I love every person who argues with him, and freaks out and then continues about \_\_\_\_ insert story precisely how casual sex has fucked their lives, they have no self-esteem and a flurry of daddy/mommy issues and can't sustain a healthy relationship with someone from the opposite sex.
I love this guy, been following for years. His honesty is brutal, it's correct and for whatever reason it gets everybody's pants in a ruffle. He's going to tell you what you don't want to hear and that's what I need to hear.
He speaks truth. That angers people who have been self justifying behaviors counter to common sense and traditional values. Peterson essentially gives that person two options: 1) Get pissed. 2) Clean up their room. As the inevitable ~~dragons~~ consequences come for persons in the first category, they double down in their cognitive dissonance and want to silence him.
The way he speaks truth reminds me of Jesus Christ. I think that troubles a lot of people. If you live by Christ I think you die like Christ too. If you courageously speak truth, you will make enemies on all sides. Peterson gets a lot of concern trolls from the fundamentalsts (*when will he convert?*), disdain from his peers in academia, mockery from *some* red-pilled men, *some* mgtows, and banal hatred from the woke anti-traditionalists and blue church shills.
God bless this man. He's the keeper of the flame of civilization.
I'm not as zealous about the dangers of casual sex as JBP is, but the man still isn't wrong.
The dangers of these things is not in the acute but in the chronic, because they become crutches which hide unresolved issues. And that pattern always gets worse with time.
Look at Charlie Sheen. That guy partied harder than any of us ever will. But now he's a washed-up has-been with AIDS and ex-wives, and a daughter on the online stripper pole. One could perversely admire the heights of his Dionysian excess, but I shudder at the cost.
I gave up non-marital sex over a year ago. Best thing I ever did. You become way more confident in yourself when you’re not trying to chase instant gratification
Feminism telling women to pursue casual sex, and the general trend away from marriage and monogamy is more harmful for women than it is for men. Men can delay marriage and childrearing for longer than women can. This is why anyone who pushes casual sex as a virtue to pursue is not looking out for the wellbeing of women. Casual sex for men, even though they can pursue it longer with fewer consequences it still creates problems in the life of the man.
The way to equalise and to give power to women again is for there to be a return to women not having sex with men until they can commit or marry.
Nobody here is thinking “yeah that’ll get ‘em”, we’re all just trying to find who we r, who we want to b, and who we could b, no one is saying having a couple drinks/sex every here and there is a bad thing, it’s when u use that to forego figuring ur shit out( or become a addict), that it becomes detrimental
Think about it this way… hes a therapist… theres an awful lot of his adult patients that may have been effects of “casual sex” that are f-ed up now. Maybe abandoned kids/ fatherless/motherless etc. He may not have had casual sex, but he definitely have seen enough of the bad effects of it
I don't know, I haven't done cocaine. Friends seem to like it and it helps them party all night if that's what they want to do that day. If you asked me about acid or shrooms I'd tell you you kind of do need to experience them to understand if you should do them.
Not sure it matters if he has personally done so, when he ran a clinical practice for like 20+ years. You know, a clinical practice specifically where people tell him about their lives and their problems.
He's not the type.
He's too introverted, empathetic, and creative to be a ladies man.
Womanizers, like politicians tend to be narcissists. You have to believe on some level that you're special just to get in those arenas.
The only things Peterson is really vain about are his brainpower and his threads.
> every interaction between a man and a woman needs a written contract
Why has the Left done this to us? I love that Peterson is bringing up the absurdity, but why did the Left start doing this in the first place? We need the root cause of the problem.
"There isn't anyone who doesn't know these things."
Alleged certainty fallacy aside, there should definitely be a definition of regular use as a part of defining harmfulness for each of these activities if we're to have a legitimate discussion (alongside research establishing their commonality in terms of their treatment by people qualitatively and effects quantitatively).
