The Student Room Group

Academic/hard working women less prone to promiscuity/early copulations?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20
Original post by fermat1324
shut up Jo nobody cares about your tired feminism


only a lonely jealous virgin like you would have a problem with promiscuity.


Or does the word 'promiscuity' remind you of your mum getting ploughed in the basement by multiple men?
Original post by fermat1324
it's anti-tediousism you're saying the same **** every other feminist harps on about and there are millions of you.

as G.H. Hardy said, it's a waste of any quality person's time to express a popular opinion (or words to that effect)


Oh good one. You're implying that I'm only a feminist because I'm a hipster of some kind.

Ironically, I've encountered this fallacy plenty of times, so by your own standard your opinion is a complete waste of time.
Original post by fixup
only a lonely jealous virgin like you would have a problem with promiscuity.


Or does the word 'promiscuity' remind you of your mum getting ploughed in the basement by multiple men?


I don't have a problem with it lol I have a problem with the tedious discussions surrounding it.
Original post by MoralInversion
Its time that should be spent bettering themselves and society. If you have worked hard all week then I see no problem with reading or walking in the country but hardcore ****ings/night clubs surely thats just the lifestyle of the proletariat?

Funny, a lot of the upper classes do this without a hard week of work
Original post by fermat1324
I don't have a problem with it lol I have a problem with the tedious discussions surrounding it.

Funny how you negatively reacted to the feminist strand though, yet didn't react negatively to the pure/impure bull that has been floating around for literally thousands of years.
Original post by JoPearson89
No offence, but I can tell you come from a fairly religious background. I'm getting flashbacks.

What makes non-marital sex "unpure"?

Unpure is a label ascribed by a religious text.

The bulk of this religious text as written in medieval or pre-medieval times, by people who didn't even have an understanding of how things like diseases worked on a basic level, yet claimed to have an understanding of the divine.

Their supposed understanding of a supreme being (which is apparently fascinated with all manner of human obscura) coincidentally *cough* gives them permission to tell people (mostly women) what they can and can't do with their bodies in a way that benefits these (overwhelmingly male) authority figures.

There's nothing wrong with sex outside of marriage. It's still sex, either way.

Some people don't like it, so they don't want others to do it, so they invent reasons for why it's wrong, rather than confront the fact that it's just their personal taste and that they have no right or just cause to look down on others for their sex lives.


Bottom line, copulations outside conventional marital reproduction destabilise society.

But if you want a free and easy society why not just turn a blind eye to decency altogether and have rampant public nudity and freely available public pornography. After all its just a question of taste right? Be free.. be chill
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by MoralInversion
Bottom line, copulations outside conventional marital reproduction destabilise society.

Bottom line my ass. Only if that society is needlessly predicated on a heterosexual marriage.

But if you want a free and easy society why not just turn a blind eye to decency altogether and have rampant public nudity and freely available public pornography. After all its just a question of taste right? Be free.. be chill

What's decent about forcing people to live with one partner?
Original post by JoPearson89
Bottom line my ass. Only if that society is needlessly predicated on a heterosexual marriage.


What's decent about forcing people to live with one partner?


Thats the only way to raise children i.e a conventional monogamous lifelong marriage; no stepparents or 'new partners' or any of that guff.

Regardless of kids its just better if people focus on the clean and the good and the remediation of suffering rather than worshipping at the altar of sex, greed, lust, hi fashion, MTV, drugs....
You can enjoy studying and dick at the same time. They're not mutually exclusive.
Reply 29
Original post by MoralInversion
Thats the only way to raise children i.e a conventional monogamous lifelong marriage; no stepparents or 'new partners' or any of that guff.

Regardless of kids its just better if people focus on the clean and the good and the remediation of suffering rather than worshipping at the altar of sex, greed, lust, hi fashion, MTV, drugs....


I know right. What an evil, decadent society we live in...I hear Saudi Arabia lacks such displays of vice
Original post by 1 8 13 20 42
I know right. What an evil, decadent society we live in...I hear Saudi Arabia lacks such displays of vice


Saudi has a really good quality of living. Low crime cos Sharia punishments are harsh etc and women actually live a really pampered life under the care of their in-laws. No barbarism whatsoever unlike NE England.
Original post by MoralInversion
Thats the only way to raise children i.e a conventional monogamous lifelong marriage; no stepparents or 'new partners' or any of that guff.

Regardless of kids its just better if people focus on the clean and the good and the remediation of suffering rather than worshipping at the altar of sex, greed, lust, hi fashion, MTV, drugs....


"It's just better" :biggrin:

My impression is that you want it to better, because it would validate the way you were raised. I understand. I too was raised to think that atheists and non-believers were somehow morally lesser and compromised. After I left, I discovered (to my great surprise) that they were on average nicer and kinder and more conscientious than my religious fellows.

Also, not following traditional/religious values isn't mutually exclusive with living a moral life. Not even a little bit.

Check out humanism, transhumanism, extropianism, utopianism, utilitarianism, and egalitarianism. None of these popular philosophies relies on traditional or religious values. All of them are devoted to improving the quality of human life.
Original post by HighwayUnicorn
You can enjoy studying and dick at the same time. They're not mutually exclusive.


:mmm: Really, at the same time? They didn't tell us that in our "How to study effectively" school assemblies...then again, I did go to a Catholic school. :rolleyes:
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by MoralInversion
Saudi has a really good quality of living. Low crime cos Sharia punishments are harsh etc and women actually live a really pampered life under the care of their in-laws. No barbarism whatsoever unlike NE England.

Eh? What total nonsense.

Women in Saudi Arabia are happy. That's why so many defy the law and drive. Women are happy that they are raped, and then when they prosecute their rapists they receive 200 lashes. Women are happy that they can receive severe punishment for merely spending time in a non-relatives presence without permission. Women are happy, that's why they're risked life and limb to get minuscule representation in parliament (you know, the place where you try to change things).

Can't believe this drivel.
Original post by MoralInversion
Thats the only way to raise children i.e a conventional monogamous lifelong marriage; no stepparents or 'new partners' or any of that guff.

Regardless of kids its just better if people focus on the clean and the good and the remediation of suffering rather than worshipping at the altar of sex, greed, lust, hi fashion, MTV, drugs....


Suffering, what suffering?
This thread is a minefield :redface:
Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes
Suffering, what suffering?


Like instead of drunkenly whoring away in town centres maybe actually give some money, food and blankets to the homeless rather than walk around them.
I knew some girls on my course who were really smart, but also quite promiscuous :erm:
Original post by MoralInversion
Like instead of drunkenly whoring away in town centres maybe actually give some money, food and blankets to the homeless rather than walk around them.


So, being promiscuous and charitable is mutually exclusive according to you?
Original post by MoralInversion
Like instead of drunkenly whoring away in town centres maybe actually give some money, food and blankets to the homeless rather than walk around them.


Maybe instead of spending all that time worshipping a deity, when there is no evidence that they even exist, you could instead do something productive like build roads and expand the country's broadband network.

Spoiler

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending