What is so wrong in today's society with being a 'slut'?

Except, that isn't a fact, because sexual attraction is subjective, not objective. So any notion of "quality" is meaningless. Even if it weren't there would still be no reason to believe it would correlate with sexual history in any way.

There is no such thing as the "dating economy" for ****s sake. Not everything has a price.

Still a tiny minority compared to the number of monogamous relationships though, isn't it?

Well, have you done any research into this to investigate the validity of your bold claims? (and no, reddit and youtube don't count) Have you asked a professional sociologist or anthropologist to recommend you some good overview papers or textbooks?

This is a rhetorical question, obviously you have not done any real research.

Basing your judgement of procreative morality upon coincidental topological similarities between genital apparatus and everyday security mechanisms is probably the single stupidest thing you could ever do.

So, congratulations.

Attractiveness is a matter of opinion, but those opinions tend to be relatively unanimous. Your suggestion implies that each person is considered approximately equally desirable by an approximately equal proportion of people; which is not true.



It's not that tiny. Not when you factor in infidelity as well as open polygamy.
Plus your statement that "Humans are a monogamous species and have been for their entire evolutionary history" is just made up.



No less than you have.

In any case, I don't need to. I've simply made the logically necessary inferences from the facts that we already know to be true (e.g. those who are more likely to produce healthy offspring will have their genes more prevalent in future generations; women have fewer chances to reproduce than men do). I don't need the "appeal to authority" fallacy.

explain why

and that vocabulary is hilariously unnecessary. does it make you feel more right or something? lol. you could easily write that in simpler terms, george orwell would spit on you.

Not without losing the meaning, you couldn't, no. Using the correct terminology is crucial for maintaining lucidity in a suitably compact format.

If you don't like difficult long words, don't come on a student website.

dont be silly, the meaning was simple. and i think only edgy 14 year olds would write so superfluously so I guess you're right, since edgy 14 year olds would want to come a student website as well - take yourself for example.

you didn't respond to the first part of my reply btw, tbh you probably shouldnt.

Says it all. You don't know the first thing you're talking about. You've never studied this yet you have the arrogance to attempt to tell us all about it as if you have.

I have studied this topic, you have not. Now back the **** down and come back when you've studied a suitable course in it.

If you disagree, show me one false assumption or invalid piece of reasoning I've used. (Although I know you won't, I've already invited you to and you've been unable to so far).

Basing your judgement of procreative morality upon coincidental topological similarities between genital apparatus and everyday security mechanisms is probably the single stupidest thing you could ever do.

So, congratulations.

Knew it
I'm still waiting. Should be easy for you if you're such an expert.

I get it. I'm sick-minded.
And the emphasis, for me at least, isn't on the shapes of the objects but the ideas and concepts behind it. There is no need to use fancy words btw. I ain't that dumb......
And trust me, i've done worse.

Your claims depend on the false assumption that monogamy is a recent development in human history.

The situation you depict is not only untrue now in the 21st century, it has never been true in the entirety of human evolutionary history.

If it wasn't for the shapes, the analogy would make no sense whatsoever.

As it is it doesn't work, but its only because of the shapes that it makes any kind of sense whatsoever.

No, they don't. They depend on the assumption that having multiple partners (possibly, but not necessarily simultaneously) has been a feature of mankind for a very long time, through its evolutionary history. (See the difference?)

The supposed "evolutionary advantages" you claim don't exist in a monogamous society.

I don't think you really understand how evolution works. Which would be fine, if you weren't making such ridiculous and controversial claims based on your obvious misunderstanding.

The ideological concept of one woman and one man having sex with only each other throughout their entire lives is a recent development in human history. And even then, it's not adhered to by most of our society even today.

If it quacks like a duck... There's nothing wrong with calling a girl a slut if she sleeps around.


This is total bs sluts do exist at university and certainly people do call girls who sleep around sluts. And I think it's a good thing. Keeps girls honest as it acts as deterrent against sleeping around.

I don't know whether this is a more common problem in schools than in society but I think that it is wrong. Why should women have to act in a pure, innocent way when men can do as they please?

But a man and a woman staying together long enough to raise offspring is not a recent development... and that's what we mean by monogamy.

You don't even know the basic terminology, you're so far out of your depth you're a mile underwater. Never, never repeat this bull**** on this forum.

come back when you actually have a degree and know what you're talking about. childish insults are very tiresome.

do YOU think a non-specific topological similarity is an appropriate conduit for a supposition of equivalence of morality between otherwise dissimilar examples? If so, explain why.