Is it wrong for white guys to date Asian women? This interracial pairing makes the dating life of asian males hard.

@ViciDraco It's literally not twisted at all to value sexual purity and look closer at demographics who more often have it. Studies show that higher body counts prior to marriage are linked to higher rates of divorce. Two people being virgins when they marry is an extremely good predictor that they are more likely to stay together than people who meet the traditional standard of sexually impure. Wanting people with a sexual track record that reveals they are capable of sexual control (thus less likely to cheat) is also a fine thing to want, not a twisted thing.

What's actually twisted if fucking more people than your age. Family values are twisted in your mind, but hedonic sexual self-indulgence isn't. Good God, man... what the hell happened to you?

Imagine some white dude wants prefers his woman to be a virgin, and some asian girl wants to be with him, they both consent, but YOU are like "no, this is twisted; I don't consent". Like bruh, what the hell? Who are you to call people's sexual preferences twisted? I'm sure if someone said "people who prefer the same sex are twisted" you would object; yet saying "I prefer women who are virgins" is now condemned? Why do you condemn grown adults for their sexual preferences? Genuine question.

@BRUUH to be clear, just because I view something as twisted doesn't mean I think it should be forbidden. People loving each other is a good thing and I'm not going to get in the way of that. But I am going to think less of people who think sexual activity lowers someone's value. I am going to think less of someone who fetishizes a culture or ethnicity based on what they consider sexual purity.

@ViciDraco I think you're confused about what I wrote. I'm not saying the ride of divorce in society was caused by fornication (although... it probably was a factor). I was saying that in the modern age, high body count prior to marriage is linked to likelyhood of divorce. It's so easy to see why. Sex releases bonding chemicals, mainly oxytocin. If you have only experienced this with one person, then it's obviously gonna be more special. Sex is a bonding ritual as much as it is reproductive. It's like if I rode 50 roller coasters, my brain would release less adrenalin on the 51st. Most people are happiest when they have a person who is commited soley to them, and since whoredom is antithetical to this goal, it makes whoredom antithetical to that which would bring about most human wellbeing. It's not worse for a woman to do it. It traditionally has been considered worse, but I disagree with that. I'm a traditionalist, sure, but i'm not like obsessed with the past and against the idea of humans doing better in any way ever, or advancing on shit.

@BRUUH I believe all of the infidelity in human history points to humans not being inherently monogamous. Like many things in human nature, people are in a spectrum in that area. Infidelity is still a problem even for cultures that pressure (either legally or socially) against premarital sex.

Oxytocin is released through most positive human interaction. Simple handshakes release oxytocin. Going around shaking everyone's hands does not weaken the bonding effects of future handshakes.

As to high body count and divorce links, you are again repeating what I pointed out as correlation, not causation. Sexual liberation is not causing the divorce rate to increase. In some cases, you could find that the same underlying traits might be behind both though.

A person may be a serial monogamist and very bad at relationships, jumping from one to another quickly. And often times rushing into commitments without a clear view of the relationship. This trait can lead to many sexual partners and also a high divorce likelihood.

A person may have little to no self control or even a sex addiction. This can be a leading cause of infidelity, but can also lead to many partners. Infidelity and adultery has not notably increased. The acceptability of divorce as a result of infidelity has increased. So instead of hiding the affairs and pretending they didn't happen to protect social capital, people now divorce over it. It is a new result being applied to an old problem.

On an entirely separate note, I do not agree that nuclear family units are inherently the best arrangement for human wellness. I believe there is a lot of flexibility in what healthy families can look like. I also believe that removing even more stigma from sexuality would improve human wellness. "Traditional" views on sex are damaging to human wellness.

Destigmatizing people's personal sexual decisions is the path to a happier, healthier future. Those personal decisions include both promiscuity as well as abstinence. A person who chooses to refrain from sex should have that choice respected just as much as someone who chooses to consent to a lot of sex.

Trying to judge and exercise control over other people's sexual liberty is unhealthy and damaging. Saving yourself for marriage is great. Expecting someone else to save themselves for marriage is twisted.

@ViciDraco Well, i'm not outright pro-capitalist. I think economics is complicated, and i'v always recognized it as out of my depth of knowledge. Like, I can pass a test on basic macro and microeconomics that you learn prior to getting a bachelor's degree, but I cannot claim to know enough to passively form original hypotheses connecting economic phenomenon to social phenomenon. I think very, very few people actually possess the education necessary for this.
With that said, I generally oppose capitalism on it's face, at least as outlined by people like Adam Smith and Ayn Rand. I believe in free enterprise in general, but also believe in many socialized forms of living. I don't think it was capitalism that drove the divorce rates down, even according to your theory. You said outright that women entering the workforce coupled with the de-stigmatization of divorce itself is what caused it; neither of which is unique to capitalism. Like, we were capitalists prior to women entering the workforce.