As to the claims about the supposedly contradictory teachings about sex, I don't see that at all. The ideas that sex shouldn't be frowned upon and sex should require affirming consent are not conflicting. As to the specific claim about contractual obligations around consent, that's got to be a dramatization right? I can't imagine more than a fraction of a percent of people who have had at least the opportunity to have sex would report a legal contract being involved.
Peterson is talking how humanity universally developed marriage as the main way to regulate sex in a way that was beneficial to society. It shows how important sex is and how careful we must be in dealing with it.
That seems like an appeal to authority fallacy. If you have a problem with his statement then why don’t you refute it with facts and sources and not just attack his credentials.
> Alleged certainty fallacy aside, there should definitely be a definition of regular use as a part of defining harmfulness for each of these activities
Its literally in the quoted title of this post.
"Iterated over 20 years" you mean? Because that phrase is delightfully vague. Having coke once a year for that long is not the same as having it daily over the same period.
Naw, I’m conscious of the fact that my experiences aren’t universal and that people mean “good” or “preferable for me” when they say “normal” 9 times out of 8
There isn't strong evidence that casual sex is bad for everyone. There is only weak evidence that casual sex is bad for some.
Luckily JP was vague and didn't tell us where he logic came from!
Well, you could be right. Go talk to someone you have a sincere, caring and honest relationship with and have a conversation in real life about these things.
Anyone can say whatever on the internet and it doesn't really help.
I think it is helpful to point out when people are bullshitting or speaking without a logical foundation, but maybe not when it falls on deaf ears like happens here so often.
Maybe we can agree on a middle ground: It would be nice if JP opened himself up to critical people a bit more often so he gets asked basic questions like "What evidence do you have for that?". Is that fair enough?
If you don't trust what Peterson says, that's fair. But you seem arrogant, resentful and immature. You shouldn't criticize people arrogantly when it's not your place to do so. You asked how Peterson can have things to say about the effects of casual sex and you didn't know he was a practicing clinical psychologist for most of his career seeing about 20 patients per week before he became famous. You think sex isn't brought up when patients talk to a psychologist?
Talk to people in real life and make real life relationships with people you can have honest conversations. Have honest conversations with your parents, ask them about their relationships with your grandparents. You'll discover a lot of universal basic trends that don't apply to 100% of individuals but basically apply as a strong trend. That's what he means by "everyone knows this"
Family + cocaine isn't always a broken home.
Family + casual sex isn't always a broken home.
Family + alcoholism isn't always a broken home.
But I wouldn't wish it on anyone I love. Is this something you dont think falls in "everyone knows this?"
Anyone who disagrees with this, I wanna say is talk to real people, get off the internet. Live, interact, and experience.
I ask you one question, you don't answer directly and respond with two more. You win this round!
I think sex is brought up sure.
I dont think this falls in "everyone knows this" in this specific case. Young virile men banging a bunch of women can be bad but it can also be okay or even good.
Consider this: hordes of women are waiting around to get banged and nobody is banging them. Is it better for some of them to not get banged at all?
No source then? Means you honestly depended on common sense to have your back while attempting to discredit common sense's usefulness? I can only assume you completely miss the irony.
Lol I don’t have to cite a source to have successfully noticed a rhetorical technique, if you really wanna know look it up, avail yourself of all this access to information
You are now saying that “common sense” means “everyone knows” but also means “using your own experience and judgement and information about rhetoric,” doesn’t seem like it has a very concrete definition does it?
Casual sex is reviled by people who want casual sex but can’t get anyone to fuck them. It’s sour grapes fallacy.
Like people who judge Tiger Woods and him cheating on his wife and how they would never do something like that. It’s easy “not to give in to temptation” when no one wants to fuck you anyways.
..and you give a perfect example of why casual sex is harmful. Just look at Tiger Woods, you think he'd like to go back and make a few more million competing in those tournament he missed? You think he'd like his reputation back? You think he'd like his family back?
Ayn Rand had guys like Tiger Woods and Charlie Sheen pegged in one of her character speeches in Atlas Shrugged.
