Do you want to be friends with benefits?

[Theftz22]

I hope that every time you do something purely for the sake of happiness, a ****ing elf pops out of the ground and berates you for being unlawful, fake, artificial, lacking moral self-respect, pointless, meaningless, selfish, mindless, pathetic, and not genuine.

One more person I hope to never debate again.

 

[Crooked Crow]

I've been friends with benefits several times. It's great at first, but it quickly became tiring.

Currently single, with somebody in a FWB relationship. It's somewhat balanced, which is why it works.

Also, it will complicate future relationships you might potentially have. Otherwise, ties will be cut and you can move on.

Most people use it for avoiding hassle and commitment, but it just complicates matters in the end if you get emotionally attached. It happens.

 

[Alien Vision]

I sense alot of anger in your post. I disagree with FwB, no need to be immature about it.

I said what I wanted to say, you said what you wanted to say. It didn't go anywhere, so I dropped it because it wasn't making any significant difference.

I gave it alot of thought last night, and I came to realise that you don't see the value in humans that I do. You don't see how I've seperated real happiness from ''happiness'' that makes us happy but it's not true happiness. Here is a few more examples.

True happiness!

Family

Love

Winning

When someone surprises you.

Gifts

When you do something good.

Etc.​

- -

Artificial Happiness!

Drugs

Smoking

Sex with no meaning.

Hookers

Guys who pay for the hookers.

Sometimes killing people. *cough*

Sometimes people beat people up to make themselves. ''happy''

Alot of christians burned people because they ''opposed'' their ''grace''. ''peace'', and ''happiness'' because apparently they were heretics? Give me a ****ing break.​

Using enhancements.

Using wigs.

Anything that makes you feel happy, but it's not real happiness.. It's just you laughing out of your ignorant/hopeless/cowering/pathetic lil' ***.

 

[Theftz22]

Ok, I'm going to try to explain this to you as calmly as possible, because if you intend to ever do any serious debating, I'm going to give you some advice that you will have to listen to.

Explain your statements and support your claims, don't just assert things with no justification!

If you want to be taken seriously, please explain now what the criteria is on each of your lists, then explain why each individual item fits that criteria.

Explain what you mean by "true happiness". If something makes someone happy, then how is that happiness not "true". The happiness actually obtains, it is real in every sense of the word, so what on earth do you mean to say that it is not "true"?

This is your last chance to stop repeating yourself, to stop ignoring what I say, to explain what you mean, to hash out an actual argument, to define your terms, and to respond to criticism.

I refuse to keep making myself angry by returning to this discussion and wasting my time. You will be ignored if you cannot do all the aforementioned things.

 

[Alien Vision]

I can't promise anything.

When I speak of true happiness, I'm talking about where everything that makes you happy is true to itself. What this act is doing is not true to itself, and is just as tainted as everything else I put on the artificial happiness list + more I didn't put down. What more can I say man? If you can't see how stupid this entire FwB concept is, then you might aswell ignore me if you want to put it the way you did. It's not like I want to ignore you, you know?

Sometimes when alot of people don't agree with something you say, and you haven't the terms to back things up like some of these smashboard users have. When you are using a very fragile system to come up with your own personal notion regarding it all, it's hard not to go in circles when everything you try to muster up at your best of abilities is nothing significant to the person you are trying to get through to.

I try really hard to state what I personally believe, and I will forever believe what I believe. I have no physical standpoint, but I am telling you from my heart that this is morally wrong. If you can't see how fake, and insignificant this practice really is, even when I compared it to those ''popular'' girls who are ''friends'' with an ''unpopular'' kid because why? ''I felt sorry for him''. Then I don't know how else I can stress how much I am against it, and support my thesis as to why.

