What makes sexual promiscuity objectively immoral? I can see why it would be a problem in the past...

What makes sexual promiscuity objectively immoral? I can see why it would be a problem in the past, because it would result in children who wouldn't have stable families. But we have cheap contraceptives now.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=dIEemKcy-4E&
youtube.com/watch?v=SNY9MQmaBBI
youtube.com/watch?v=DTnHdWA9WTE
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

>moral objectivity

>All things in moderation

Some people do not have this trait

>Howard Stern
kys

Who is that lovely dairy cow with the heavy udders in the blue panties?

the bible

...

It leads to cock carousels, later settling with betas, then cheating on the betas, hence divirce, hence broken family, hence single motherhood, hence shit children, resulting in more betas, sluts and crime.

rinse and repeat

>objectively
"It says so in this book" isn't an answer.

I've always wondered why this effects women, but hardly effects men.

Weird.

There is an inverse relationship between the number of sex partners, happiness and success in marriage.

topkek

Now this is what i call disgusting sluts.

a lock that is opened by many keys is a piece of shit

Lack of self-restraint is a pretty shitty character flaw. Also STDs.

We looked into ourselves to understand. It promotes jealousy and lustful which are 2 of the 7 deadly sins. It also produces laziness in our women who now think they should profit from the free attention.

Are they lipo scars?

who is the second one? kinda looks like laura southern.

Took me a second to see what you meant. But good eye

Sexual freedom brings sexual responsibility. But women have repeatedly shown they can't handle this responsibility

names?

Tessa Fowler, happy fap

men can usually think "ive chosen this girl to be my wife and promised to be monagamous. i wont go against that even stacy was a great lay back in the day"

women will use all sorts of mental gymnastics to convince themselves that cheating isnt wrong and their friends will usually reinforce this kind of thinking

it is not

>He still believes in ancient Jewish fairy tales

The redhead's rack is out of this world

bunch of 200lb 30 year old virgin bitching about how much that hate woman on there safespace

This is a completely bullshit question to begin with. Anything existing as objectively immoral logically implies that any morality is objectively moral, and therefore correct.

C section. They probably have little nigglets at home.

>200lb as an insult

manlet detected

It doesn't prepare women for marriage and family life.

It shows something about a woman's character. She has no self-restraint. She would rather risk pregnancy, disease, future relationship problems, etc., for a few minutes of pleasure than wait for a meaningful relationship.

A girl can slut around as much as she wants, but that doesn't mean some beta is obligated to support her and her single child once she's 30 and washed up.

They're not having sex with me.

Are you basing that on statistics or cliches?

if only i could be 200lbs

my highest was like 190. i had a mean deadlift though

because "MUH CHILDREN KANT NO WUT SEKS IZ HURR DURR"

sexual promiscuity is immoral because of irrational parental instincts.

This chart only shows that unstable women like to sleep around a lot.

If for whatever reason they are not allowed to sleep around, they're still terrible marriage quality for whoever eventually marries them.

theres another graph comparing women and men. men with 20+ have about the same amount of stable marriages as women with 2

t. whorelover

For anyone woman 200 lbs is an insult, even a girl whos fucking 6' shouldnt be that heavy

Honestly our generation is pretty fucked, millennials are even more fucked than us in this regard.

Self-respect and Willpower and restrain aren't even considered a good traits anymore.
Male of female.

Im self taught on that and i still struggle to see the difference when im running from a problem and when im actually trying to discipline myself. Its very blurry.

>But we have cheap contraceptives now.
and?
nothing has changed

it's not objectively immoral. but there are plenty of drawbacks to being promiscuous. i say let people do what they want as long as the government isn't using taxpayers money to solve the problems people bring on themselves. (like taxpayer funded abortions, taxpayer funded birth control, taxpayer funded adoption and childcare centers, taxpayer funded healthcare system that would be abused by people with stds and birth rates and all other malignant shit that is brought on by lack of impulse control)

>sex has nothing to do with pair bonding
>the law of diminishing returns is not applicable to feel goods or brain chemicals because muh dik or muh vagyna

It's degenerate, it's just psychologically and societally unhealthy

If you want to live in a shitty way I guess that's your decision, but you're making things worse for yourself and everyone, whether you realise it or not.

>objectively

Some religions if you choose to believe in them.

the girl second from the right have amazing tits

ALL SEX IS RAPE!
ALL SEX IS RAPE!
ALL SEX IS RAPE!
ALL SEX IS RAPE!
ALL SEX IS RAPE!

apparently millennial are having less partners than gen x. i dont know how true the article was though

Breaks your pair bonding and undermines your psychological receptivity to monogamy.

Tessa Fowler fyi

I-I have a p-problem, mister. I c-can't stop raping myself. W-what should I do?

It weakens nuclear family bonds. A strong family unit should be a the heart of any right wing ideology. It is to be the opposite of the left wing ideology which taken to its extreme seeks to remove the family unit entirely and make children (like everything else) the property of the State (Which is then in turn 'owned' by the central banks).