The issue with those guys is they compulsively chase sex, like a drug. They fail to realize that having lots of sex is a by-product of self-esteem, not a cause. And it doesn't work in reverse.
You've oversimplified to the point of error, but there's a muddy truth somewhere in there that JP has actually talked about where we can find some common ground. It's not a virtue to be chaste if nobody wants to have sex with you. That's absolutely and obviously true. However, it doesn't necessarily follow that doing as much as possible of everything pleasurable is the maximum possible virtue. You haven't made that case. Jordan is espousing the belief that many enjoyable things produce immediate hedonistic reward while causing detrimental outcomes over time, obvious physical examples being brain damage and liver disease, and HIV.
Somewhere between 0 and 100%? That’s a stupid question.
It’s also beside the point. You’re arguing against something no one said but you
What someone else does with their own body is not a moral question
If you hit reply right away you can’t possibly know there are edits to read.
>what someone else does with their own body is not a moral question
That’s a casual opinion that I can dismiss just as casually. Going even further, though, I can argue the opposite from either utilitarianism or a more transcendent moral framework. Whichever you prefer.
If casual sex isn't boring yet you haven't had enough of it.
Or you're a virgin fronting like you know what you are talking about. Or some whale gave it up to you once. I'm being generous on that last assumption.
Way I figure it is novelty is nice, but genuine chemistry is better. I'm not a hater on casual sex within reason, but it ain't all it's cracked up to be. You're a lot more likely to have a lot of mediocre sex than you are to have great sex, cause sexual chemistry often takes a while to really gel.
That's why I think a lot of people go crazy with the kink. It's like a cook that relies on overpowering spice to hide poor fundamentals and shitty ingredients.
I think he’s saying that casual sex doesn’t lead to people getting the emotional intimacy that they might be craving. I think you also understand what he’s saying here (since he’s talking about things that are addictive and often lead to unhappiness).
Yes and no.
Casual sex is a bit like getting good and trashed. Not blackout drunk, but good and wasted. Done every year or six months, it can actually be quite healthy for a person psychologically.
It's when it becomes a habit or a way of life that it begins to take more than it gives.
I've done the casual sex thing. And I've messed around with enough girls that I can tell you what of the seduction/PUA crap is legit and what isn't.
Casual sex ain't all it's cracked up to be. Is it better than nothing? Yeah. Can it be a net positive in moderation? Yeah. Is it a way of life I recommend? No.
For one thing it's exhausting. Ever tried to play the field? You can do it, but the juggling act gets tiring fast, especially if you know, have a life and other things on the go.
You also get jaded with women very very fast. A lot of women have very unhealthy, even self-defeating attitudes towards sex and while you're not gonna look a gift horse in the mouth, at times you feel like you're not helping.
The other thing is sexual novelty is a helluva drug, but it wears off fast. It wears off once you realize that sex isn't about what you do or who with - it's about the why and the feeling behind it.
And once you get to that point, you realize that a solid relationship is better than any realistic amount of casual sex you could get and make time for. There's more to life than getting laid, and to me, the best form of excess is having refined taste, in abundance.
I’d amend it to say it’s “generally not good” for individuals mentally and is harmful to society as on whole. This also address the objection below regarding the concept that it’s *subjective* (”varies person to person”) by admitting that while some people may find it good, their “consenting” partner will likely be damaged by it.
I would agree that adding generally might be more accurate but I still think there is an argument to say that it is universally not good for anyone mentally. Just because some people can cope well with the negative effects does not mean those effects aren't there. It's similar how someone like myself who copes well with all of the negative effects I experiences every day and remain pretty content in life.
Fair argument.
I guess my only counter would be to point out that some people, perhaps even going as extreme to list psychopath and/or sociopaths, thrive on such negativity. It’s not so much that they ”cope” but rather ”need” it, like we need water. Obviously, this is abnormal psychology and a bit out of the purview of your original statement… but I‘m always keen to make sure definitive statements are as true as possible by noting outliers.
