterns of sexual behavior. For example, the book "Unprotected" explores how college-aged (Columbia University students, to be exact) females are emotionally damaged by uncommitted sex, yet are still implicitly encouraged to do so because of gender-equality-based political correctness.</p>
<p>I've no idea how this could be studied empirically, if at all, but I'd love to know how much of that emotional damage resulted from neurological hardwiring and how much resulted from social conditioning. Most girls are taught that having casual sex (or any sex, really) makes them dirty, undesirable whores; boys don't receive anywhere near that level of negative reinforcement, and it doesn't seem entirely implausible that this could influence the results. It's the whole "he's a stud, she's a slut" dichotomy all over again. There may very well be hormonal differences, too, but I'd be very hesitant to point to biology as the only conceivable explanation.</p>
<p>Of course, I haven't read the study, so it's difficult for me to say. :)</p>
<p>Well... the thing is, in every species in the animal kingdom, the gender that incurs the greater reproductive cost to bear a child is more sexually coy, sexually reserved, and choosy about mates. For almost all species, the female (the female of a species is the gender with the larger sex cells) is the gender that incurs the greater reproductive cost. Ape sexual behavior is very similar to human sexual behavior, and much of human sexual behavior that could be tempting to explain with culture is especially observable in apes, which points to a biological cause.</p>
<p>Cultural norms can be viewed as a evolutionary product; of course, culture often gets too extreme and over does it.</p>
<p>Have you been reading Richard Dawkins? That looks like a paragraph out of The Selfish Gene.</p>
<p>Honestly, I'm conflicted. I've read the evolutionary arguments, but I'm wary of overstating their influence on behavior, especially given that my own experiences have often seemed to contradict them. Of course, any argument where n=1 isn't especially persuasive -- so I don't know.</p>
<p>In other news, I've totally derailed this thread. Sorry, q-mark!</p>
<p>Schools to veer away form if you're into this counter-culture crap:</p>
<p>Vanderbilt, Hampden-Sydney, ...</p>