These kids ****, when it's just pleasure that you can get from a perfectly moral way. They are using each other as objects. They are human beings with a conscious, and just because they like it doesn't make it right. If I stole money from my parents and spent it on alot of things because I wanted to be happy, does that make it right? If you cannot see the difference between true happiness, and happiness that comes from our negativity, then again I am lost for words. What they are doing is wrong, and they can easily suffice for something that isn't wrong. They choose not to, because people like you are encouraging these pathetic practices because you don't have a clue on how twisted humans had become when it comes to reality. Just because they are ''happy'' doesn't mean it's ''real happiness''.

I'm sorry, I can't put it in any other way. What you see in my arguments are exactly what I see in yours.

 

[Ocean]

I said what I wanted to say, you said what you wanted to say. It didn't go anywhere, so I dropped it because it wasn't making any significant difference.

it didn't go anywhere because you refused to refute arguments, and instead just stated your flawed points over and over.

You don't see how I've seperated real happiness from ''happiness'' that makes us happy but it's not true happiness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

I can't promise anything.

that's because you haven't said anything promising.

Sometimes when alot of people don't agree with something you say, and you haven't the terms to back things up like some of these smashboard users have. When you are using a very fragile system to come up with your own personal notion regarding it all, it's hard not to go in circles when everything you try to muster up at your best of abilities is nothing significant to the person you are trying to get through to.

then educate yourself so you aren't constantly sounding like an idiot.

I try really hard to state what I personally believe, and I will forever believe what I believe.

that is one of the dumbest mindsets you can have. how can you expect to improve if you will never sway from your beliefs, even if they are proven wrong or have no basis?
logic and science don't care what your beliefs are.

I have no physical standpoint, but I am telling you from my heart that this is morally wrong. If you can't see how fake, and insignificant this practice really is, even when I compared it to those ''popular'' girls who are ''friends'' with an ''unpopular'' kid because why? ''I felt sorry for him''. Then I don't know how else I can stress how much I am against it, and support my thesis as to why.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion

These kids ****, when it's just pleasure that you can get from a perfectly moral way.

you have yet to give any reason for it's immorality other then "I believe it is immoral".

They are using each other as objects. They are human beings with a conscious, and just because they like it doesn't make it right. If I stole money from my parents and spent it on alot of things because I wanted to be happy, does that make it right?

this is a terrible comparison. stealing involves two parties who do not come to a voluntary agreement. sex involves two parties who do come to a voluntary agreement.

If you cannot see the difference between true happiness, and happiness that comes from our negativity, then again I am lost for words. What they are doing is wrong, and they can easily suffice for something that isn't wrong. They choose not to, because people like you are encouraging these pathetic practices because you don't have a clue on how twisted humans had become when it comes to reality. Just because they are ''happy'' doesn't mean it's ''real happiness''.

if you fail to recognize a very easy to comprehend fallacy, then you have no place in the debate hall.

come back when you have a basic knowledge of logic.

 

[Alien Vision]

Dear Ocean, stop throwing my **** around please.

You know damn well that the comparison I made was to show that just because you are ''happy'' doesn't mean it's right, nor is it ''real happiness''.

Everything you've said that had implied I am uneducated, is only because you, and everyone else can't see what I see when it comes to these stupid practices. You are too wrapped up in ''People can do whatever they want in their lives. Even when it's wrong, and can only be truly scolded at when they do something that affects me personally or that I hate personally''. Of course you aren't going to agree with me because {everyone looks for sex}.

Yep, say all you want about what you think about me. It's wrong, because you can't even say one simple reason why they should be allowed to have a FwB when it's just using each other for pleasure in the end.

Your insults are just as pointless as these practices that you think is ''perfectly normal'' but has yet to contribute anything worth of hearing, yourself.

I ment that my belief for this will forever stay. Nobody will say anything worthy, because all of you are talking out of your ignorant *****. Who cares if you have bigger terms, know all of these resources, and have 1000's who will agree with you. None of it says a DAMN thing. NONE of it makes any logical sense.

It's fake. Get the **** over it.