If you really wanna know what I think the number one shift that makes divorce as rampant as it is, it would be birth control, lmfao. If birth control didn't exist, feminism in the form we know of it today would not. That probably fundamentally changed human society more than anything else did, and i'm not being hypberolic when I say that. Outside of like the atom bomb, I don't think anything changed our species overnight like that, ever.

[quotePeople weren't happier under your traditional values relationships. They just didn't share their misery because it was socially unacceptable to do so.][/quote]
I think you're wrong on that one, brudda... https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1189894/Women-happy-years-ago-.html?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR3XpE_dbHOIgBwzKUwEKpK1HpG1yS16bgdZnzw8nSzzTBmvBZzE9eVN6QI_aem_AZvwhucoXiWCkSzWw1eX3Ww39URh1GIu4A_TcoyRqzpIPYIysILyPiqAmXLiVDJEiRUBscYM7yfG481glkxhnJX3

[quoteI believe all of the infidelity in human history points to humans not being inherently monogamous. Like many things in human nature, people are in a spectrum in that area. Infidelity is still a problem even for cultures that pressure (either legally or socially) against premarital sex.][/quote]
I'd like to say that this topic is pointless. The general consensus from evolutionary psychologists on what humans are in nature seems to be that we are serial monogamists, with people varying on that spectrum and having some tendencies to stray. Topics about human nature are really complicated either way, and I try to avoid using them even if I think they can support my argument. The fact that humans have pre-frontal cortexts that can give rise to such creativity and such neuroticism that we can feel inclinations to go against our nature, is honestly why having a convo on what humans naturall are is hard, and why even defining what criteria would needed to be met for a group of humans to be "in nature" is hard. Are nudist african tribes natual humans? When humans make even one invention that survives intergenerationally, are we longer natural humans? Like, who can say.
On top of all that, even if you could be proven to br right, it wouldn't matter, because it would just be the naturalistic fallacy. Sure, maybe humans are not monogamous by nature, so what? Has nothing to do with whether monogamy or polyamory has more utility. Some humans are A-sexual, some humans are demi-sexual and literally say they HAVE to be monogamous, and some are polygamous.

I think you're wrong, but i'll have to go ask someone who's an authority to make sure if oxytocin works the way I know other neurochemicals too. If oxytocin works at all the way dopamine works, then shaking people's hands all day absolutely would weaken future handshakes. The problem is that shaking hands doesn't release a ton of it, so it wouldn't change the baseline for the chemical. If I do a slightly dopaminergic activity, it won't weaken my dopamine receptors a lot because it's so mild, doing crack and jacking off all day will. I imagine oxytocin is the same, especially because of the fact that fucking a ton of ppl correlates with shit ability to keep a marriage together.

On this analogy, consider if you NEVER got a single hug in your entire life, and then suddenly someone huggs you. That would obviously mean way more to you than if everyone hugged you. Same with shaking hands, and yeah... obviously same with sex. Ofc shaking hands and hugging are platonic in nature, so I don't think something like that needs to be reserved the same way.




As for the rest of your comment, I just ask like where is the data? I hate to be like "that guy" who's like "durpa derp derp citation needed 🤓" but like really? What syllogism can you put together that could convince me that sexual liberation is good, and destigmatizing everyone's hoe-decision is good?

@BRUUH Why do I need data to suggest that personal liberty surrounding sexuality is a good thing but you do not need data to suggest that it is a bad thing?

Also, going to have to step away from this topic. I've spent way too long typing this up on my phone and now I'm going to be short on sleep ahead of work tomorrow (which is 100% on me). Ultimately we're just going to end up in disagreement. But thank you for the conversation.

@ViciDraco I do need data? If I claim it's good, the burden of proof is on me. If you claim it's bad, then it's on you. Since neither of us are nuetral, we both have to provide sound reasoning. I have already given my reasoning, using various citations on this. I'll tryan summarize it again here.