This is why promiscuity is objectively immoral.

All have silicone except the leftmost with her beautiful tits. She could sit on my face anytime, for free.

Yeah, but if you read the statistics right it might be biased.

I will shoot in the dark but it might be because male millennials have problem with the whole mangina problem and females are more promiscuous. The whole 'swipe right' culture is to blame here. Just because statically they have less sex doesn't mean they suddenly have iron will self restraint. Its just means there is less sex there and it might be more promiscuous.

...

Wouldn't surprise me. I've noticed that people my age (18) and younger are kind of joyless. I think it's because life is so much harder and more stressful than it used to be. These days you have to be superhuman to get a decent job and a nice house

There's nothing wrong with promiscuity once you're finished having kids, so long as it doesn't disrupt family life. Women shouldn't be using their reproductive systems for frivolous entertainment while their main purpose is to grow and nurture their young. Make babies for ten or fifteen years then slut around for the next fifty. I don't see why that seems like hell on earth to so many young women. It's not as though there's any self-denial involved. Promiscuous people have the least sex out of anybody having it at all.

Sluts develop a natural immunity to oxytocin when exposed to it in large doses.
Oxytocin is sometimes called the "trust hormone" and it's a chemical that gets released into your body when you have sex, skin on skin contact, when you hug a child or a pet, when you kiss someone, etc.
It's instrumental in pair bonding and developing lasting relationships.
People who have excessive amounts of sex develop an immunity just like with any chemical, which makes it very hard for them to bond with others and create lasting relationships, if not impossible past a certain point.
The number of people you can fuck and still be able to fall in love with someone or develop a trusting relationship is finite, and not even that high.

Hm, she doesn't seem to have any hardcore stuff. Still nice to look at though

>objective morality

The answer is nothing.

>But we have cheap contraceptives now.
And many of these people will willingly pop out a child regardless.
>Oh, I "love" him. We're gonna be together forever...what? No he doesn't have a job. Stop being judgmental.

She fucks, just not on camera

>moral relativism

>objective morality

Doesn't exist, m8.

That being said, I personally think it's classless and wrong to be incredibly promiscuous. I won't really look down on those that do, but I wouldn't want to date a person that is. You have a higher chance of STDs, you have a higher chance of divorce, higher unhappiness ratings, lower chance at a longer-term relationship, and, I would assume (no real stats), a higher chance of cheating.

Now I'm not saying I need a 'completely pure virgin' that's never even seen a dick, but I don't want some trashy slut that's fucked 20 dudes in a month.

This is like trying to keep society at the same level for all eternity.

No one missed having internet on his/her mobile phone to browse Sup Forums 10 years ago but boy am I happy the jews gave me the possibility.

The ones with 0 previous partners simply don't know that there might be much better for them out there.

It's why a lot of the retarded inbred Amish people are happy.

It is enabling animal behavior.

Women are subhuman they are slaves to their animal instincts.

This is interesting, but I have trouble believing it for reasons I mentioned above. Sluts have sex once a week, if that. They're more likely to use condoms than committed couples are. And yet the serial monogamist, who has more skin contact and more exchange of bodily fluids, is more likely to fall in love and enter another long term relationship than someone who is promiscuous but less active.

I wonder if it has something to do with the body familiarizing itself with and calibrating itself to a specific person. Maybe having a massive slurry of other people's spit and sweat and spunk swimming around in your body makes the pair bonding situation sort of like dumping a spoon of sugar into tea already saturated with it.

>objective morality
>Doesn't exist, m8.
If morality isn't objective, it's not morality, you fucking spooge

You say objective morality doesn't exist, but are you willing to agree that there are certain behaviors that can either sustain human life and behaviors that can destroy it?

youtube.com/watch?v=dIEemKcy-4E&

Disease you dipshit nigger

>unironically believing that the human experience is not, in and of itself, subjective

This is not to say morality is a bad thing. It is to say if you believe you, as a human being, can assign universal/objective morality to anything, you are delusional.

>, but are you willing to agree that there are certain behaviors that can either sustain human life and behaviors that can destroy it?
why is destroying human life a negativo friend?

With oxytocin it's more about a large quantity of different partners than simply lots of sex.
You can have sex every day with one person and all you're doing is reinforcing an existing bond.
The problem arises when your hormones have to keep repeatedly trying to form a new bond and flooding your system.

Your body wants to be monogamous.

Moral relativism is one of four tenets of modern satanism.