 

[Ocean]

Dear Ocean, stop throwing my **** around please.

stop making it so easy then.

You know damn well that the comparison I made was to show that just because you are ''happy'' doesn't mean it's right, nor is it ''real happiness''.

nobody said that just because something made you happy, that it is right. I am making the argument that because it is a act that involves two parties voluntarily choosing something, that it should be allowed.

Everything you've said that had implied I am uneducated, is only because you, and everyone else can't see what I see when it comes to these stupid practices.

I implied that you're uneducated because you came into a place that uses logic on a very constant basis without having any idea what you're talking about when it comes to logic. I can easily see your view, but that doesn't change that it's a view that relies on fallacies.

You are too wrapped up in ''People can do whatever they want in their lives. Even when it's wrong, and can only be truly scolded at when they do something that affects me personally or that I hate personally''.

nobody said that.

Of course you aren't going to agree with me because {everyone looks for sex}.

that's not true. I'm not going to agree with you because you have yet to provide and support that wasn't fallacious.

Yep, say all you want about what you think about me. It's wrong, because you can't even say one simple reason why they should be allowed to have a FwB when it's just using each other for pleasure in the end.

it should be allowed because it is two parties voluntarily choosing to enter a sexual relationship.
I said that awhile ago, but you didn't listen.

Your insults are just as pointless as these practices that you think is ''perfectly normal'' but has yet to contribute anything worth of hearing, yourself.

this is nonsensical.

I ment that my belief for this will forever stay. Nobody will say anything worthy, because all of you are talking out of your ignorant *****. Who cares if you have bigger terms, know all of these resources, and have 1000's who will agree with you. None of it says a DAMN thing.

lol @ calling us ignorant.
imagine a fundamentalist saying this exact excerpt, but about the existence of god instead. would you take them seriously?

NONE of it makes any logical sense.

don't you dare talk about my argument being illogical when the foundation of yours is the no true scotsman fallacy and appeal to emotion.

EDIT:: you keep saying that it is pointless. since when is entertainment pointless?

 

[Alien Vision]

They both are voluntarily participating in unlawful practices.

You still are looking at it figuratively, but refuse to see the lack of meaning it has in the end.

It's fake. It's using each other. I don't have to say anything else.

You are ignorant. Especially when you keep deeming my viewpoint fallacious when it's my personal opinion and I told you that I don't have the physical evidence that you need already.

I'm still going to believe what I believe. Until I see atleast one reason that is remotely justifying, I will forever call you ignorant, and call this entire FwB practice bollucks when you can't even back up your ''evidence'' & ''reasons''.

FwB - Friends Worshipping Bull****.

 

[asianaussie]

They both are voluntarily participating in unlawful practices.

What?

It's fake. It's using each other. I don't have to say anything else.

No. You DO have to say something else, or you get the hell out. You don't come in to push your opinions on others and call others ignorant, you come to debate.

What's wrong with fake acts leading to apparent happiness? I could take this further and question what you mean by happiness, but you clearly live in a fairytale world. Happiness is just a feeling, neurotransmitters hurled from one neuron to the next. How real you want your happiness to be depends on how you perceive it, not just how you came to feel happy.

Your labelling of some happiness as fake and unreal is ignorant and disrespectful, especially to those are in situations where this 'fake', 'immoral' happiness is all they can get. This is a very real situation, where people have ****ty lives and pleasure sex may be one of the few joys they have. I feel absolutely horrible for using this as an example. How about this: have you ever fallen into depression? Do you also talk this way to people who are forced to take antidepressants?

It's fine to have opinions, but the way you go about it is a horrible way to make your point. As far as I can see, the support for your opinion is that you are apparently a good human being. You know what? Stop presenting yourself as the defender of true happiness and assuming everyone arguing against you sees others as sub-human. Your elitism reeks from your posts in the way you use unnecessarily confusing words and your absolute refusal to back up your words. This all depresses me.