1)For the sake of argument, we will define good and bad as that which is conducive to justice and human happiness.
2)Since children are the future, the arrangement wherein they are raised which is shown to produce the best results, is the most good.
3)There is much reasoning on why the best arrangement for child rearing by that definition is traditional monogamist households. Empirically, it's just a ton of studies that show how children raised in such homes do better in virtually every facet of success we care to measure. Deductively, an argument I put forward is that biology itself gives mothers and fathers literal neurological motivations to make sure their children to best, thus a child being raised with both parents present in their lives is being raised by the people with the most incentive to make that child do well in life. I think only a silly person would dispute me on that.
4)A promiscuous culture leads to high body counts which is correlated with divorce. Empircally, I can show you that two virgins at the alter have the highest chances of staying married. Deductively, I can reason that due to sexual jealousy, the oxytocin argument, and just the general preference of people to desire exclusivity in love, it's anti-thetical to a happy marriage if two ppl are together for life.
5)You may be thinking "ok, but what about people that don't want to have kids? Why would they need to get married? And if they don't need to get married, then what's wrong with them all fucking and sucking all the dicks and pu$$ies on Eath".
6)The answer is "because those people are inevitably gonna turn into body counts for people who do want pure relationships one day, and thus make society way worse in the long run. If you don't wanna have a family life, then just stop fucking"
7)You now may say "What about gay peeps" to which I say: Don't know. You got me there. Check mate on me. Homosexuals exist, therefore it's cool to fuck a future mother and wife knowing it could have trickle down psychological effect on the future generation.

@BRUUH

1) You are going to need to define what justice means in this context. My objective is human happiness as well as freedom to make personal decisions.
2,3) it has not been demonstrated that monogamous upbringing is better for children than other forms of upbringing. The only real poly arrangements that have been studied are those arising out of damaging religious views. There is insufficient data for comparison on this point.
4) correlation is not causation. You are making these arguments from anecdote.
5,6,7) More pure conjecture based on the personal argument being made. You seek to restrict autonomy and personal choice to protect a hypothetical pure relationship. That's too much control over people's lives for me. That level of control violates my personal decision value and reduces happiness for a great many people in order to protect the happiness of some other people.

@ViciDraco It's funny cause I don't even know what the numbering of point's wer're using are lmfao. I kinda intended for them to be premises but whatevs.

I define justice the same way that Plato and Socrates both agreed on it's definition in "Plato's republic". This definition of justice is "getting what you deserve". The reason why I say justice AND wellbeing are crucial to what makes something good or moral, is because pure utilitarianism, which is only concerned with overall happiness, does not account for who's happiness should be prioritized. For example: Would I rather make 50 serial killers happy, or 10 children with cancer happy? Most poeple, i'd imagine, would say the 10 children, even tho this means they are choosing less overall happiness for humanity; the reason for this descision is people's sense of justice. That's what I mean.

2,3?)Isn't this a "No true scottsman fallacy"? You're saying that any study on poly relationships don't count because society at large is monogamous. You're basically suggesting that until most of society is fully poly, we can't study it what so ever. If anything, this would just mean we should never be poly, because we would be changing into something radically different that we can't study. Luckily we can study it, and the studies show what kids grow up to be the best. Having a father and mother in the home is literally the best arrangement, like even biology itself gives the father and mother neurochemical motivation. The books "The male brain" and "The female brain" by Louann Brizendine (PHD in neuroscience) goes into detail about what happens in the brain of a mother and father when they have their children. It's obviously that generally speaking, both those parents should be in that childs life consistently, and it's also apparent that if those two parents are fucking other ppl and having weekend orgies, it's counter-productice (to say the least; personally i'd say wicked and degenerate, but i'm trying to be objective here).

4)I acknowledge i'm making correlative arguments; I don't grant that i'm making anecdotal arguments. I haven't used a single anecdote that I can think of. And yeah, these aren't like causal factors. It's not like someone marries a woman with a high body count, then divorces her for that. More that sex is a bonding ritual, and obviously doing it only with a single person is going to make that person more significant in your life. Virgins have the highest rates of staying together. Apparently, even couples who lived together prior to marriage have a higher rate of divorce than couples who didn't. The old way is the good way on marriage. Literally, if left wingers were just pro-family and anti-degeneracy, I would possibly be one.
5,6,7)I don't think what I said here was conjecture? I said if peopel are promiscuous, then younger people who would later go onto wanting monogamy and family will also be getting fucked, thus the same arguments apply; promiscious culture in the USA will contribute to the breakup of the family, which is the best arrangement for children. That's not conjecture? Like, this happens everyday; motherfuckers change their mind and take dick.. not conjecture at all.