Who is the most moral person in your eyes?

[Mathilda]

Moderator Action: This topic wasn't about Iraq war. Kindly stick to the topic.

 

[punkbass2000]

I can tell you're playing dumb, which in no way is helping the issue.

Not at all. However:

Having 30 sex partners in a month is indicative of someone not wishing for a commital relationship. If they were looking for one, they would clearly not be having sex every single day of the month with a different person. Yet you seem to think such a person could potentially be looking for a commital relationship. I'll turn the tables here and ask you why you think that.

I believe I've determined the issue here. You seem to think that love (or perhaps LOVE) means seeking and engaging in a committal (and, I suspect, monogamous) relationship.

If we're playing with percentages, then yes my statements and viewpoints are "inaccurate". If we're looking at reality, they are far from inaccurate. The number of potential people that would have 30 partners/month and genuinely care about the people are so small in percentage that it does us no good to sit here and even talk about them. Yet you want to sit here and waste both of our time pretending like it is a crack in my logic. Fine, take the .5% that defy male nature and social patterns. You win.

I misunderstood your point, sorry. I thought you meant that it was not possible to engage in sexual acts with multiple people over a short period of time and maintain respect and care for each one.

I can "love" everyone on earth and "love" eating chocolate sprinkled doughnuts for breakfeast. Yet it takes "LOVE" to qualify as a truly dedicated couple and to say you love a single individual. Jesus camp pupils will claim to you they love you for who you are even though you're some random atheist Joe walking down the street. Do they "LOVE" you in a commital-relationshippy kind of way? No. They "love" you on a non-personal, Jesuswantsworldpeace-propaganda kind of way. Just as the typical person #1 from the OP "loves" his 30+ sex partners in a non-personal, non-commital relationship kind of way.

Can you define love for me? Why is the paradigm of a couple and the idea of love being exclusive so intrinsic to your wolrdview?

Then, as I said before, the entire word Whore and Whorish become irrelevant. Last time I checked the two terms are very much an active part of American vocabulary and linguistic usage. I seem to think you have problems with me calling others a whore. WHich would be fine if I went out of my way to call Hillary Clinton a whore, or Dick Cheney's daughter a whore. However when someone has 30+ sex partners in a month, the majority of America would agree that person #1 is a whore. Harsh? Then be PC and find a word that floats your boat. A whore is a whore though.

You're totally misunderstanding me here. I'm not arguing about whether or not they are a whore. I'm just saying that the fact that you are calling them that, in and of itself, is not relevant. Call them whatever you want.

If they do, then Person #1's effort in trying is so small we don't have to really worry about it. You are diving in to potentialities, while I am going off of what is actually presented here. Potentially Person #1 could be a red-headed Irishman that drinks ale every night at 5:00 and then goes to have sex. Was it stated in the OP? Nope.

Yes, but you said they cannot. If you mean that they probably are not, then fine. I just acknowledge the possibility.

Of course, merely having sex does not prevent acute caring. But I would say being a prolific sex machine typically, on the level we actually are discussing in this thread, is a great indication of a lack of it.

Fair enough.

 

[Grisu]

how did we arrive at that magical number of 30 sexual partners per month?

I mean, aren't we being a tiny little bit unrealistic here? To me 'a very active sex life with lots of different partners' would mean maybe a handful per month. Heck, 30 different partners per month would be very hard to maintain (especially in february ) and I doubt that there are many people who even come close to this (well, apart from pros, I guess).

 

[Atlas14]

Not at all. However:
I believe I've determined the issue here. You seem to think that love (or perhaps LOVE) means seeking and engaging in a committal (and, I suspect, monogamous) relationship.

Not monogamous, but I would say committal. This doesn't even have to mean boyfriend/girlfriend, wife/husband, etc. It could be two best friends that love each other so much they would die for each other. It is difficult to explain, apologies if I'm being overly vague.

Can you define love for me? Why is the paradigm of a couple and the idea of love being exclusive so intrinsic to your wolrdview?

Definition of Love (Oh jeez, this is a tough one, but here goes): the culmination and expression of affection and emotional experiences one has for another; deeply profound and often romantic, a special bond that is not easily broken

I don't necessarily think love is exclusive to couples. However, as with many nouns and verbs and states of being, there are qualifications one must meet to be characterized/described as possessing/engaging in love. I just don't think Person A meets the criteria for possessing love for any of the multiple partners.