 

[Alien Vision]

Well. When people are hard ons everyday and will defend anything just because they have the terms, firepower, and IMA FIRE MY LAZZZEEERRRRSSS. They think they know what is right.

Guess what, bruh! You are wrong, why?

If their lives were really torn apart, they have BETTER ways in providing them the comfort that they need, instead of ****ing their dull lives away like a phantom pansy on monkey soup.

So you know what, jibble? Go back to your emo corner, because you know.. Those ''emo'' emotions are ALOT more real than this entire FwB will EVER be son. Now get off that robotic high horse of yours and stop hiding behind your fire power. Start looking at it from what it is.

It's fake.

There are better means to introduce happiness.

It's empty.

It's pointless.

They use each other, even if they both are compliant. THEY STILL ARE USING EACH OTHER. Just like how I said a thousand times how sometimes a popular girl would hang out with an unpopular kid only because ''I FELT SORRY FOR HIM, BOOHOO ;~;l'' They both are compliant in it, because they both got something out of it. She felt bad, so she filled that void. The kid was happy because they had somebody. Yet in the end the entire operation was POINTLESS! WHY DO YOU THINK YOU SEE KIDS HANG OUT WITH PEOPLE WHO BULLY THEM, AND PUSH THEM AROUND? I know why! Because they feel happy, NO MATTER HOW ****ED UP THEIR HAPPINESS IS.

So. I am going to tell you one more time son.

If you are going to continue acting like your viewpoints are any better, and think you REALLY have said anything to back up your bull****.

Then GTFO man. I am sick and tired of ****ing with you steel-gaters, and your arrogance towards me.

Acting like your terms can define the entire world. There are some things that can't be seen with words, but only heart you ignoramuses!

 

[Ocean]

if you hate think that we haven't backed up our argument at all, and refuse to acknowledge the fallacies that your argument stands upon, then please leave the proving grounds. we don't want your kind here.

 

[Alien Vision]

Bro. You didn't back up ANYTHING.

You are just throwing terms around, acting like you really can fill the very complex nature of human beings, and this obstrusive ritual you call ''normal''.

So YOU GTFO. You are the arrogant ones, not me. You fool. Terms don't mean a damn thing, if you use it like it defines life.

Words cannot define life, and words cannot define the intricate depth of a human being you ****ing twit.

I'm sick of your technical dances.

 

[asianaussie]

at least my post forced him to show himself as a dedicated troll, given he couldn't actually refute me without spouting hilarious nonsense

you commit so many logical fallacies (knowingly, it seems) that you aren't even worth responding to

This is a list of words I am genuinely curious as to the intended meaning of:

Spoiler

(people are) hard ons
firepower
phantom pansy
monkey soup (perhaps codeword for whatever **** this kid is smoking)
jibble
fire power (seems to be the same term used in a different manner)
steel gater
ignoramus (he's actually ballsy enough to call people that)

 

[Terywj [태리]]

Welp. Not only have I lost any notion to post my opinions, I have someone new to add to my ignore list.

 

[Sucumbio]

So in summation AV thinks that FwB is an empty meaningless act, and his proof of this lies in the idea that having sex without an emotional connection is bad, because emotional connections are what makes us human, so it is dehumanizing.

I think that's right...

I can sympathize with the notion that having sex for sex's sake is tawdry, trite or base. It's difficult to let go of the more romantic ideal... lovemaking as it were.

Generally, I believe the strong negative connotation to just having sex is rooted in the idea that sex normally leads to procreation, and that it is irresponsible to procreate without properly bonding with your partner. This isn't to speak toward gay couples, as obviously procreation in the strictest sense is not a consideration. And there's no reason to speculate that gay couples can't engage in FwB acts.

