What novels/philosophers would you recommend to girls to prevent them from becoming empowered women aka sex-obsessed soulless clogs in the machine [libertine, hedonistic, materialist, atheistic wine-aunts and lesbian epicurean marxists]?
I know what I'd recommend my sons, but I'm not too familiar with literature for daughters.
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
saintsbooks.net
youtube.com
psychologytoday.com
tandfonline.com
tandfonline.com
theguardian.com
ifstudies.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.m.wikipedia.org
psychologytoday.com
historyhit.com
psypost.org
researchgate.net
journals.sagepub.com
pewresearch.org
chicagotribune.com
drugrehab.com
twitter.com
i'd suggest you watch less youtube and teach your girls the same philosophy you would a boy
>keeping your daughters
Lmao, just drop em off at the fire station and try again
first time i have lold at a post on this site in a while, are you chinese or something
>teach your girls the same you would a boy
There would be some overlap, but not completely the same. Since girls shouldn't be masculine or engage in masculine roles. Also their interests differ, certain novels appeal more to boys than to girls.
What would you recommend to your sons?
Honestly? I'd start from the roots
Nichomachean Ethics
>believing an x tier interpretation of eyes
masculine works, testosterone, goal oriented, violent struggle and virtue oriented. war, career, family, self-sacrifice. Anything from Conan books to Ernest Junger and Dante.
for girls it should be less violent, less cerebral, more sentimental, less career and war oriented, more about nurturing the family, being subservient to your husband, and knowing when to listen instead of being assertive, gossipy and trying to mimic masculine traits.
But I haven't read many female oriented books...
she looks like she's barred out
It’s just skin, dude.
Weininger's Sex and character
Rosalind Franklin and Marie Curie
>masculine works, testosterone, goal oriented, violent struggle and virtue oriented. war, career, family, self-sacrifice. Anything from Conan books to Ernest Junger and Dante.
Bro, don't turn me into an icon of cringe...
she used to be incredilby pretty too
youtube.com
he wouldn't like Conan?
>What novels/philosophers would you recommend to girls to prevent them from becoming empowered women
Wot
No he's posting from a rundown dusty internet cafe in rural Rajasthan, the only one for several miles. It hardly gets any customers. Imagine the sweat and the smell of 100+ degree weather in a tiny enclosed space with but a single fan running at the lowest speed possible. That's what that post is.
>he doesn’t want his daughter to be a philosophical high t chadette that will dominate all her peers in curie-tier intellect levels and guarantee a successful life for her
>he wants his daughter to be a submissive nobody to other men and a family that will only weaken her relationship with said man
yes
maybe just give her human-oriented books, the best choice
>Rajasthan
First time I've ever read anyone mention an Indian state that isn't Kerala or West Bengal
>he doesn't want his daughter to be a manly, infertile,, frustrated dyke
Yes.
Wish it was that easy, but keeping tabs on what company she keeps and seriously limiting social media exposure, while also having a happy fulfilling relationship with your wife is probably more important than any books.
The catholic girls' guide
saintsbooks.net
She looks the same
women shouldn't read, books just confuse them
That book should be required reading for every 16 year old male
Spoken like a true woman
Wat is sauce on left image.
Need books on studying physiognomy
Novels worth reading deal with virtue and suffering, and sadly those are not gender specific.
google sanpaku eyes
>anyone who looks sleepy is a murderer!
You guys have compared those eyes to thousands of people even when those eyes look nothing like the person's you claim that person is still a psychopath.
teach her critical thinking
also Dostoyevski
This life is nothing. The woman's greatest work is the child not some fleeting worldly fame that everyone is chasing
Lmao I like how she proved Weininger's point that women can only remember memories that have to do with their sexuality
exactly. They reduce it to that, which is the real desecration.
this shouldn't even be possible. h-how...?
Based
Don't bring lesbians into this. Genuine lesbians are good because they resist being objectified and then commodified as male sex objects. The problem is just that 99.999999% of "lesbians" are really straight cunts LARPing.
I'm not OP, but in my country, empowered means slutty.
In the sense of "not following traditional lifestyles and sleeping around". Some actresses are huge promoters of this kind of thing.
And some view that as negative or want to prevent women from doing that? Why?
Promiscuity is bad for those who practice it and for society in general.
Hope she's well
Not the user you are replying to but thank you
Here's a very good explanation of the problem of promiscuity and single-motherhood and other such feminist virtues.
In what way? The research I found seems to be saying that there's no evidence that promiscuity makes you happier or unhappier. How is it bad for society?
Can you give the gist of the video?
>How is less and less people settling down and forming stable families bad for society?
Yeah I dunno Sherlock this one truly is a fucking mystery.
He said it's bad for you and society, happiness is a separate question. Children born out of wedlock to single mothers have a higher probability of criminality, delinquency and mental problems. Promiscuity leads to increased chance of abortion, abortion isn't good for women or the babies they murder as they seek to travel the world and experience new cocks.
The more partners a woman has the more likely she is to become divorced upon marriage.
The more time a woman wastes getting her holes drilled by strangers having sterile sex the less time she has to become a mother (female fertility window is not as spacious as male fertility). Also the spread of STDs is increased, etc...do you really need kosher jew-sponsered buzzfeed studies to explain this common sense stuff to you? Come on now, this is Yea Forums not reddit.
That's a bummer, I would've been interested in that too. But what mostly interested me was how promiscuity is bad 1) for the people doing it 2) for the society. Are those questions we know the answer to?
>Ernest Junger
Anglos were a mistake.
You can't save your children unless you live in an enclosed community. You can do whatever you want to raise them but they need to engage with their peers and most of them are going to be what you despise and ruin them.
lol you got me. but I'm Canadian.
You have no interest in getting any answers, you are only here to spew ideology. Stop pretending otherwise, it's insulting both to us and yourself.
>In what way? The research I found seems to be saying that there's no evidence that promiscuity makes you happier or unhappier.
You should have seen this image before.
>How is it bad for society?
Someone else already answered this
Wait till you hear about Friedrich W. Nietzsche
We do know since Socrates that promiscuity is bad for yourself.
Being led by your base desires will give you anxiety, distress, make you do bad choices and so on. It also will make you have a wrong idea of what leads to a good life.
But as said, I think it is unlikely you are interested in getting answers.
I'm Oops, I'm not being accurate. Some of the pre-Socratics also knew this, iirc.
>whores are bad
wow user that was a very shocking revelation. i really couldn't have predicted this. big if true.
Even raising them in an enclosed community won't help, the world is filled with evil people who delight in ruining whatever is beautful and innocent in this world. Go watch Schraders's Hardcore for a pretty good illustration. They want to turn your daughters into whores and laugh about it.
the female eunuch.
I think the enclosed communities + solid education on the Classics is the best idea. It is true that liberalism will try to destroy them, but I don't think it will necessarily win.
Providing a good example and limiting (early) social media exposure is likely the most important parts of it anyhow. Both my younger sisters turned out great which I mainly credit to my parents having an actual happy loving relationship and not giving them cellphones until they were like 16.
Literally everyone should read Jane Austen. So at least those books for your daughters and sons.
Other than that, a lot of Plato.
I think good peers is one of the most important parts. If your daughter is hanging out with Lindsay Lohan she will autodestruct, unless you really educated her well.
>clogs in the machine
He wouldn't like any of that dumb shit you just wrote.
Why should I listen to a 23yo virgin who did sudoku? Why would he know anything special about sex and people? Proper question btw.
enclosed communities fuck up normal development. Once they're an adult they're bound to be left with dependency issues and trouble facing everyday interactions. I don't understand parents who think isolation is the way to raise healthy offspring. It absolutely boggles my mind how common that mentality is.
I'm not talking about isolation. I specifically said they need to interact with peers.
Well, how mentally healthy are people nowadays now that they live in less enclosed communities than they did in the past?
how is that question even quantifiable?
bible
Wasn't me, was just joking about Conan.