You're totally misunderstanding me here. I'm not arguing about whether or not they are a whore. I'm just saying that the fact that you are calling them that, in and of itself, is not relevant. Call them whatever you want.

Oh ok. Yes, I agree that it is pointless to the thread, I was just merely voicing my opinion of Person A since everyone seemed to be doing it. Moving on

Yes, but you said they cannot. If you mean that they probably are not, then fine. I just acknowledge the possibility.

Ok, they can, but very small probability, so small that its not worth debating. Fair enough?

 

[punkbass2000]

how did we arrive at that magical number of 30 sexual partners per month?

It was just an arbitrary number for the sake of argument.

 

[punkbass2000]

Not monogamous, but I would say committal. This doesn't even have to mean boyfriend/girlfriend, wife/husband, etc. It could be two best friends that love each other so much they would die for each other. It is difficult to explain, apologies if I'm being overly vague.

I agree; it can be difficult to explain. Still, I suspect that you think "love" should be put on a pedestal, so to speak, insomuch as it's not something you can do with everyone at all times; that it should be reserved.

Definition of Love (Oh jeez, this is a tough one, but here goes): the culmination and expression of affection and emotional experiences one has for another; deeply profound and often romantic, a special bond that is not easily broken

Sounds reasonable.

I don't necessarily think love is exclusive to couples. However, as with many nouns and verbs and states of being, there are qualifications one must meet to be characterized/described as possessing/engaging in love. I just don't think Person A meets the criteria for possessing love for any of the multiple partners.

NO, but I don't think he's disqualified from it either.

Ok, they can, but very small probability, so small that its not worth debating. Fair enough?

I do think it's worth being aware of, at any rate, if not worth debating over. I personally feel that if I were to be the sort of person to engage in casual sex, it would in no way affect my love for said people. To my mind, the act of sex is a red herring in this entire discussion. Does person actively love each one of those people? Probably not. I'll invent person C, however: One who meets all the same people as Person A as interacts in similar environments and with similar interactions, but not sexually (or even romantically). I don't think Person C is any more likely to actively love any of those people than Person A. It's not the act of sex, in and of itself, which causes Person A to fail to show love and respect for those around him/her.

 

[Atlas14]

I agree; it can be difficult to explain. Still, I suspect that you think "love" should be put on a pedestal, so to speak, insomuch as it's not something you can do with everyone at all times; that it should be reserved.

A pedestal as in something great, something close to holy, something sacred or even very special?

Perhaps I am putting it on a pedestal, but I think types of love comes in varying degrees, and the strength and greatness of love come in varying degrees as well.

Would I have any regrets with myself if I were to become person A? No.
Do I find the love between me and my dog something very unique and special? Yes. I don't put sex on a pedestal, but maybe I am putting love on one, I'm not really sure to be honest.

NO, but I don't think he's disqualified from it either.

Well, agreed. I think we're lacking information about Person A that might allow us to come to a closer analysis.

I do think it's worth being aware of, at any rate, if not worth debating over. I personally feel that if I were to be the sort of person to engage in casual sex, it would in no way affect my love for said people.

When you say engage in casual sex, are you also getting to know the person beyond a physical sexual relationship so that you can build a strong bond called love, or are you just having casual sex with random people and saying you love them?

One who meets all the same people as Person A as interacts in similar environments and with similar interactions, but not sexually (or even romantically). I don't think Person C is any more likely to actively love any of those people than Person A. It's not the act of sex, in and of itself, which causes Person A to fail to show love and respect for those around him/her.

I think I see what you're saying and I think I agree. Sex or no sex, it seems to be a lack of commital interest or long-term devotion problem with Person A.

 

[Masquerouge]

Well, agreed. I think we're lacking information about Person A that might allow us to come to a closer analysis.

Well that's very true, but that was also intended You're having a great discussion with Punkbass that I find very interesting, but I believe you long ago went way outside of the initial question, which was in my eyes really a moral comparison of casual sex vs cheating and lying.
I toyed with adding more options to the poll (like the married guy is having regular affairs, or trying to quantify how often person A is having sex) but went for simplicity, at the cost of clarity perhaps...

That said, to me it does not really matter how often is person A having sex and how often is person B lying and cheating. I do not view commitment to a monogamous relationship the ultimate goal in life (even though I'm currently committed to a monogamous relationship ), but I think being honest and not breaking your promises is something primordial. That's my moral laws. Do not lie, do not make promises you can't keep. Not one of my moral laws is "do no have sex with multiple people".