What I take from this is more of a definition of boundaries. Is there really a such thing as two (or more) people who engage in a sex act who feel NOTHING for each other emotionally? I don't think so. Friendship in itself is a bond... a strong one. Married couples often describe their spouses as also being their best friends. So a friend who also has sex with you, is in some ways by default more than just a friend (duh, the topic title says friend WITH BENEFITS) no no, I know that... but what I'm implying is that the benefits, the -sex- IS in fact a bond-maker, that despite declarations of independence and openness, still results in a unification on an emotional level that serves to identify each participant as being connected to the other.

The one exception I can think of is someone who has sex with complete strangers, or casual acquaintances, not friends. Someone of this nature, could be labeled all kinds of dirty words, and in many cases would indeed have some psychological issues relating to their promiscuity. But if there is indeed a person who quite literally has sex with anyone, and who feels no emotional attachment of any kind, then that person would be bereft of something that most people cherish, and I would not idealize them in any way as being sexually gifted, or advanced, but rather a damaged individual.

But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about friends who have sex but have no commitment to each other. This boundary (or anti-boundary really) may serve to eliminate the drama of a committed relationship, but it typically creates other types of drama, and it is my opinion that this is due to the fact that one cannot fully isolate themselves from the emotional bonding that sexual intercourse creates. And indeed there have even been studies to suggest that lust is an integral part of the orgasm and of the emotional bonding of humans (I'd link to the source but it may violate the TOS, lol).

 

[Suntan Luigi]

Hey, I am new to the proving grounds. Firstly, I define Friends with benefits as "a term used to describe non-exclusive recurring sexual (or near-sexual) relationships".

I do not support FwB for several reasons.

1- There is the significant danger of unwanted pregnancy. Condoms don't always work.
2- In such a relationship, we can safely say both partners are interested in each other primarily due to sex, not mutual love. Because of this weak foundation both partners will quickly grow tired and bored of each other and they will soon break apart and look for new "friends". People accustomed to this pattern of relationships will find it difficult to maintain long-term relationships in the future.
3- Such a partnership based on lustful desires tends to make people regard each other as sex-objects and not as actual human beings.
4- The media constantly projects these values as morally sound into our mind though movies, t.v. shows, and popular culture. People did not regularly engage in such sexual promiscuity before the advent of the tele-screen and the big screen. I'm sure that when we look past today's degenerate popular culture all of us know deep down inside that it's disgusting and just wrong.

 

[Terywj [태리]]

Hey, I am new to the proving grounds. Firstly, I define Friends with benefits as "a term used to describe non-exclusive recurring sexual (or near-sexual) relationships".

I do not support FwB for several reasons.

1- There is the significant danger of unwanted pregnancy. Condoms don't always work.

This brings in a "new" perspective in the abortion debate. Some people think it's okay to have abortions because of for example, ****. But what about in this scenario. How would those people respond?

2- In such a relationship, we can safely say both partners are interested in each other primarily due to sex, not mutual love. Because of this weak foundation both partners will quickly grow tired and bored of each other and they will soon break apart and look for new "friends". People accustomed to this pattern of relationships will find it difficult to maintain long-term relationships in the future.
3- Such a partnership based on lustful desires tends to make people regard each other as sex-objects and not as actual human beings.

While I agree with these points, I would have to say there are probably some people out there who are able to maintain being friends with benefits without degrading humans (in regards to point three).

4- The media constantly projects these values as morally sound into our mind though movies, t.v. shows, and popular culture. People did not regularly engage in such sexual promiscuity before the advent of the tele-screen and the big screen. I'm sure that when we look past today's degenerate popular culture all of us know deep down inside that it's disgusting and just wrong.

You're going to have objective arguments though. What determines how having sex with other people is immoral? For example, people who practice / support polygamy? This can be tied into bioethics / medical ethics, which is why I'm posting this standpoint.

 

[Ocean]

Hey, I am new to the proving grounds.

welcome.

1- There is the significant danger of unwanted pregnancy. Condoms don't always work.

this point is moot because the same risk exists in normal relationships.