You should know women have no personality beyond their boyfriends. So, a good dicking by a tradchad is the best to stop being a degenerate whore
Looking at rates of deaths of despair, for example.
Modern liberalism is not leading to mentally healthy people.
What's so special or helpful about Jane Austen? Not being sarcastic, asking genuinely. I haven't read a word of her.
I could make the same claim about you and discussion, but I'd honestly want to discuss things and to know why you believe things are like they are. That's why I'm asking.
>We do know since Socrates that promiscuity is bad for yourself
From what? I'm wondering if this is true in some measurable sense. There seems a better basis for the claim about society (if that society is based on something promiscuity goes against) but not so much for how promiscuity is bad for the individual.
Most people tend to derive great satisfaction and emotional security from stable relationships. Promiscuity impedes or outright ruins your chances at forming stable relationships.
One can reasonably think of a plethora of reasons for promiscuity being bad, from several different angles. What I'm wondering is if you have any reason to assume promiscuity would be good, or what possible harm there would be in not being promiscuos.
I'm wondering if promiscuity leads to these negative things or if it's that people who do certain things are more likely to be promiscuous. Because some of these same studies don't claim that promiscuity causes these things but just that the two correlate. And if you somehow prevent people from being promiscuous (which they might otherwise be inclined to do) if you can even affect those negative things. I thought this article went over this pretty well
psychologytoday.com
tandfonline.com
tandfonline.com
But I think classical philosophy is better than psychology in terms of explaining a good life (I have read waaaaay more psychology research than classical philosophy, by the way)
For true happiness and peace of mind, you need to control your desires.
If you have a lot of sex, you will increase your desire for it in the medium run (by indulging on your desires, you will never be able to fulfill them, they will always increase). Increasing your desire for sex leads to more anxiety (obviously) and more distress (when you want to have sex but can't). It also leads you to make bad decisions. Think about Epicurus. He was someone who only concerned himself on how to have a more pleasant life. He was celibate.
Then, there is the issue of "promiscuous values", that is believing that a good amount of sexual pleasure is necessary for a good life. This is false, which leads people to overindulge on sex and also leads them to look for happiness in the wrong place.
Even if they only do correlate that is no reason to promote promiscuity. No matter how you slice this, the promotion of non-promiscuity seems to be the winning move.
>And if you somehow prevent people from being promiscuous (which they might otherwise be inclined to do) if you can even affect those negative things.
Culture affects promiscuity. People believe that having more sexual partners leads to a better life and so they end up feeling bad if they don't have many of them. But... having more sexual partners don't lead to a better life. It leads to a worse one. So no matter what happens, when we have a promiscuous culture, everyone loses.
Look at this, as well:
theguardian.com
In modern times, we have more physical pleasure than ever. Yet, people are very miserable. Deaths of despair on the rise, young women (the ones that were "liberated" the most from the old culture) reporting enormous rates of depression.
I like how they slapped Manson in there, despite him having normal eyes
>Promiscuity impedes or outright ruins your chances at forming stable relationships.
I guess it depends where you draw the line and probably how you study it, but I found this
>Women with 10 or more partners were the most likely to divorce, but this only became true in recent years;
>Women with 3-9 partners were less likely to divorce than women with 2 partners; and,
>Women with 0-1 partners were the least likely to divorce.
So it seems to be pretty complex.
ifstudies.org
First study seems to be the first causal relationship so far between the two, though that's a stricter criteria than "does promiscuity cause bad things for the individual". I've been reading en.wikipedia.org
>Even if they only do correlate that is no reason to promote promiscuity.
Isn't that a value call? If all we had were correlations, whether you should promote it or not would depend on how you viewed promiscuity.
I agree on that people shouldn't be pushed to be promiscuous or that we should claim that being promiscuous leads to better things. I think the alright thing (and what has largely happened in the West) is that the negative view on promiscuity isn't there as much so you're more free to do as you'd like, be promiscuous or not be promiscuous.
>It leads to a worse one. So no matter what happens, when we have a promiscuous culture, everyone loses.
Not really. It can have a negative, neutral or positive effect on you (depending on the angle you look it at and study you believe), but saying it leads to a worse life is not supported by studies, from what I've read.
Psychology is not developed well enough yet. Philosophy is a better guide on happiness.
go back to /pol
As said, you really are not here to get answers, you have a point of view you want to believe and you will argue for it even if you have no knowledge of it.
>I think the alright thing (and what has largely happened in the West) is that the negative view on promiscuity isn't there as much so you're more free to do as you'd like, be promiscuous or not be promiscuous.
This is not alright at all. Promiscuity leads to many problems both for individuals and society.
>Not really. It can have a negative, neutral or positive effect on you (depending on the angle you look it at and study you believe), but saying it leads to a worse life is not supported by studies, from what I've read.
You just ignored everything people wrote here, didn't you?
Are you that feminist who posts on /his/?
How are you planning on forming stable relationships while also having sex with a new guy every weekend? Fucking idiot retard, your brain would rattle in the skull of a rat.
Could be. I'm just engaging on this topic based on measurable things because I think that's easier (especially since it's what I'm more used to).
Why do you think so? When I'm asking "what do you base your views/this view on", what do you think I'm asking if not to hear reasoning behind believing this or that? And I think I'm open to changing my view, just because I haven't changed them (to agree with yours) doesn't mean I'm not willing to change them.
>If all we had were correlations, whether you should promote it or not would depend on how you viewed promiscuity.
Find me the data pointing to promiscuity possibly being beneficial and maybe there's something to consider. Otherwise erring on the side that correlation might be strongly related with causation is most certainly the smart thing to do.
Do Dutch machines have clogs instead of cogs?
Because you are not at all being interested in approaching the topic from a position even pretending to be neutral, you're stance is
>promiscuity good
>prove it's not with extremely rigorous proofs
Meanwhile you do nothing to explain why you think promiscuity is good in any way.
>epicurean marxists
I get that such people exist, but I have never seen those two stances in a juxtaposition. Is it a growing phenomenon? I'd laugh my ass of if it became a staple buzzword like postmodern neomarxists
t. father of a future incel and/or school shooter
(i’m not the user)
it’s better to support such claims with research, not with what people write on Yea Forums
some people handle promiscuity well, some don’t
you’re against promiscuity, because you were raised in a christian culture, don’t try to rationalise your preconceived opinions
>Could be. I'm just engaging on this topic based on measurable things because I think that's easier (especially since it's what I'm more used to).
Psychology is not a mature science yet and "happiness studies" are filled with problems. It will take some decades (being optimistic) until they can competently answer questions about happiness. That without mentioning the Replication Crisis.
Philosophy is better developed and the ancient philosophers were smarter than modern academic psychologists (the "gold standard" in psychology therapy is a watered down version of Stoic philosophy). Neuroscience studies (who are still in their infancy, as well) tend to agree with the theories of the ancient philosophers.
Yup.
Unrealistic demands of rigor
>Meanwhile you do nothing to explain why you think promiscuity is good in any way.
i think the user meant that promiscuity is actually neutral, neither good or bad itself
>it’s better to support such claims with research, not with what people write on Yea Forums
Research was posted, arguments on the problems with promiscuity were posted. They were more or less ignored.
>you’re against promiscuity, because you were raised in a christian culture, don’t try to rationalise your preconceived opinions
Traditional Christian sexual morals have almost no influence in my country. Including in the Catholic Church (both for clergy and non-clergy). I'm against promiscuity because I have seen what it is causing in my country.
Made me pic related for a second.
If promiscuity is "neutral", but there is correlation between it and various indicators of depression, worse quality of life, decreased fertility etc etc, the obvious thing to do is to err on the side of caution and promote a culture of non-promiscuity. I'm still waiting on getting to know the supposed benefits of promiscuity that outweigh these potential negatives.
if you come from a european/north american country, then christianity is deeply rooted in your culture (it’s what i meant by preconceived opinions)
even if, how can promiscuity be separated from other factors contributing to this “decay”? there’s a difference between co-existence and a direct correlation
repression is bad
stages of denial
I recommend you do not teach them to read in the first place.