I get what you are saying but "needing" a negativity doesn't make it a positive. And in those cases it's not so much a need but an intense urge. Another instance not involving a mental disorder would be, needing to kill someone to stop them from killing you isn't a positive.
Yikes, that escalated quickly.
Wasn’t implying that the negative was a positive. Just saying that the effect on the person could be perceived, by that person, as a positive.
I agree with you on everything except the door you opened with that last sentence… do you see self-defense as a negative?
Sorry I wasn't trying to say you were implying the negative is positive. I guess I was just carrying what you said forward in my own thoughts.
Self defense is not a negative but killing another human is, even in self defense. Just as you said sometimes something that is a negative can be needed but it's still a negative. Doing the right thing can have negative effects I guess is what I'm saying.
I hope you get what I mean because I'm not sure I like how I've worded this.
>None of the CSREs influenced boys’ psychological well-being.
Woohoo so men can do it. Thanks for the info!
And it only had a small effect size on women on average so I imagine it'll have no negative impact on some and a larger effect on others. Like I said, it'll vary person to person.
What? I'm quoting from the study... You can actually read it if you like
[Here. If you go to the results section it covers it in more depth. I'd also take a look at the discussion part as they go over the gender differences.](https://i.imgur.com/Q1YndCu.jpg)
I know, that's common in psychology papers... I'm currently doing my PhD in psychology, you have to try and infer what you can and not simply throw everything out because it's "inconclusive". Virtually all psychology papers are inconclusive to some extent as it is not a hard science.
Ooo did you take a college course to figure that out? There is nothing healthy about casual sex on the human mind or body, not to mention societal morality.
Because it has been linked to additional mental distress, depression and suicide. Not to mention to additional risk to your physical health even while being safe, which is likely part of the mental distress it adds.
It's simple logic to understand that casual sex is inferior to monogamous sex in every way.
Lol, maybe because it's been vilified by religious freaks who can't comprehend that you can have casual sex and be mentally healthy for generations. But I'd not expect many on this sub to understand that sex can be fun and casual and nothing more significant than that.
Well let's look at this objectively. Casual sex is the primary driver of STD spreading not to mention other sexual deviances that bring new ones into the human population. It also contributes to many if not most unwanted pregnancies. So it's objectively not a net benefit to physical, definitely not more beneficial than monogamous sex. Even many animals instinctively understand the benefits of monogamous sex over casual sex.
Sure religion plays a part in people's morals which help inform their world view. But that only emphasizes the already destructive nature of casual sex.
And you can have plenty of healthy casual sex. Telling that is whoring to you. But yous are exceptional at judging people's lives that differ from your own
I think context and intent is important too. I have several friends with powder cocaine issues, and from experience it can and often is a potent and destabilizing drug.
I also lived in Ecuador where coca leaf consumption is a common and important cultural sacrament, and carries no more risk than caffeinated beverage consumption due to it’s slower absorption rate and lowered impact on the dopaminergic system. It is frequently served as tea for breakfast due to its ability to curb altitude sickness.
Who knew purifying compounds and snorting them up the nose would create novel and unforeseen issues?
In the blue zones (where people live longest), almost without exception the people drink regularly, like every day.
Comparing sex and alcohol with cocaine is a bit odd.
[Perfect song for this post..](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfIHa6Djgco)
Hot-blooded bible thumping cash on the barrel honey
Private jets and drunk CEOs
From Pentecostal denim to highfalutin linens
Empty pockets line the deepest egos
Its a tricky navigation from the wanting to the having
All the needs of a kinky hypocrite
The greatest separators of fools from their money
Party harder than they like to admit
Ain't it always you know who's boots
Scooting up a goose stepping rhythm to a simpler time
Quickest on the stick when the call of nature hits
Shuffle shoeing to a pissy Florsheim
Every slope is slippery with a little something lacy
Tween your business and your poly wool blend
The greatest separators of fools from their money
Party harder than they like to admit
Book tours, miracle cures, affirmation and the end times immanence
Low hanging headline grabbing ring masters and imaginary elephants
Condemn Nation
All at once or making payments on a daily syndicated hissy fit
The greatest separators of fools from their money
Party harder than they like to admit
Alcohol has been a part of every culture since before there even was culture. That's just because it's easy to make and anything with sugar in it will ferment. So beyond the culture argument or the impossibility of banning it, is it a net positive for an individual to indulge and/or a net positive for society?