2- In such a relationship, we can safely say both partners are interested in each other primarily due to sex, not mutual love. Because of this weak foundation both partners will quickly grow tired and bored of each other and they will soon break apart and look for new "friends". People accustomed to this pattern of relationships will find it difficult to maintain long-term relationships in the future.

be careful not to be so absolutist in your statements. this is a pretty heavy generalization for such a large crowd.
why is it a weak foundation? I have friends who I mutually enjoy music with; we will listen to or play music together, and that is the basic foundation of our friendship. is this a weak foundation? why would this be different than having friends who I talk about and have sex with? I know it's not as taboo as sex is, but it's still the same idea.
also, friendships and relationships are a lot more complicated than being able to place a sole reason for their existence. physical attraction (which is generally the catalyst for sex) is a part of a relationship in most cases, but that doesn't mean it's the sole crutch, and it is instead often a contributing factor of a relationship. in the same way that this can be applied to "friends with benefits" relationships (sex being a part but not being a sole crutch). other contributing factors can exist, such as enjoying the person for their humor or intelligence, but not being "in love" with them.

3- Such a partnership based on lustful desires tends to make people regard each other as sex-objects and not as actual human beings.

why limit this to just sex for pleasure? if I make someone a sandwich, and in return have them make me sandwich, am I treating this person as an object? why not all self motivated exchanges? should a person who trades a person an apple for an orange be considered as using said person for their orange? if you say no, then why should someone who has sex for pleasure with someone else (who is willful) be considered the same? to be able to say this justifiably you need to differentiate why sex is placed in a separate category other than "sex is bad".

4- The media constantly projects these values as morally sound into our mind though movies, t.v. shows, and popular culture. People did not regularly engage in such sexual promiscuity before the advent of the tele-screen and the big screen.

I'd consider the media's view of sex the exact opposite. any slight showing of something considered naughty is slapped with a +18 rating, eliminating a huge chunk of potential viewers.
sexual promiscuity in media has existed long before the television. for example, the scarlet letter, which was written in 1850.

I'm sure that when we look past today's degenerate popular culture all of us know deep down inside that it's disgusting and just wrong.

careful.

 

[Suntan Luigi]

Hey, thanks for your replies.

This brings in a "new" perspective in the abortion debate. Some people think it's okay to have abortions because of for example, ****. But what about in this scenario. How would those people respond?

Yeah, a lot of abortions actually happen in situations like this. Personally I feel that an abortion would be completely unjustified, because they took the risk of pregnancy whilst being FwB.

While I agree with these points, I would have to say there are probably some people out there who are able to maintain being friends with benefits without degrading humans (in regards to point three).

I suppose there could be, but I would not say they are the majority.

You're going to have objective arguments though. What determines how having sex with other people is immoral? For example, people who practice / support polygamy? This can be tied into bioethics / medical ethics, which is why I'm posting this standpoint.

I guess what I meant is that before the media started to bombard us with sexual innuedo people were generally more inclined to have healthy, long term relationships rather than short-lived sexual fantasies.

welcome.

Thanks

this point is moot because the same risk exists in normal relationships.

In normal and healthy long-term relationships both members are in a perfect position to conceive and raise a healthy child or children, wheras this is not the case in a FwB partnership. This is because the people who formed this relationsihp (married) were prepared to stay together for a very long time and raise children if need be. If you accidently conceive a child while being FwB now you are in a completely unplanned and unpleasant situation.

be careful not to be so absolutist in your statements. this is a pretty heavy generalization for such a large crowd.
why is it a weak foundation? I have friends who I mutually enjoy music with; we will listen to or play music together, and that is the basic foundation of our friendship. is this a weak foundation? why would this be different than having friends who I talk about and have sex with? I know it's not as taboo as sex is, but it's still the same idea.
also, friendships and relationships are a lot more complicated than being able to place a sole reason for their existence. physical attraction (which is generally the catalyst for sex) is a part of a relationship in most cases, but that doesn't mean it's the sole crutch, and it is instead often a contributing factor of a relationship. in the same way that this can be applied to "friends with benefits" relationships (sex being a part but not being a sole crutch). other contributing factors can exist, such as enjoying the person for their humor or intelligence, but not being "in love" with them.