If it isn't a negative, that would imply that either 1) you do not want to sustain your own life, in which case morality is removed the equation completely or 2) death of people you value does not negatively effect you

>body wants to be monogamous
>sex partner x for 5 years, bonded quite decently, break up due to reasons
>new sex partner y is bottom of the chain in bonding and you have to fuck for at least 5 years to be anywhere close
>except diminishing returns so now you have to fuck partner y for 6 or 7 years to be pair bonded with the new partner

>chances are you won't because it doesn't feel the same as when you were in love before

>repeat until you divorce the first guy unlucky enough to squirt kids in you and take half his money

I don't have a problem with women doing whatever they want. but our science, our medicine, our genetic engineering isn't to the point we can tweak deeply-ingrained gender tendancies, men employ a spray-and-pray sexual technique, women (being the species bottleneck) must employ a much choosier option of pairbonding to a mate. until we can alter these deeply-coded beahviors we are stuck we them. its the exact as saying "i don't care if you choose not to breathe air, its your decision, but the reality of the situation is we're air-breathers and until we can tweak you into gills you're stuck with what biology gave you". culture does not and cannot override biology, at least not yet.

Nothing makes sexual promiscuity objectively immoral, and I do actually believe in objective morality based on principles like the NAP.

Whether or not something produces healthy children in stable families is not a good rationale to base morality off. I could steal a baby from poor parents and give that child a better life, but it doesn't mean the act of stealing someones child is itself moral.

Promiscuity is however deeply inversely correlated with long lasting happiness, this tends to come from stable long term monogamous relationships that involve children and family, and promiscuity threatens that.

Values and morals aren't the same thing, promiscuity is something you'd teach your daughter to avoid as a value, you couldn't justify the act as being immoral though, there's no rational basis for that.

nothing is subjective, coward.

>years
you mean days, right?

I don't know the time frames for pair bonding, I am autistic.

Yep, that's about it.

A good comparison is an adrenaline junkie, because adrenaline works much the same was as oxytocin, and is released into the body through the same processes.

At first even a small scare is enough to release adrenaline, but as they become resistant to the hormone through exposure, it takes more and more extreme scenarios to get them 'high'.

Some guy wingsuiting off K2 wirth no parachute is the equivalent of some college girl sleeping with her 105th Tinder match because she just "doesn't feel a connection".

aren't C-section scars vertical?

there's like 10 ways to cut up the abdomen for a C section.

You'd be shocked to see how Yugoslavian C sections look like

You do realize that Plato blew relativism the fuck out just about 2500 years ago, thus starting western civilization, and that any attempt to reinstate it is subversive and very, very stupid, right?

Is it morally wrong to hire an escort?

this

*slow clap*

who is the one to the far right?

If she got udders like the 3rd one, and body of 4th one. I'd give you a pass.

B-BUT THAT WAS 2500 YEARS AGO
THINGS HAVE CHANGED
HOW CAN YOU BE SUCH A MORALFAG
STUPID GOY

>If for whatever reason they are not allowed to sleep around, they're still terrible marriage quality for whoever eventually marries them.
So basically women before the 20th century? Yeah nah.

Getting impregnated by a man you don't want to have children with isn't the only way to create an unstable family. As show the more sexual partners women have in their lifetime the less stable their eventual marriage becomes and the more prone they are to divorce and divide their families. These facts are usually either denied by sexual liberalists or they shift the goalposts, claiming that stable satisfactory marriages are less important than getting the best instant gratification possible. They'll claim that those satisfied women are actually trapped without knowing any better when they're really just justifying the casual sex they were told would be liberating.

>What makes sexual promiscuity objectively immoral?
I realize it's been turned into a meme but please look up rK selection theory.

Essentially, having a greater amount of sexual partners lowers your ability to generate sufficiently strong pair bonding traits, which results in lower amount of energy extorted in favor of offspring, which hampers their maturity and ability, which forces people into an "r" reproductive strategy which is inherently degenerative.

Tl;dr it destroys society, literally, albeit slowly.

How would that be morally wrong?
Man has duty to keep his need's satisfied.
Prostitution is as old as civilisation.

What's wrong is that we tread whores AS escorts now, where we have deeper connection with women selling thier body for profit because 'normal' women are worthless now. As long as you don't overdue it and don't treat the whores like your lovers i think its all good.

>humans are limited and experience dfferent things
>this doesn't mean that after millenias of conglomerated stories of how to solve your problems, that people have found out objective best ways to lay out a culture in order to live in the objective best way

kys faggot. try to actually understand nietzche next time you read him

Sexual promiscuity is objectively bad for non-degenerate families.

As a parent, there are multiple goals to achieve when raising your children, but two of the main ones are:

1. Raise sons who will be good providers and solid moral leaders.

2. Raise daughters who will be good wives and mothers.

Neither of these are possible in a world where sexual promiscuity is the norm.

It's true enough that men will fuck any attractive female set before them. But will they marry them? Absolutely not. Our instinct for the pussy hunt is more than just a game - we have that instinct because a girl who is hard to get into bed will make a good wife and mother.

Solid family units lead to strong cultures - educated children who wish to follow in their parents' footsteps and create more educated children.

Sexually promiscuous cultures have historically fallen into disarray at around the same time sexual promiscuity became the norm. This is not a coincidence.

>incredibly promiscuous.

LOL you set the bar too high or maybe too low ...

youtube.com/watch?v=SNY9MQmaBBI

reminded me of this I found a long fucking time ago

youtube.com/watch?v=DTnHdWA9WTE