They were referred to in other studies I've read but I admit I can't find them now (and I'm running out of time to discuss here too). I'll check back tomorrow morning though, I'll try to find the studies.
You don't have to be neutral to discuss a topic and I'm not claiming I am neutral. This was the original situation
>Promiscuity is bad
>What makes you think so?
You can have a great convo from that. My whole deal was to find out what they based that claim on.
Yeah, I haven't been convinced that it's good or bad. Though the conclusion I've gathered from the studies posted here and what I've read is that as long as STDs exist and people contract them, we probably shouldn't promote promiscuity since those STDs are prone to causing physical and mental damage and you're more likely to catch an STD if you're promiscuous. Though I'm not convinced that suppressing promiscuity and trying to lower the average etc. wouldn't have negative sides too.
Prove it's not causation then. Why do you insist on erring on the retarded side of caution? It's like finding a strong correlation between smoking tobacco and cancer and going HMM we should promote smoking because this might in fact just be correlation.
Sexual culture in my country: "Sex is good", "more sex is better", "you need good sex to have a fulfilling life".
>even if, how can promiscuity be separated from other factors contributing to this “decay”?
Many teenage single mothers, who went on to raise their daughters to become teenage single mothers and their sons to make other girls teenage single mothers.
Teenage boys get in crime so that they can buy expensive clothes and shoes so that they can sleep with future teenage single mothers.
On a somewhat unrelated note, teenage girls sleeping with criminals for drugs, as well.
>You don't have to be neutral to discuss a topic and I'm not claiming I am neutral.
*I'm not claiming I don't have an opinion, is which I meant. I'm neutral in the sense that I don't think we should promote promiscuous lifestyle or supress it more than we currently do.
>Yeah, I haven't been convinced that it's good or bad.
You are unlikely to be convinced it is bad, no matter how strong the evidence we present here.
Why do you think so? Did you read my whole comment?
>Though I'm not convinced that suppressing promiscuity and trying to lower the average etc. wouldn't have negative sides too.
Which negative sides?
Yes.
Your next step will be to say "with condoms there will be no STDs, so we should just teach people to use condoms".
You ignored every post about how promiscuity affects desires, values, etc.
>decreased fertility
it’s a myth
>depression
as i said, some people handle it better than others
but promiscuity isn’t directly contracted to depression, but poor relationships are
>worse quality of life
how could promiscuity lower the quilty of somebody’s life?
if promiscuity is a well-thought-out choice, then it would bring the opposite results
>promote a culture of non-promiscuity
neither should be promoted in my option,
and that’s the whole point
>but promiscuity isn’t directly contracted to depression
tandfonline.com
>how could promiscuity lower the quilty of somebody’s life?
The same way using drugs or alcohol would.
See theguardian.com
>neither should be promoted in my option
There is no such option you dumb fucking faggot, either you accept people sleeping around like whores or you don't.
My last post, I'll check back later
Negative consequences of sexual repression for one.
We should teach people (more) how to use condoms for sure, though it won't fix the issue. People know about them but still contract STDs.
>Negative consequences of sexual repression for one.
Which ones?
You do know that the "sexual repression causes psychological problems" thing is just a meme, right?
so you think a sexual culture, which says: “sex is bad”, “the less sex the better”, “don’t have sex until you marry, or otherwise you’ll burn in hell” is better?
there’s a lot between being a whore and a virgin, user
Literally yes, but you turn it into hyperbole in a really materialistic and dumb way.
>tandfonline.com
this study is about teenagers, what about mature people who know what they’re doing?
>drugs and alcohol
drugs (used responsibly) can improve the quality of life (for reference, check out studies about treating depression with psychedelics, ketamine and mdma)
It would be better than the culture in my country, certainly. You think it wouldn't?
The ideal sexual culture would be "have sex only in marriage and only for procreation".
imagine that some people aren’t christianfags unlike you
Provide a study that it does NOT negatively impact your fictionalised "mature people who know what they are doing" cohort and there is reason to consider otherwise. Again, you are being incredibly disingenuous. If a certain glower is proven to be poisionous if eaten by teenagers, do you recommend adults eat it until a study has been made to show it's dangerous to them too?
repressing (too much) sexual needs is unhealthy, and there’s a lot of research which prove this claim
why people should be shamed for having a sex life that is healthy and appropriate for them?
I hate christianity with a passion and I find the thought of sex with someone I do not love deeply repulsive. Fuck off with your strawmen.
Prove these needs are innate and not something induced by repeated exposure to promiscuity culture.
Adults are also affected by the same hormones that affect teenagers. The thing about modern life under liberalism is that no one knows what they are doing, no matter if they are teenagers, adults or 60+ old people. Everyone is aimless.
Sex affects the brain in a similar way that drugs and alcohol do. If you have too much sex, you end up harming your brain's reward system.
>imagine that some people aren’t christianfags unlike you
Christianity didn't invent opposition to promiscuity.
>repressing (too much) sexual needs is unhealthy, and there’s a lot of research which prove this claim
Could you please show me this research?
>why people should be shamed for having a sex life that is healthy and appropriate for them?
In your opinion, promiscuity is healthy and appropriate?
first how do you define promiscuity? is it simply sex outside marriage?
it’s easy to find research, which shows how a bad sex life can affect mental health
>If a certain...
a bad analogy
I'm not him.
>it’s easy to find research, which shows how a bad sex life can affect mental health
Could you show me that?
Sex outside of long-term relationships.
Also, if you want to argue bad sex life can affect mental health you better have something to prove it's not just a correlation, because bad mental health would obviously strain a relationship and lead to a bad sexlife.
The one you are quoting won't find anything, unless it is trash-tier studies correlating something like "how happy you are with your sex life" and "how happy you are in general"?
"have sex only in marriage and only for procreation" is literally what saint augustine said about sex
> I find the thought of sex with someone I do not love deeply repulsive.
then imagine that some people think differently than you
you don’t know that sexual needs are one of the basic biological needs of human beings?
I'm not the user you are arguing with.
Saint Augustine was not the only nor the first person to have said that.
That's not what we are discussing here, we're specifically referring to whatever need would be repressed in a healthy monogamous relationship. Stay on topic, please.
yes, it was a jewish intention and christianity adopted it
You should really try this cool thing called opening a book, might help you not be so fucking retarded.
>Could you please show me this research?
en.m.wikipedia.org
psychologytoday.com
>In your opinion, promiscuity is healthy and appropriate?
in my opionion, promiscuity is neutral (depends if you mean sex outside marriage or being a prostitute)
when I said repression is bad, I meant to say that societies that emphasize public face and where the outer appearance of life is conservative often lead to higher repression in private spheres, so learning stages of denial could improve the perspective that one may have even with regard to penile envy, to afterwards develop independently healthy framework of mind for good judgement instead of being indoctrinated with dogma
as far as i know repressing sexuality comes from judaism, can you disprove that?
I'm not sure you realized this, but neither of the links you posted have research that supports your claims.
Even Plato talks about semen retention
No, you literally said
>repressing (too much) sexual needs is unhealthy, and there’s a lot of research which prove this claim
Which is not true...