In a FwB relationship the defining characteristic is the involvement of sex. Sex is simply not designed for short-term relationships, because of pregnancy and the level of intimacy involved. Such relationships invariably break up later on, because they are not based on long term things like mutual compassion for someone else's character and not just their physical charms. I can go and find statistics if you want.

If a friendship is based primarily on music then it's not a very strong foundation, because people change and their interests may change. Your friend may grow tired of music and if that happens your friendship will only endure if you have some other, more solid kind of mutual attachment.

why limit this to just sex for pleasure? if I make someone a sandwich, and in return have them make me sandwich, am I treating this person as an object? why not all self motivated exchanges? should a person who trades a person an apple for an orange be considered as using said person for their orange? if you say no, then why should someone who has sex for pleasure with someone else (who is willful) be considered the same? to be able to say this justifiably you need to differentiate why sex is placed in a separate category other than "sex is bad".

Sex is not like making a sandwhich, it's much more intimate. It's not a simple casual act like the media would like to have us believe. If you want to really be a good friend to someone, be just that.

I'd consider the media's view of sex the exact opposite. any slight showing of something considered naughty is slapped with a +18 rating, eliminating a huge chunk of potential viewers.
sexual promiscuity in media has existed long before the television. for example, the scarlet letter, which was written in 1850.

Sexuality defines most of modern pop culture. Not many people would disagree that there is, at the very least, a ton of sexual inneudo on the internet and in today's movies. And it's not like young kids or young adults have any problem gaining access to all sorts of the rancid bile that we call entertainment.

 

[Terywj [태리]]

(Playing Devil's Advocate)

Yeah, a lot of abortions actually happen in situations like this. Personally I feel that an abortion would be completely unjustified, because they took the risk of pregnancy whilst being FwB.

So then what about people who don't what children but have sex and then end up pregnant? Are they in the same boat as these FWB people? Like them, these people took the risk of pregnancy, and it's only justified from your earlier remark on how protection does not work 100% of the time.
I do realize this is slightly off topic.

I suppose there could be, but I would not say they are the majority.

But what I'm saying is that it's not right to generalize the FWB population to all that degrade each other / their partners as merely sex tools or less than human.

I guess what I meant is that before the media started to bombard us with sexual innuedo people were generally more inclined to have healthy, long term relationships rather than short-lived sexual fantasies.

Okay fair enough, but because the majority of people used to have strong relationships doesn't mean it's considered more moral to not have casual sex with people / other strangers.

 

[Suntan Luigi]

(Playing Devil's Advocate)

So then what about people who don't what children but have sex and then end up pregnant? Are they in the same boat as these FWB people? Like them, these people took the risk of pregnancy, and it's only justified from your earlier remark on how protection does not work 100% of the time.
I do realize this is slightly off topic.

Do you mean people who intend to have a long-term sexual relationship without children? I will assume this isn't marriage exclusive. Well in this case they would have to raise that child just like any married couple. Hetro sex always involves the "risk" of pregnancy, and because of this no couple should ever have sex that is not prepared to deal with the "consequences" of pregnancy and raising a child.


But what I'm saying is that it's not right to generalize the FWB population to all that degrade each other / their partners as merely sex tools or less than human.

It's mainly due to the nature of sex. It's just not something you can just do and then wipe your hands and forget. I can't think of any reason for someone to have a FwB relationship other than to satisfy their lusts. If they were looking for some other kind of fulfillment they would have some other kind of relationship. I'm willing to bet that if sex didn't feel so good than such FwB "relationships" would largely be non-existant.

Okay fair enough, but because the majority of people used to have strong relationships doesn't mean it's considered more moral to not have casual sex with people / other strangers.