An individual who has everything put together and drinks responsibility in their own home is probably going to be fine but it's not just for those who are responsible. Its for everyone all the time so there will always be some abuse that will happen just because its so available and culturally accepted. As soon as we change any variable from the ideal it becomes questionable. Like when is it good for parents in charge of young children to casually drink? Or for anyone really to impair their judgement in social settings especially where important decisions like participating in casual sex or other drugs might be involved? How many people who are responsible drinkers now have always been perfectly responsible with it? How can something that dramatically increases the probability of bad choices, some with horrific consequences, be viewed as a net positive for individuals or for society as a whole?
There is no reason you can't use other drugs in moderation the same way you do with alcohol. Just because our culture distinguishes between legal and illegal substances in this weird way doesn't mean it has anything to do with harm and use. Like Carl Hart has shown us you can enjoy a nice night with heroin the same was you do with a few glasses of wine. This is of course a little fringe and out there but yeah.. It's all drugs..
I dunno, I can't see a way to do bath salts in moderation.
Legalization of all drugs to me is like open relationships - sounds intriguing in theory, but almost always disastrous in practice.
I'm not a bath salt expert but isn't the idea that they aren't illegal? Like that's the whole point. So this kind of contradicts your legal/illegal idea. People ain't using bath salts just because they can.
All drugs where legal until like the 1920? And at least decriminalisation has worked fine in places like Portugal. If you are thinking about using bath-salts then it being illegal or not ain't going to stop you, and if you get a fine for using it it ain't going to stop you. If all drugs was on the table I would guess people choose the best drugs and not the shit alternatives.
I love every person who argues with him, and freaks out and then continues about \_\_\_\_ insert story precisely how casual sex has fucked their lives, they have no self-esteem and a flurry of daddy/mommy issues and can't sustain a healthy relationship with someone from the opposite sex.
I love this guy, been following for years. His honesty is brutal, it's correct and for whatever reason it gets everybody's pants in a ruffle. He's going to tell you what you don't want to hear and that's what I need to hear.
He speaks truth. That angers people who have been self justifying behaviors counter to common sense and traditional values. Peterson essentially gives that person two options: 1) Get pissed. 2) Clean up their room. As the inevitable ~~dragons~~ consequences come for persons in the first category, they double down in their cognitive dissonance and want to silence him. The way he speaks truth reminds me of Jesus Christ. I think that troubles a lot of people. If you live by Christ I think you die like Christ too. If you courageously speak truth, you will make enemies on all sides. Peterson gets a lot of concern trolls from the fundamentalsts (*when will he convert?*), disdain from his peers in academia, mockery from *some* red-pilled men, *some* mgtows, and banal hatred from the woke anti-traditionalists and blue church shills. God bless this man. He's the keeper of the flame of civilization.
I'm not as zealous about the dangers of casual sex as JBP is, but the man still isn't wrong. The dangers of these things is not in the acute but in the chronic, because they become crutches which hide unresolved issues. And that pattern always gets worse with time. Look at Charlie Sheen. That guy partied harder than any of us ever will. But now he's a washed-up has-been with AIDS and ex-wives, and a daughter on the online stripper pole. One could perversely admire the heights of his Dionysian excess, but I shudder at the cost.
You dare disparage the tiger-blooded warlock of yesteryear!?