>this fucking roastie is still going at it despite being proven wrong multiple times
lmao
Plato, Aristotle and the Stoic philosophers opposed a hedonistic lifestyle (which promiscuity is).
i wrote “sexual needs” and you said “these needs”
didn’t you mean simply “sexual needs”?
here
otherwise for a book, I'd recommend fear and trembling
the old testament existed before plato and aristotle
ad hominem
In your opinion, Plato was heavily influenced by the Old Testament?
i said “repressing (too much) sexual needs is unhealthy, and there’s a lot of research which prove this claim” and provided research which showed how repressing sexual needs affects mental health
No, you didn't.
lmao, writing random latin phrases doesn’t make you appear intelligent
an user wrote that christianity didn’t invent repressing sexuality, to which i agreed and said that it originated from the old testament (which was before the greek philosophers)
our culture is more influenced by christianity than the greek philosophy when it comes to morality (although christianian theology is influenced both by platonism and aristotle)
check
You didn't
>provided research which showed how repressing sexual needs affects mental health
You are arguing as if Judaism is the sole source of opposition to promiscuity. It is not. Independently of Judaism, Greco-Roman philosophers and (at least this is my impression) Buddha also oppose promiscuity.
as if I wanted to appear in the first place
I'm not him but to play Devil's advocate here, imagine taking sexual repression to the extreme. Something like burqas, female genital mutilation, always associating sex with shame, etc.
Unless you want that, then you must admit that at a certain point too much sexual repression is bad, right?
Obviously the focus is whatever sexual needs would get repressed in a culture that strongly promotes long-term monogamous relationships as the ideal form of relationship.
He claimed he
>provided research which showed how repressing sexual needs affects mental health
He didn't.
judaism is the source of opposition to promiscuity in the european culture (which is based on christian morality)
> condoms".
You ignored every post about how promiscuity affects desires, values, etc.
he really did lol he didnt even reply to you pointing that out
Imagine being this retarded
Plato and Aristotle are more important.
German pagans (who were not influenced by either Judaism or Socratic philosophy) also opposed promiscuity.
But this is fucking false you retard, fuck outta here with whatever retarded psyops you're trying to do here. You think people who had their marriage arranged when they were 10 had any time to slut around, or are you claiming ancient europeans regularly liked to pass their wives around for funsies?
it’s hard to find an adequate university research within a few minutes (you didn’t provide such either) without the necessary resources, but there plenty of popular science articles covering this topic
so you don’t agree that christianity is the main source of morality in european culture?
he asked you if plato was heavily influenced by the ot
>it’s hard to find an adequate university research within a few minutes
It is even harder in your case because... "repressing sexuality leads to mental problems" is actually a meme, it is not really true.
Buddhist monks are not mentally unhealthier than rockstars.
But you didn't even find those, did you? Also, lmao at trusting the inbred ravings of some Freud-huffing hack or other over the collected wisdom of pretty much every single culture in history.
can you post university research (not popular science articles) which proves that non-monogamous relationships are bad?
You can’t fabricate morality as you please you retarded relativist, it is tied to a physical system. Which is why different societies throughout the world have always converged on the same form. Morality is in the human DNA.
he wasn’t, but why does it matter?
christianity didn’t adopt its morals from the greeks (only its theology), but from the old testament
it depends on what aspects of morality you mean
sexuality is viewed differently by different cultures
and stick to the point
You're the one making extraordinary claims here, the burden of proof is on you. Stop the sophism and post the hard proof you supposedly have.
It isn’t
>sexuality is viewed differently by different cultures
Yes, some cultures are more allowing of concubines than others. That's about it, unless you seriously want to use some obscure jungle tribes who never progressed beyond oral traditions as an argument.
can you elaborate why you think it’s false?
>people who had their marriage...
it’s a sign of sexual repression
>ancient europeans regularly liked
as far as i know promiscuity wasn’t really unpopular in ancient greece and rome (as well as homosexuality)
my only “extraoridinary” claim was that promiscuity is neutral
Do you think you can stay on topic for two posts in a row anytime soon or are you too addled in the brain to do that?
I'm still not seeing any studies posted to support your position.
>as far as i know promiscuity wasn’t really unpopular in ancient greece and rome
see >You should really try this cool thing called opening a book
you really think that every culture views sexuality in the same way?
>having lots of stress in your life means you're a psycho killer
>heavy stress doesn't have observable effects on the body
Actually early Christianity was largely a synthesis of aspects of Greek philosophy and the old testament. Early Christianity borrowed many principles from stoicism
Yes
If they are smart enough they could probably become more aware though reading Lolita.
>The Romans did have an abiding set of moral guidelines called the mos maiorum (“the way of the elders”), a largely accepted and unwritten code of good conduct. These customs did consider sexual excess outside the bounds of ideal behaviour defined by virtus, an ideal state of masculinity that included self-control. Women too were expected to be chaste (pudicitia).
>The Romans did have an abiding set of moral guidelines called the mos maiorum (“the way of the elders”), a largely accepted and unwritten code of good conduct. These customs did consider sexual excess outside the bounds of ideal behaviour defined by virtus, an ideal state of masculinity that included self-control. Women too were expected to be chaste (pudicitia).
Do you just google some random shit and not even skim it before posting it?
christianity adopted its history and morality from the old testament (with some alterations), some philosophical claims from platon, neoplatonism and (as you said) stoics, and some of its elements (such as salvation) didn’t have pre-christian equivalents
>Prostitution was legal and endemic. Slaves were considered as much their master’s property sexually as they were economically.
ancient greece is a better example
what about spartan homosexuality?
and did you provide any university research (not popular science sites)?
i can post a few links to some popular science articles which prove my point about the effects of repressing sexuality
my position is neutral, so the burden of proof should be on your side
Yes, as stated earlier some cultures had >different views regarding concubines, you fucking retard.
>i can post a few links to some popular science articles which prove my point about the effects of repressing sexuality
The articles you posted didn't reference research.
>my position is neutral
You've made it abundantly clear that it isn't. There's been several studies posted showing correlation between promiscuity and various negative effects, so if you were >neutral that should be enough to convince you to err on the side of caution until presented with a better reason not to. All you do is flail about "there are some popular studies, somewhere", like that means jack shit.
so if you agree, why did you say that i should “try this cool thing called opening a book” after i wrote that “as far as i know promiscuity wasn’t really unpopular in ancient greece and rome”
See Respectable Ancient Athenian women wouldn't even leave their houses.
How do you get quads without knowing Punjabi's insane enough to make themselves famous the world over?
Because a married man having a concubine or visiting a prostitute while out on a campaign isn't the same as the modern culture of repeated hookup promiscuity? You're equating two pretty different things here.
my whole point is that people should be allowed to have a sex life which is healthy and adequate for them, which is a neutral position
>There's been several studies
can you show them to me?
> "there are some popular studies, somewhere”
so i will post these articles i talked about
psychologytoday.com
psypost.org
and many other
On the contrary, there is no room at all for physical pleasure in the modern city.
You are chained to a desk working longer hours than your ancestors, are suffocated in a toxic cloud of smog and fed cardboard garbage.
Today we have a false plastic physicality and not real honest physicality.
She has a very refined understanding of human nature, and a very refined understanding of how the virtues function to sustain a well-ordered social life.
such behaviour is what apparently people on this thread consider promiscuity
also, this married man probably had some homosexual encounters as a teenager (check out homosexuality in sparta)
>my whole point is that people should be allowed to have a sex life which is healthy and adequate for them, which is a neutral position
A promiscuous sex life is not healthy and adequate.
>can you show them to me?
Here >so i will post these articles i talked about
You have only posted the first one before.
Your articles are just blogposts with no links to any serious opinions, much less anything close to actual studies. For someone supposedly neutral you do post a lot of HEAVILY biased material.
We do have more physical pleasure than people in the past had. Technology is responsible for that.
A lot of school shooters have absent fathers actually
>source: freedomainradio.org
If you're either or those books will not achieve your stated goals for boys. They'll turn them into the more annoying version of the women you seek to avoid creating more annoying because they're going to have that twink lisp and no tits and spout the same shit that the people you hate love but again without tits to distract from that
It's pretty simple without books to raise kids well so they will have family values and near traditional roles (as thousands upon thousands of years of humans have done). Failing your parents having done the same, which I doubt they did, all you need is a loving home with plenty of work. Or just plenty of work if you cannot manage the first one, since your love for your children seems already preconditioned to only happen if they turn into internet stereotypes from 2010s that are better expressed in image marcos than book length. Children who can work comfortably to support their own upkeep find it natural that they would be able to foster another human to that point.