Marriage is a healthy, natural, and productive way to satisfy these kinds of desires, whereas casual sex is unproductive. Far from being useful, it contributes to many single mothers, abortions, and broken families in this world. Therefore, because these are ultimately the products of haphazard sex in general we can conclude that it is morally wrong.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

*loads Bump Gun, aims, and fires*

Do you mean people who intend to have a long-term sexual relationship without children? I will assume this isn't marriage exclusive. Well in this case they would have to raise that child just like any married couple. Hetro sex always involves the "risk" of pregnancy, and because of this no couple should ever have sex that is not prepared to deal with the "consequences" of pregnancy and raising a child.

This is an excellent point, for one could make the premise that two people who are incapable of raising a child together should never do anything that could enable that to happen. But what about those who are merely friends and know that if it came down to it, the pills, condoms, everything that is used fails, they will step up and raise the child either out of creating a relationship then or simply knowing that the child needs care and raising him/her together?

It's mainly due to the nature of sex. It's just not something you can just do and then wipe your hands and forget. I can't think of any reason for someone to have a FwB relationship other than to satisfy their lusts. If they were looking for some other kind of fulfillment they would have some other kind of relationship. I'm willing to bet that if sex didn't feel so good than such FwB "relationships" would largely be non-existant.

Regardless of the "nature of sex" and that "if sex didn't feel so good that such Fwb relationships would largely be non-existant", it doesn't by default become a degrading thing. People can do things without that mentality, and people prove this constantly. People don't have to wipe your hands and forget, they don't necessarily want to, nor have to. Just because lustful body desires are taboo in our culture or a private thing, it doesn't ipso facto become something horrible to acknowledge casually.

It is all about the mindset, the act itself is not immoral, so thus it must be the thoughts towards a fellow human being that must make it immoral, and therefore if the thoughts are that of respect and mutual understanding, it becomes amoral.

Marriage is a healthy, natural, and productive way to satisfy these kinds of desires, whereas casual sex is unproductive. Far from being useful, it contributes to many single mothers, abortions, and broken families in this world. Therefore, because these are ultimately the products of haphazard sex in general we can conclude that it is morally wrong.

No, these things happen in all scenarios, and yes those who do abortions, break families, and incidents of single mothers are all tragic, but simply because a portion of these are caused by immoral people it doesn't make it by default objectively wrong no matter how you put it. This is the part to whole fallacy, I think, and I would say that it cannot be concluded morally wrong unless the specific situation meets certain criteria.

 

[GofG]

Why can they not be prepared to simply get an abortion?

This is a prerequisite for me to engage in sexual conduct with a female.

ontopic: I spent a lot of time with a woman who told me that jealousy was a purely negative emotion and that if I spent a lot of effort deprogramming it, then I would be a better person. I agreed with her, and was miserable for many years as she did things which were perfectly ethical because I could not in good faith force her to enter into a social contract of mutually exclusivity.

While her ideas were sound and obviously true, her motives were suspect. Though the entire situation was supposed to be one of transparency such that trust never entered the picture, it ended with a revealed deception which I would classify as betrayal.

And so: We are not fitness-maximizers. We do not take actions which maximize our happiness or utility in a given situation. If we were, I would have been able to deprogram jealousy from my awareness and be perfectly happy with my partner being happy, whatever that meant, so long as we both believed that jealousy was inherently bad. But we aren't fitness maximizers.

We are adaptation-executors. We run the programs evolution gave us. Evolution gave me a program called jealousy which runs when my woman is with another man, and this program makes me miserable to motivate me to do something about it. There is nothing to be done about this.

And so even though jealousy is inherently bad and clearly not optimized for happiness, it is an evil which I cannot vanquish, and so I am monogamous simply because I have been adapted to be monogamous.

I actively generalize these findings to the entire human race, and regard anyone engaged in polyamory as deluding themselves.