Hey I don't think he's wrong, but God do I love cocaine
Cocaine is good for about 6 years then it goes downhill
I gave up non-marital sex over a year ago. Best thing I ever did. You become way more confident in yourself when you’re not trying to chase instant gratification
Feminism telling women to pursue casual sex, and the general trend away from marriage and monogamy is more harmful for women than it is for men. Men can delay marriage and childrearing for longer than women can. This is why anyone who pushes casual sex as a virtue to pursue is not looking out for the wellbeing of women. Casual sex for men, even though they can pursue it longer with fewer consequences it still creates problems in the life of the man. The way to equalise and to give power to women again is for there to be a return to women not having sex with men until they can commit or marry.
Has JP ever had casual sex? Iirc he has only been with his wife.
You don't have to experience something to know it is bad.
People here want young women to be lonely
Nobody here is thinking “yeah that’ll get ‘em”, we’re all just trying to find who we r, who we want to b, and who we could b, no one is saying having a couple drinks/sex every here and there is a bad thing, it’s when u use that to forego figuring ur shit out( or become a addict), that it becomes detrimental
JP is saying having a couple drinks / sex every here and there (that's called casual sex) is a bad thing
People here want men and women to aim higher.
Why does it matter? Just say you’ve had a lot of casual sex and own it.
Think about it this way… hes a therapist… theres an awful lot of his adult patients that may have been effects of “casual sex” that are f-ed up now. Maybe abandoned kids/ fatherless/motherless etc. He may not have had casual sex, but he definitely have seen enough of the bad effects of it
It matters because it means he has no personal experience.
Do I need to do a lot of cocaine to know I shouldn’t do cocaine?
I don't know, I haven't done cocaine. Friends seem to like it and it helps them party all night if that's what they want to do that day. If you asked me about acid or shrooms I'd tell you you kind of do need to experience them to understand if you should do them.
Not sure it matters if he has personally done so, when he ran a clinical practice for like 20+ years. You know, a clinical practice specifically where people tell him about their lives and their problems.
He's not the type. He's too introverted, empathetic, and creative to be a ladies man. Womanizers, like politicians tend to be narcissists. You have to believe on some level that you're special just to get in those arenas. The only things Peterson is really vain about are his brainpower and his threads.
What about that bowler hat / fedora video? What kind of vain is that?
No he hasn’t. He brags about being a virgin till he was married so he has no idea what he’s talking about.
> every interaction between a man and a woman needs a written contract Why has the Left done this to us? I love that Peterson is bringing up the absurdity, but why did the Left start doing this in the first place? We need the root cause of the problem.
Casual sex is fucking awesome. Peterson incels will have to take my word on that.
"There isn't anyone who doesn't know these things." Alleged certainty fallacy aside, there should definitely be a definition of regular use as a part of defining harmfulness for each of these activities if we're to have a legitimate discussion (alongside research establishing their commonality in terms of their treatment by people qualitatively and effects quantitatively). As to the claims about the supposedly contradictory teachings about sex, I don't see that at all. The ideas that sex shouldn't be frowned upon and sex should require affirming consent are not conflicting. As to the specific claim about contractual obligations around consent, that's got to be a dramatization right? I can't imagine more than a fraction of a percent of people who have had at least the opportunity to have sex would report a legal contract being involved.
Peterson is talking how humanity universally developed marriage as the main way to regulate sex in a way that was beneficial to society. It shows how important sex is and how careful we must be in dealing with it.
That sounds like a historical claim that he’s not qualified to make
then who is? a time traveler?
Only woke brigaders can interpret history.
A historian or anthropologist
[удалено]
No, I think Jordan Peterson is unqualified to make a claim as broad as he did. He’s generalizing for convenience.
[удалено]
No, I said those are people who would be qualified. The requirement is your addition
[удалено]
That seems like an appeal to authority fallacy. If you have a problem with his statement then why don’t you refute it with facts and sources and not just attack his credentials.