What about the other sources?
Homosexuality in Sparta is still a hotly debated topic, with much pointing to the image of Sparta as some sort of homosexual haven being due to conflation of historical accounts with philosophical thought experiments undertaken by Plato and others.
>A promiscuous sex life is not healthy and adequate
for some people it is (especially if by promiscuity you mean sex outside long-term monogamous relationships)
>here
i have to pay to view the whole article, so it’s not a good one to post here
researchgate.net
Nothing wrong with them, as far as I know. But including le argument man can poison the well of a well-intended thing with ideology
and as i pointed out already, this research is about teenagers, not about mature adults (which makes a difference when it comes to psychology)
You are once again conflating the issues of promiscuity and sexual repression to make a disingenous point. There is no need to link sex-guilt and a monogamous culture.
>for some people it is
What the hell kind of answer is this?
Also, your article don't even say what you want it to say. Did you just google articles until you found the words sexual and repression?
>implying we aren't all fat asthmatics
>implying we have a GF and don't instead jack it to parent
>implying we live in the natural world instead of dying in concrete tombs
Money isn't real wealth, money is a plastic credit card.
We have the illusion of the plastic surgery, the plastic surgery of the physical but we don't really have the physical at all.
Poisoning the well is a logical fallacy...
*don't instead jack it to porn
You asked which articles were posted. Those two were among them. Also, nice to see you ignoring the second one.
He just evades and shifts topic every second post. Now he's on to being more slightly aroused by porn somehow being a clear indicator of... something?
not really, it also comes from plutarch’s description of sparta
>he
either a woman or a woman wannabe
Homosexual behaviour in the way we view it would be more common in Attica. They thought young men should wear perfume and make up to make themselves attractive to older male mentors, and frottage was considered just a bonding ritual. They accused the Spartans of being homosexual in a way that was damaging to youth and women, because they thought that not dressing like a whore was a sign teenage boys were advertising more than frottage and conversation, since nobody hires an ugly boy for "just conversation (and slick legging)"
Attica thought minor sexual play bonded warriors, while Sparta thought encouraging bonds between warriors affected their allegiance to the state. Sparta focused more on making women muscular in order to breed super soldiers. Which is why even Philip and Alexander did not think to conquer them, but bribed Attica out of existence with shiny things.
I think I recognize this style from /his/.
what else can i say?
you all act as if everybody’s sexuality was identical
for some people monogamous relationships work the best, for some don’t, what is so hard about this fact?
i will repeat: my whole point is that people should be allowed to have a sex life which is healthy and adequate for them
this is my only topic
Provide some hard statistics on what number a monogamous relationship doesn't work on, with control groups for the potential effects of excessive media consumption on these people.
>you all act as if everybody’s sexuality was identical
It is.
>for some people monogamous relationships work the best, for some don’t, what is so hard about this fact?
That it is not true, for one.
>i will repeat: my whole point is that people should be allowed to have a sex life which is healthy and adequate for them
Great, you providing time machines for all the broken lives your stance will inevitably create and is creating this very now?
both of your articles are about teenagers, not about mature adults
>A multiethnic sample of single, heterosexual, emerging-adult college students (N = 3,907) ages 18 to 25
can you provide hard statistics (not about teenagers) that monogamous relationships/the sexual life you consider normal are the best for everyone?
i’m sure that for some people the sexual life you consider normal is the best one, but not for everyone
do you consider people who are 18-25 to be mature adults?
You could start reading the Greeks.
do you think that a culture of sex guilt didn’t create any “broken” lifes?
Yes. They are considered adults.
Not answering questing and deflecting
Not answering question and deflecting
Do you think you can defend your own faggot stances for a single post? Or is it only gonna be "NO U" and pretending 99% of people actually want a healthy monogamous relationship and a family, and pretending otherwise will do anything but trick a bunch of clueless teenagers into ruining their lives?
but not the mature ones, and that’s the point (their brains are still developing)
You still haven't provided any reason to believe another five years of brain development will seriously change hormonal responses to the point that the effects demonstrated in that study becomes invalid.
So, would you agree that casual sex is bad for those that are younger than 25?
i think that the one procent that doesn’t want to have sex lifes you consider “normal”, should be allowed to do as they please
it depends on the person individually
But weren't you saying that due to their brains still being in development that promiscuity could harm them?
You think their right to a happy life should trump that of the other 99%, but I don't think you realize this yourself.
don’t act as if there’s no difference between psychology of adults and teenagers
why can’t you find any research on mature adults?
>mfw the people who preach sexual freedom always look like pic related and tend to be bitter old roasties
Yeah bro, let's trust a lesbian with the sexual relationships between man and woman.
Let's suppose that 1% of the people are aliens that will indeed not have the limitations of the human brain and that they will be happy being promiscuous. If they set up a bad example to the other 99% and lead them to be unhappy, what would you do?
i didn’t say that
it depends on what is considered promiscuity
whether it’s sex outside long-term relationships or having a ons every weekend
And AGAIN it's a deflection. Getting pretty old now, old chum.
i have never said that
You don't want your son to be Dante.
but as you said, the other 99% is affected by the limitations of their brain, so naturally that wouldn’t have an impact on them (you can’t overcome neurobiology)
>I don't think you realize this yourself.
Reading is hard, isn't it. Maybe it's time you stop posting already.
Maybe she's actually a literary genius. Such an acute understanding of dramatic irony, hidden under the idiocy of a non sequitur.
it’s not a deflection, you are the one who acts as if there were no difference between psychology of adults and teenagers so the burden of proof is on your side
why can’t you some research on adults, so that it would concern the biggest social group - adults?
Is this sarcasm or irony? My take: divine sarcasm
This woman is a genius. She took woman as Weininger described her, and she forced this woman to make a review.
i don’t know what did i say to make you think that the 1%’s right to a happy life should trump that of the other 99%
Gee, might it be the fact that your entire stance is that we shouldn't promote monogamy? Do you have short-term memory issues by any chance?
Sure, whatever you need to tell yourself to justify that worthless degree of yours, homeboy.
can you show where exactly i said that monogamy shouldn’t be promoted?
my stance is that it shouldn’t be pushed through social guilt
is it that hard to understand
You have a naive understanding of how human society works if you think that's at all possible.
>for girls it should be less violent, less cerebral, more sentimental, less career and war oriented, more about nurturing the family, being subservient to your husband, and knowing when to listen instead of being assertive, gossipy and trying to mimic masculine traits.
>But I haven't read many female oriented books...
ANA KARENJINA you plebs!
i’m a libertarian, and yes, unfortunately libertarianism is a bit naive
>i’m a libertarian
Hardly a shock to find you have brain damage at this point, kudos for just admitting it. I'll hope for medicine to one day be able to help you.
No, what you said is
>and as i pointed out already, this research is about teenagers, not about mature adults (which makes a difference when it comes to psychology)
>but as you said, the other 99% is affected by the limitations of their brain, so naturally that wouldn’t have an impact on them (you can’t overcome neurobiology)
I don't think you understood my point.
Suppose 1% of humanity are aliens whose brains make them happier by being promiscuous. Instead of dopamine, etc they have different kinds of hormones. Now, suppose the other 99% will be unhappy by having a promiscuous lifestyle.
But suppose we have a culture like yours, that say promiscuity is neither good or bad, so the 99% have no idea if they will be happy by being promiscuous or not.
If by following the example of the 1%, a large part of the 99% ends up unhappy, don't we have a pretty bad culture?
I don't have a degree on philosophy or the classics. I actually have read a lot more psychology research than classical philosophy.
Classical philosophy is better than psychology on the issue of what makes for a happy life.