 

[Atlas14]

Well that's very true, but that was also intended You're having a great discussion with Punkbass that I find very interesting, but I believe you long ago went way outside of the initial question, which was in my eyes really a moral comparison of casual sex vs cheating and lying.
I toyed with adding more options to the poll (like the married guy is having regular affairs, or trying to quantify how often person A is having sex) but went for simplicity, at the cost of clarity perhaps...

A deep question requires deep thought and discussion You and PB have really made me think.

Since my original view proabably got lost in translation, I feel I should restate that I don't think person A is immoral, while I do think person B is, for lying/dishonesty reasons.

Sex = good. Lots of sex = even better. I might not be seen as a respectable person for engaging in it (in real life I don't), but hey, its my decision, right? Thats my take on it. Long-term relationships aren't for everybody, and some just go through phases of multiple relationships w/ many partners. Whatever floats your boat.

That said, to me it does not really matter how often is person A having sex and how often is person B lying and cheating. I do not view commitment to a monogamous relationship the ultimate goal in life (even though I'm currently committed to a monogamous relationship ), but I think being honest and not breaking your promises is something primordial. That's my moral laws. Do not lie, do not make promises you can't keep. Not one of my moral laws is "do no have sex with multiple people".

I agree with the latter part very much, and some people correct me when I tell them I'm too gullible, when they think I'm actually just very trusting. Trust is just something I value very much.

(I might be too young to make a worthwhile comment on the "a monogamous relationship not being the ultimate goal in life" part though Right now I'm still a bit paranoid I will never be in one, and never get married to someone I love)

 

[Masquerouge]

(I might be too young to make a worthwhile comment on the "a monogamous relationship not being the ultimate goal in life" part though Right now I'm still a bit paranoid I will never be in one, and never get married to someone I love)

Darn I have to rephrase what I said, I'm afraid. What I really wanted to say is that I don't see commitment to a monogamous relationship as the ultimate goal in life FOR EVERYBODY. Some people will have that goal, others won't, but that's okay. What I find rather sad is when people obviously not suited for faithful relationships go into one out of peer pressure. You know at least 3 people are going to get hurt...

Now as far as I'm concerned, I don't think I could have a fulfilling relationship if faithfulness and commitment were not involved, but I don't pretend it's the One True Way that everybody should follow, and I certainly do not pretend you have to be married to have a faithful, committed relationship - again even though I'm married, but that was for the visa

 

[punkbass2000]

A pedestal as in something great, something close to holy, something sacred or even very special?

Perhaps I am putting it on a pedestal, but I think types of love comes in varying degrees, and the strength and greatness of love come in varying degrees as well.

I disagree here. Love is either present or not. It does not come in degrees. It is shown in an infinite of ways which you may classify as various ranks, if you're so inclined, but really it's all equal.

Well, agreed. I think we're lacking information about Person A that might allow us to come to a closer analysis.

Certainly. I mean really, all we can say about Person A is that s/he has a lot of sex and is upfront about this fact.

When you say engage in casual sex, are you also getting to know the person beyond a physical sexual relationship so that you can build a strong bond called love, or are you just having casual sex with random people and saying you love them?

To me, "casual sex" would fit either definition here. Personally, I find I can love anyone right away. How much of themselves they reveal (which seems to be quite a bit, relatively quickly, in my experience) determines how well you can show it.

I think I see what you're saying and I think I agree. Sex or no sex, it seems to be a lack of commital interest or long-term devotion problem with Person A.

For the most part, yes. There are cases where the best way to show love for another is to leave them alone, but by and large taking time with each person is the best route.

 

[warpus]

I disagree here. Love is either present or not. It does not come in degrees. It is shown in an infinite of ways which you may classify as various ranks, if you're so inclined, but really it's all equal.

I disagree with this. Yes, love is either there or it isn't, but no 2 people experience love in the exact same way. Each feeling of 'love' is unique - you can't say that they are all the same.

 

[punkbass2000]

Er, I didn't say it was the same. I explicitly said there are an infinite number ways to show love.

 

[warpus]

Er, I didn't say it was the same. I explicitly said there are an infinite number ways to show love.

The feeling itself is unique each time it is experienced; it is not only the expression that is.

 

[punkbass2000]

OK.