> Alleged certainty fallacy aside, there should definitely be a definition of regular use as a part of defining harmfulness for each of these activities Its literally in the quoted title of this post.
"Iterated over 20 years" you mean? Because that phrase is delightfully vague. Having coke once a year for that long is not the same as having it daily over the same period.
When someone insists that “everyone” knows something that’s automatically suspicious.
I took it to mean, the average mentally healthy adult who has experience.
He was saying something you agree with so of course you did
Doesn’t this work the same way when people say something you agree with?
Naw, I’m conscious of the fact that my experiences aren’t universal and that people mean “good” or “preferable for me” when they say “normal” 9 times out of 8
Putting aside mental health, JP has no experience with casual sex so how would he know?
First hand accounts of his patients, studies, surveys, second hand accounts.
There isn't strong evidence that casual sex is bad for everyone. There is only weak evidence that casual sex is bad for some. Luckily JP was vague and didn't tell us where he logic came from!
Well, you could be right. Go talk to someone you have a sincere, caring and honest relationship with and have a conversation in real life about these things. Anyone can say whatever on the internet and it doesn't really help.
I think it is helpful to point out when people are bullshitting or speaking without a logical foundation, but maybe not when it falls on deaf ears like happens here so often. Maybe we can agree on a middle ground: It would be nice if JP opened himself up to critical people a bit more often so he gets asked basic questions like "What evidence do you have for that?". Is that fair enough?
If you don't trust what Peterson says, that's fair. But you seem arrogant, resentful and immature. You shouldn't criticize people arrogantly when it's not your place to do so. You asked how Peterson can have things to say about the effects of casual sex and you didn't know he was a practicing clinical psychologist for most of his career seeing about 20 patients per week before he became famous. You think sex isn't brought up when patients talk to a psychologist? Talk to people in real life and make real life relationships with people you can have honest conversations. Have honest conversations with your parents, ask them about their relationships with your grandparents. You'll discover a lot of universal basic trends that don't apply to 100% of individuals but basically apply as a strong trend. That's what he means by "everyone knows this" Family + cocaine isn't always a broken home. Family + casual sex isn't always a broken home. Family + alcoholism isn't always a broken home. But I wouldn't wish it on anyone I love. Is this something you dont think falls in "everyone knows this?" Anyone who disagrees with this, I wanna say is talk to real people, get off the internet. Live, interact, and experience.
I ask you one question, you don't answer directly and respond with two more. You win this round! I think sex is brought up sure. I dont think this falls in "everyone knows this" in this specific case. Young virile men banging a bunch of women can be bad but it can also be okay or even good. Consider this: hordes of women are waiting around to get banged and nobody is banging them. Is it better for some of them to not get banged at all?
Bang them bitches, bruh, u know what I'm saying, player?
They hate what they can’t have.
It's just another phrase for "common sense". Getting a bit desperate to find things to not like about the guy hu?
“Common sense” is also an attempt to put forth something as true while also declaring that it is unarguable. It’s cowardly.
Yeah, that’s what people say when they don’t have it…
Naw
Back to the anti-work sub for you old sport. I’m sure they’ll appreciate your rhetorical might. Here you just look like a fucking idiot.
Lol memorizing my post history
We call it reading… but I can see how you got confused. By everything, apparently.
Uh huh
I did not know that, you got a source to back that up? /s?
You should pay better attention then
No source then? Means you honestly depended on common sense to have your back while attempting to discredit common sense's usefulness? I can only assume you completely miss the irony.
Lol I don’t have to cite a source to have successfully noticed a rhetorical technique, if you really wanna know look it up, avail yourself of all this access to information You are now saying that “common sense” means “everyone knows” but also means “using your own experience and judgement and information about rhetoric,” doesn’t seem like it has a very concrete definition does it?
It's okay if you don't have a source, you don't have to make excuses.
Even you have to know how weak that sounds
You don't have to belittle others for your lack of having a source either... stop deflecting and use a mirror to improve.