>brain damage
there’s a correlation between a lower iq and traditionalism
journals.sagepub.com
New Testament
Of course, the reality would be even worse since it would be in the interest of the 1% group to trick the 99% into thinking promiscuity is good, since that would increase their own happiness. Especially if we assume promiscuity enjoyment scales with number in some fashion, which seems reasonable to do.
if the promiscuty doesn’t make other 99% happy, why would they be promiscuous (do sth which is against them)?
For the same reason why some people use heroin. People don't always do what will make them happy.
but heroin actually makes people (their brains) happy
>So it seems to be pretty complex.
Its peasantly simple, since the dawn of civilisation it was expected for 2 parties to not have sex until marriage to have a good marriage. If you fornicate youll mess up your family life.
Ever since (((sexual revolution))) run by (((them))) this civ was going down the shitter
Wow a libertarian who thinks people are prescient and have amazing time-preferences? Never seen this before, color me shocked.
lmao, the user wrote that the brain chemistry of the 1% works differently than the one of the 99%, you can’t overcome neurobiology
>How do I indoctrinate my child into right-wing authoritarian ideology?
First of all you want to ban them from reading any philosophy whatsoever. Secondly you'll want to break their spirit so they are complete dependent on you for emotional validation. Lastly you'll want to redirect the massive amounts of resentment you're cultivating in your child to convenient enemies so they think that the consequences of the abuse you give them is due to the enemy, and not yourself.
The reason women were always confined to the house was not due to profound misogyny or bigotry, it was for a completely functional reason; women needed to bear children and ensure that the children survived, because otherwise the society would collapse due to a dearth of children. This is still true today, and Western societies that embraced feminism are in the process of collapsing, as signified by population aging, and this is an explicit example of the human race abandoning wisdom that is thousands of years old in order to chase some fantasy that clearly was not a reality for a very defined and factual reason. What sort of asshat thinks that men didn’t want women to work? That is the pinnacle of idiocy.
Of course men wanted women to work; they wanted women to do as much work as humanly possible, and they certainly made sure that their women and girls were doing all of this work that they possibly could, but the men all understood that reproduction was profoundly more so valuable to society than a woman’ work; the men understood this to the point that they would take on a far greater workload just to ensure that the women could adequately rear the children. Things worked this way for a reason; there is no human that wants to do more work than need be, to work way harder than one must, or to do extra work while another person shirks work, so clearly the men were not in any way trying to keep women from working, the men were only trying to ensure that the population survived, and this knowledge, this wisdom rooted in instinct, had been ingrained for thousands of years in society because it was a fact, it was completely necessary that the men go out and fight wars, do hard work, and do all of these extremely painful and laborious tasks just to ensure that the women had enough time to ensure that the fragile children were taken care of well enough that society would survive.
Have sex (with someone you love).
The fact that people fail to understand this, especially feminists who claim to be women of all things, is truly disgusting, that these idiots will spit in the face of thousand year old wisdom that prevented the destruction of society just because doing what it takes to ensure that society remains functional somehow doesn’t fit into their own delusional fantasies of what they want to do with their life. Society needs to be placed before any individual, and to allow these people to spread this destructive delusion, to do something no nobler than tricking children into drinking antifreeze, is absolutely insane if not criminal. For thousands of years, men understood this, women understood this, and even children understood this, but somehow, in this day and age, we spurn the wisdom that has kept society alive, one of the literal linchpins of our godforsaken society, we literally pull this out and allow our economy and society to collapse just because some dysfunctional and mentally ill women were so egotistical and delusional that they somehow felt that their own smug self-satisfaction, the coddling their psychological gender dysmorphia, and their desire to chase this insane delusion of achieving the American dream were clearly so god damn pressing that we should crash the little motorcar of society into a fucking wall, just so they can get high on the fumes of the burning car that make them think their petty little dreams have amounted to something besides crippling society to a point that could easily be beyond repair by now.
Feminism is just one of many examples of this shameless mass psychogenic illness that causes people in these individualistic societies of decadence to abandon the wisdom that kept the human race alive, to function collectively in such a way that they ensure the downfall of society, and this is all caused by this unprecedented lack of environmental, social, religious, and governmental pressure on the lives of the people that allows them to lose the form and shape that they need to maintain in order for this machine that is society to continue functioning; the parts are warping, and the machine is beginning to wear itself down and is in the process of breaking entirely.
(Notice me senpai. =( Full monologue is like 16k characters. Forgive the grammatical errors, I did try to proofread the book its 989k words.)
Not bad but the cry for attention at the bottom really brings it down
Have sex
>First of all you want to ban them from reading any philosophy whatsoever.
how about just sticking to pre 1930s philosophy, leave the postmodern trash for plebs to read?
It doesn't.
Heroin destroys people in the long term.
In your opinion, reading Plato or Epictetus will make you "libertine, hedonistic, materialist"?
It's the right of any free man to entice kids to buy heroin via flashy propaganda. At least in libertarian land it is. Stop hating freedom.
>replying to a troll
Does anyone actually pay attention to how fucked up in the head young girls are these days or are they too locked up in the reeducation facilities for anyone to notice. Everyone always brings up the incels but the real disaster are the girls.
>poor people want religious gibsmedat
absolutely shocking, next you'll claim rich people want less taxes
POST PATRIARCHIAL LITERATURE IS JUST GARBAGE PSUDOSCIENCE
but the point is about the feeling of happiness/euphoria, and heroin does induce euphoria
overall a bad analogy
if non-monogamy was against the nature of the 99%, they wouldn’t try it
retard
there’s a big difference between promoting/pushing and allowing, but your mind doesn’t seem to grasp that
Yes, philosophy is degenerate because questioning is degenerate. One obeys their superiors, might is right and power is holy. If you want a chance at my High Position, you gotta pay the bridge toll.
>Does anyone actually pay attention to how fucked up in the head young girls are these days
>One-in-five teenage girls – or nearly 2.4 million – had experienced at least one major depressive episode (the proxy measure of depression used in this analysis) over the past year in 2017. By comparison, 7% of teenage boys (or 845,000) had at least one major depressive episode in the past 12 months.
But that said:
>“As much as we have the #metoo movement, there’s still a lot of emphasis on physical appearance in terms of how females are valued. Tie that into the puberty piece: what does that do to a girls’s sense of self and how she values herself?”
I think this is also getting worse for boys.
It is not. People who are using heroin are not doing something that will make them happy. They are doing something that will lead them to be broken.
Everyone is getting shafted right now. The next decades will see a sharp rise in female depression as a large number of women who coasted on the attention they got from their looks find themselves forgotten and alone.
So you are proposing we severely restrict speech for the promiscuous group, or are you just assuming the for some reason won't try to influence the other group for their own benefit?
i agree that heroin destroys people, but it makes their brains happy
here’s some proof if you still don’t understand it
drugrehab.com
>This causes the euphoria of the initial high...
Looking at their role models like Miss Zoomer on OP's picture, it may go even faster. Looking at , things already are pretty bad. 20% had depression last year.
>girls shouldn't be masculine or engage in masculine roles
this is why girls are on average stupider.
And all the dumbed down female genetics in your line have given you retardation too.
And what happens in the medium term, genius? Would you say someone using heroin is benefiting himself?
For a start stop browsing Yea Forums if you want to have any healthy attitude towards women and bring these girls up to be happy and confident within themselves
read what i wrote again
i propose that people should be allowed to do what’s adequate for them
you’re a good example of how traditionalism affects intelligence
But what if we have a culture that makes them do what is not adequate for them, but something that will make them unhappy and worse people?
>i agree that heroin destroys people
Dude I'm not even joking, you seriously have some mental disorder. You can't be promiscuous in a vacuum, they WILL be attempting to trick members of the monogamous group.
You said
>if the promiscuty doesn’t make other 99% happy, why would they be promiscuous (do sth which is against them)?
In your opinion, heroin is something that makes them happy. At the same time it is "do sth which is against them".
Correct?
i said that people should do what’s adequate for them, not what is considered adequate by the culture
it’s better to preach freedom and assertiveness than morality which you think is adequate for everyone
>worse
by whose standards
It's adequate for me to rape your kids, you coo with that?
