The Toll of Bad Dating Experiences
Is the Extraordinary Takedown of Pickup Artist
A Player Seeks Redemption
Where Were You When I Was Still Unattractive
New Prediction Factors for Divorce
Is California’s New Affirmative Consent Law a Good Thing?
College Fraternities and Sexual Assault
For Valid Sexual Assault Rates, We’re Better Off Asking the Rapists
Duke Nurtures a Transition from Hookup Culture to Dating Culture
Of course I see your point and freedom should in theory be protected as much as possible. But I fear a little research into history and psychology will reveal that choosing a partner ( specifically a female one) based on past sexual history will prove to be more about the same old macho insecurity crap than “benign freedom” to choose. It’s like saying “I totally have nothing against black chicks! I’ve even hooked up with some, but I’d never take one home to mom and dad. And that’s all because I just have the freedom to choose, so it’s ok”. It’s easier to see with an argument like that that this “freedom to choose” thing is anything but freedom. You see, you’re not truly free when standards established way before you were born and that you never went through the almost always scary and painful process of questioning define how you think and relate to people.
We are all free: free to transcend trite rituals, free to stick to the same old stuff with the excuse that there isn’t anything behind it but “the freedom to live as we please”.
A devout Muslim once told me that women were inferior to men because the Qur’an said so and that meant we just all needed to accept that because “it’s the way it’s always been”. Absurd? Well, the only difference is that it’s harder to hold an objective stance when you have to look at yourself, and with all due respect modern society is notoriously deficient in self-awareness. Cause and consequence rule the world, not preferences that mysteriously arise out of nothing. If men want chicks that are less experienced, there’s a historical reason. Let’s all just think a bit further.
JP says:
January 30, 2013 at 7:45 pm
@Tary:
“Cause and consequence rule the world, not preferences that mysteriously arise out of nothing. If men want chicks that are less experienced, there’s a historical reason. Let’s all just think a bit further.”
I think that the point is that these preferences mysteriously arise out of biology. You know, the same thing that cause you to have a sex drive in the first place.
And the issue of whether men might want “chicks who are less experienced” because their brains are subconsiously flashing *warning!* *warning!* *potential cuckhold danger*.
Kind of like when you see a doughnut and you eat it, your brain thinks *fatty sugary food!* *won’t starve this winter* * engorge!* *lard up!* at which point you start crying because your diet just died and you don’t know why you couldn’t resist those worthless 500 calories.
Is the Extraordinary Takedown of Pickup Artist
A Player Seeks Redemption
Where Were You When I Was Still Unattractive
New Prediction Factors for Divorce
Is California’s New Affirmative Consent Law a Good Thing?
College Fraternities and Sexual Assault
For Valid Sexual Assault Rates, We’re Better Off Asking the Rapists
Duke Nurtures a Transition from Hookup Culture to Dating Culture
Of course I see your point and freedom should in theory be protected as much as possible. But I fear a little research into history and psychology will reveal that choosing a partner ( specifically a female one) based on past sexual history will prove to be more about the same old macho insecurity crap than “benign freedom” to choose. It’s like saying “I totally have nothing against black chicks! I’ve even hooked up with some, but I’d never take one home to mom and dad. And that’s all because I just have the freedom to choose, so it’s ok”. It’s easier to see with an argument like that that this “freedom to choose” thing is anything but freedom. You see, you’re not truly free when standards established way before you were born and that you never went through the almost always scary and painful process of questioning define how you think and relate to people.
We are all free: free to transcend trite rituals, free to stick to the same old stuff with the excuse that there isn’t anything behind it but “the freedom to live as we please”.
A devout Muslim once told me that women were inferior to men because the Qur’an said so and that meant we just all needed to accept that because “it’s the way it’s always been”. Absurd? Well, the only difference is that it’s harder to hold an objective stance when you have to look at yourself, and with all due respect modern society is notoriously deficient in self-awareness. Cause and consequence rule the world, not preferences that mysteriously arise out of nothing. If men want chicks that are less experienced, there’s a historical reason. Let’s all just think a bit further.
JP says:
January 30, 2013 at 7:45 pm
@Tary:
“Cause and consequence rule the world, not preferences that mysteriously arise out of nothing. If men want chicks that are less experienced, there’s a historical reason. Let’s all just think a bit further.”
I think that the point is that these preferences mysteriously arise out of biology. You know, the same thing that cause you to have a sex drive in the first place.
And the issue of whether men might want “chicks who are less experienced” because their brains are subconsiously flashing *warning!* *warning!* *potential cuckhold danger*.
Kind of like when you see a doughnut and you eat it, your brain thinks *fatty sugary food!* *won’t starve this winter* * engorge!* *lard up!* at which point you start crying because your diet just died and you don’t know why you couldn’t resist those worthless 500 calories.