>i said that people should do what’s adequate for them, not what is considered adequate by the culture
Would you say our culture does what is adequate for them?
>it’s better to preach freedom and assertiveness than morality which you think is adequate for everyone
This is how our society runs. How well is that working?
>by whose standards
Would you say a man who abandons his family to hookup with a woman of bad character is a better or worse parent than one who stays with his family without cheating on his wife?
i was referring to your thought experiment
>why would they do sth against their nature/the chemistry of their brains
eh it’s always the same retarded argument
Promiscuity gives short term pleasure to those 99% of people but long term problems. Like heroin does and like binge drinking does.
I take that as a yes? You don't seem to care if promiscuous people harm monogamous ones in their "living an adequate life". Your entire spiel reminds me of retards trying to defend "virtuous pedophiles".
>more sentimental
get a load of this guy. Only men are sentimental, women are ruthless.
>gossipy
Woemn talk more than men and they talk about everything. When men talk, it's nearly all gossip.
You can come live in the real world any time you like.
>our culture
whose culture exactly? i’m not an american
>this is...
i don’t think that asssertivness is actually preached
>Would you say a man who abandons his family to hookup with a woman of bad character is a better or worse parent than one who stays with his family without cheating on his wife?
this example is specific, it’s not the same thing as a general conclusion
a “worse” person for you could be sb who have sex befote marriage, that’s why it’s imporatant to specify to what kind of morality you’re referring
a person who abandons his family causes harm, a person who have sex before marriage doesn’t harm anybody
raping a child causes actual harm (if you didn’t know) and having a ons doesn’t
>whose culture exactly? i’m not an american
Modern western culture.
>i don’t think that asssertivness is actually preached
It is.
>this example is specific, it’s not the same thing as a general conclusion
>a “worse” person for you could be sb who have sex befote marriage, that’s why it’s imporatant to specify to what kind of morality you’re referring
>a person who abandons his family causes harm, a person who have sex before marriage doesn’t harm anybody
Someone who has less virtues and more vices is a worse person. A person who has sex before marriage makes himself and the partner worse people.
i’ve already said, some people prefer to have sex in long-term relationships, some don’t and “promiscuity” doesn’t cause them harm
don’t compare that to taking heroin
>Think about Epicurus. He was someone who only concerned himself on how to have a more pleasant life. He was celibate.
Think about all the eunuchs through history and their wacky ideas. Think about a rich man with a small dick that jizzes in a second having the ability to promulgate his ideas and having them taken up by people who hate on life.
I don't agree with you that promiscuity is harmless, but remember, we are doing a thought experiment where 99% of the people would be happier without being promiscuous.
culture is a very wide phenomenon (especially if you mean western culture, not just american), there’s no point in generalising
if you read only leftist media, they you can probably get such impression
if assertiveness is preached, why people don’t do what’s adequate for them (according to you)?
sex before marriage is not a vice, not everyone is a christianfag
>if assertiveness is preached, why people don’t do what’s adequate for them (according to you)?
Because no one knows what is better for themselves. Part of being human is not having perfect knowledge.
>sex before marriage is not a vice, not everyone is a christianfag
Lust is a vice.
being promiscuious is against their nature (their brain), so why would they be promiscuous
(when it comes to heroin, it looks a bit different; drugs have been with humanity since the dawn of time, even the earliest civilisations could produce alcohol
so wanting to get high is not really sth which is against our brain chemistry)
>being promiscuious is against their nature (their brain), so why would they be promiscuous
Two reasons:
- Culture tells them that being promiscuous is good for them.
- Something can feel good in the short term but be bad for you in the long term (such as heroine)
it seems like you think you know what’s better for everyone
>Lust is a vice.
it’s a matter of the individual conscience
This is unironically sexist as fuck, towards both men and women. You should teach your children to be individuals. Obviously both sexes tend to naturally behave in certain ways but if you have a son who is effeminate or a daughter who is brash etc, you should give them literature that will help them to express themselves in a healthy way, regardless of whether they fit into the archetype. Do you really think that every woman should be a housewife, or that every man should give a shit about war? Grow up.
would you become a homosexual if your culture told you so?
sexual preference is not really sth that can be changed, the same with goes with the brain chemistry of the 99% in your though experiment
>it seems like you think you know what’s better for everyone
You asked why people do things that are not adequate for them. Not knowing what is the "good" is one of the main causes.
Or do you think people always do what is better for themselves?
>it’s a matter of the individual conscience
By definition, lust is a vice.
God I don't understand why she does this retarded expression all the time, but it makes me want to fuck her so bad
Prove it doesn't
>would you become a homosexual if your culture told you so?
At least bissexual, most likely, depending on the culture.
>sexual preference is not really sth that can be changed, the same with goes with the brain chemistry of the 99% in your though experiment
You didn't really answer my post.
Culture can tell you to do something that will make you unhappy (such as becoming a workaholic). And there are things that feel good in the short term that will make you unhappy in the long term. Or do you think that none of those things exist?
>Or do you think people always do what is better for themselves?
no, but they shouldn’t be forced to do what others think is better for them (as long as they don’t cause real harm eg. aren’t rapist)
>By definition, lust is a vice.
but what is considered to be “lust” is judged by each person individually
if two mature people want to have sex, and it is a well-thought-out decision, what’s wrong with it
real harm, in the sense of harming sb else
It's not about what is best for them you fucking lunatic, it's about the effect it has on society.
>no, but they shouldn’t be forced to do what others think is better for them
At least now you are agreeing that people don't always do what is better for themselves.
>but what is considered to be “lust” is judged by each person individually
Lust has a definition...
If two mature people want to inject heroin, blablabla, this is a good thing. Your dream perfectly prescient rational human being doesn't exist, stop pretending it does.
>if two mature people want to have sex, and it is a well-thought-out decision, what’s wrong with it
If they become worse people, they are not doing what is better for themselves or society.
>real harm, in the sense of harming sb else
Harming yourself is also real harm.
i’ve never said that people are perfect rational beings, i admitted that libertarianism is a bit naive
>if the promiscuty doesn’t make other 99% happy, why would they be promiscuous (do sth which is against them)?
>Culture can tell you to do something that will make you unhappy
it’s why assertiveness should be promoted
what’s really wrong with the claim that people should be allowed to do what is adequate for them? do you think that forcing people to do what you think is adequate for them is better?
You've spend an hour not understanding why people can get tricked by propaganda or seek short term pleasure if it's actually bad for them.
eh, read the thread again, i was referring to a thought experiment
you can’t really change someone’s sexual orientation just like you can’t really change people’s brains
You can make people behave in a way that will make them unhappy. Such as making drugs or promiscuity glamorous.
It literally is better for society as a whole, so yes.
do you think that the government should dictate people’s sex lifes? or maybe people should be forced through social guilt to do what they don’t want to do? is that your point?
What is being promoted to people is what is inadequate for them. The Sex, drugs and rockandroll lifestyle makes people miserable.
A good culture is one that helps people cultivate themselves and that tells them the way of life that will make them happier.
Not your fucking moral nihilism that says "do whatever feels good"
they think they do what’s the best for them, your opinion doesn’t matter
>should people be "forced" by social shame to get married and stay faithful
Literally yes? You think you can build a good society without having stable families and instead having people running from hole to hole their whole lives?
>they think they do what’s the best for them
They still became worse people.
you didn’t actually answer my post
what is considered cultivating and good is mostly arbitrary
in your case it means sth which fits your conservative ideology
>Not your fucking moral nihilism that says "do whatever feels good"
my stance is that people should have the freedom to do what they think is best for them
How does this matter whatsoever? This can apply to anything, a robber thinks he's doing what is best for him, a guy beating his wife thinks he's doing what's best for him, the dude selling crack to middle school kids thinks he's doing what's best for him.
worse by whose standards? yours? you don’t matter
how exactly would they be forced to do what you want?
>what is considered cultivating and good is mostly arbitrary
>in your case it means sth which fits your conservative ideology
You should really read Plato, Aristotle and the others, instead of just saying "there is no good, it is all relative".
>my stance is that people should have the freedom to do what they think is best for them
No, you have a stance that promiscuity is neutral and that whatever people decide to do is fine.
Yeah it's a weird coincidence every major culture across the globe in recorded history pretty much exalt the same virtues and qualities and condemn the same vices. Fucking time travelling conservatives, haven't they read ayn rand?
They become people who are more dependent of their base desires and less reliable.
there’s some thing which are universally agreeed upon (like you shouldn’t kill people), but there’s also a grey area, which is up to each individual’s conscience
According to whose standards? Yours? You don't matter.
there were also philosophers in the antiquity who didn’t think good is objective eg. sceptics and sophists
i don’t agree with plato’s theory of ideas at all
>No, you have a stance that promiscuity is neutral and that whatever people decide to do is fine.
no, for some people promiscuity doesn’t work, for some does, so promiscuity in itself isn’t sth either positive or negative
actually cultures (and ages) differ a lot when it comes to sexuality
yes, my standards don’t matter when it comes to this grey area
You tried this already and got btfo by your own sources, do you actually have short-term memory issues?
>there were also philosophers in the antiquity who didn’t think good is objective eg. sceptics and sophists
#notallsophists
But really, you should read Plato, Aristotle and the others.
>i don’t agree with plato’s theory of ideas at all
Plato has much more than his "theory of ideas" and I doubt you have read him deeply.
>no, for some people promiscuity doesn’t work, for some does, so promiscuity in itself isn’t sth either positive or negative
I disagree with you, but let's remind something. You did say promiscuity is neutral. here >in my opionion, promiscuity is neutral (
>my only “extraoridinary” claim was that promiscuity is neutral
eh, so you think there’s for example no difference in how the middle ages and ancient greece viewed homosexuality?
No such thing as individual conscience of moral unless you are committed to a full blown relativism. In which case you have no grounds to build cases against rape or pedophili
>Woemn talk more than men and they talk about everything. When men talk, it's nearly all gossip.
absolute fucking bullshit
It's telling that you shirk from coming with any examples of societies in which promiscuity was accepted, instead deflecting to other issues.
truth
Not killing is not universally agreed upon. I can kill you and some would find it morally right. Will you lay on your back and say it’s up to each individual? You should that’s what your morality entails
Why would a libertarian want to build a case against paedophilia?
>let's remind something. You did say promiscuity is neutral.
neutral in the sense that in itself it isn’t either negative or positive
>But really, you should read Plato, Aristotle and the others.
can you elaborate on that?
i agree that they’re worth reading because of their cultural importance, but not because of their actual achievements
i like analytical philosophy more
I find killing antisocial people like that one user morally correct honestly.
They cannot is what I’m saying. If you allow for any laxity in sexual mores you should be ok with everything that comes through that door. If you’re fine with necrophiliacs, rape, and pedophilia due to your full blown relativism you should be fine with me killing you for such beliefs as well, nothing wrong with that
promiscuity
n. The state or character of being; immorality.
isn’t homexesuality considered immoral by some?
>can you elaborate on that?
>i agree that they’re worth reading because of their cultural importance, but not because of their actual achievements
>i like analytical philosophy more
Because they spent a lot of time thinking about what is the good and what is the good life. Something that people don't think about anymore, using some kind of moral relativism which leads to people living worse lives being led by what feels good at the moment.
i know that such retards like you can’t cope with the fact that others can have a different worldview from yours
killing is considered immoral by the society, i’m not including psychopaths
Another deflection instead of coming up with some real example? Please, what were the high cultures that held women having dozens of prematitial sex partners as good and desirable.
are you that retarded to think there’s no difference between allowing sex before marriage and raping a child? go back to /pol
So if promoting promiscuity is considered immoral by society, you'll say banning it wholesale is good? What's the tipping point?
the issue of homosexuality was an example of how cultures (and ages) view sexuality differently, to which you disagreeded
i will repost, because you appearently haven’t understanded it
>there’s some thing which are universally agreeed upon (like you shouldn’t kill people), but there’s also a grey area, which is up to each individual’s conscience
This is just you arbitrary making shit up. If society as a whole decides murder and promiscuity are both bad, why should they be treated differently? Because you say so? What of society agrees that hanging rapists is a good thing? Is society wrong? You have no internal logic in your reasoning whatsoever.
killing a human being causes actual harm
having a ons, isn’t negative in itself
it’s disgusting how can you even compare these two
So why bring in "society has agreed blablabla" as a point in your argument?
because i wanted to point out that some aspects of morality are universally agreed upon (killing people is immoral unless you’re a psychopath), and there some more ambiguous things - the grey area of which i talked about
and this grey area isn’t about things which are bad in itself (cause actual harm, pain), but about things relating to customs, which are up to individual’s conscience
It is universally agreed on that antisocial people like yourself belong in some form of institution.
why do you consider me antisocial? just because i don’t have the same worldview as you do?
Shared values are the foundation of society and you deny they even should exist, everything should be some laissez-faire fay zone as long as it doesn't break le NAP. You're antisocial as fuck.
read what i said again, it’s not that hard to get
i believe in shared values, but there’re some areas which are ambiguous as i’ve already said
Read david benatar he more or less proves that if you allow laxity to sexual mores the slippery slope is fast enough to be waxed.
Don’t say the word disgusting you immoral heathen. You have as the previous poster said no internal logic or grounded morals to even say such a thing. Your world view requires you to accept moral chaos, therefore do not use moral language.
there’s some thing which are universally agreeed upon (like you shouldn’t kill people), but there’s also a grey area, which is up to each individual’s conscience
it’s not a moral chaos, reread what i wrote
i don’t considered myself promiscuous (although i’ve had sex before marriage), but i’m not a piece of humanshit to think that everyone else should be like me
lmao, most probably the majority of you are virgins or didn’t have luck with women
You are so weak willed it’s insane.
Tell me glaucon why should we not kill each other? If you have no reason other than, at this current moment we all agreed not to, then what happens at a time when men agree to kill men of another village (oh shit like war? You mean not killing is not universal?) admit you have no morals and no moral foundation and let it all go. Why are you so concerned with pretending you can avoid anarchy with your spineless and groundless philosophy?
pain is sth that can be measured, therefore sth in a way objective, and it’s negative in itself
causing unnecessary pain is immoral
on the other hand, there’re some issues, the grey are, related to customs only, which are up to individual’s conscience
i think wanting to be a good person for the sake of it is more moral than wanting to be a good person just because you expect some reward in the afterlife
Jeez that’s honestly too boring of a position to argue with. You’re wrong, read orthodoxy by Chesterton to see how wrong you are. I’m truly sorry for you, I was like you for so long and it’s truly depressing knowing some never grow out of it like I have. I wish you the best.
you can’t provide me with an answer? idk why people always said “read x and y” as if they couldn’t write it themselves
it’s truly depressing that some people will stay so narrow-minded for their whole life
The answer is, nothing more than what you’ve stated is counter to fact. It’s like staying the sky is red and that’s a matter of personal opinion. If you cannot see that you’re not worth my time. I’ve seen your point of view before and it’s laughably boring. Narrow minded am I? Unfortunate you cannot see your doctrine blinding you from any paradigm beyond mass anarchy.
There's a point where you can actually sense the wide eyed idealism and delusion emanating from the post, like I've seen these words before on memes and fashwave posters and he is just regurgitating . You can tell this guy was reading infographs on /pol/ 5 minutes before typing
The first thing she writes in her review is something completely off topic about a big black guy with a small dick and somehow this is related to the review...
I mean it is related to the book no doubt, but not in the way she expects, she's literally Weininger's idea made manifest, like the text grew hands and started typing by itself