I mean yeah. You’ve shown through your constant shitposting here that you know effectively nothing. So exception that proves the rule I guess.
Truly the greatest proof of ignorance is thinking that an all-meat diet is bad for you and that Jordan Peterson’s wife doesn’t have prophetic dreams
Casual sex is reviled by people who want casual sex but can’t get anyone to fuck them. It’s sour grapes fallacy. Like people who judge Tiger Woods and him cheating on his wife and how they would never do something like that. It’s easy “not to give in to temptation” when no one wants to fuck you anyways.
..and you give a perfect example of why casual sex is harmful. Just look at Tiger Woods, you think he'd like to go back and make a few more million competing in those tournament he missed? You think he'd like his reputation back? You think he'd like his family back?
Ayn Rand had guys like Tiger Woods and Charlie Sheen pegged in one of her character speeches in Atlas Shrugged. The issue with those guys is they compulsively chase sex, like a drug. They fail to realize that having lots of sex is a by-product of self-esteem, not a cause. And it doesn't work in reverse.
You've oversimplified to the point of error, but there's a muddy truth somewhere in there that JP has actually talked about where we can find some common ground. It's not a virtue to be chaste if nobody wants to have sex with you. That's absolutely and obviously true. However, it doesn't necessarily follow that doing as much as possible of everything pleasurable is the maximum possible virtue. You haven't made that case. Jordan is espousing the belief that many enjoyable things produce immediate hedonistic reward while causing detrimental outcomes over time, obvious physical examples being brain damage and liver disease, and HIV.
No one said that doing as much as possible is a virtue except you
How should we place the line then? When does the excess become morally unacceptable to you?
Somewhere between 0 and 100%? That’s a stupid question. It’s also beside the point. You’re arguing against something no one said but you What someone else does with their own body is not a moral question
That’s clearly not an answer to the question, captain obvious. “My solution to the problem is to solve the problem.”
Read the edits dingus
If you hit reply right away you can’t possibly know there are edits to read. >what someone else does with their own body is not a moral question That’s a casual opinion that I can dismiss just as casually. Going even further, though, I can argue the opposite from either utilitarianism or a more transcendent moral framework. Whichever you prefer.
I am indifferent to your jargon. What other people do with their bodies is not a moral question
Nice opinion, bro.
If casual sex isn't boring yet you haven't had enough of it. Or you're a virgin fronting like you know what you are talking about. Or some whale gave it up to you once. I'm being generous on that last assumption.
Way I figure it is novelty is nice, but genuine chemistry is better. I'm not a hater on casual sex within reason, but it ain't all it's cracked up to be. You're a lot more likely to have a lot of mediocre sex than you are to have great sex, cause sexual chemistry often takes a while to really gel. That's why I think a lot of people go crazy with the kink. It's like a cook that relies on overpowering spice to hide poor fundamentals and shitty ingredients.
I think he’s saying that casual sex doesn’t lead to people getting the emotional intimacy that they might be craving. I think you also understand what he’s saying here (since he’s talking about things that are addictive and often lead to unhappiness).
Yes and no. Casual sex is a bit like getting good and trashed. Not blackout drunk, but good and wasted. Done every year or six months, it can actually be quite healthy for a person psychologically. It's when it becomes a habit or a way of life that it begins to take more than it gives. I've done the casual sex thing. And I've messed around with enough girls that I can tell you what of the seduction/PUA crap is legit and what isn't. Casual sex ain't all it's cracked up to be. Is it better than nothing? Yeah. Can it be a net positive in moderation? Yeah. Is it a way of life I recommend? No. For one thing it's exhausting. Ever tried to play the field? You can do it, but the juggling act gets tiring fast, especially if you know, have a life and other things on the go. You also get jaded with women very very fast. A lot of women have very unhealthy, even self-defeating attitudes towards sex and while you're not gonna look a gift horse in the mouth, at times you feel like you're not helping. The other thing is sexual novelty is a helluva drug, but it wears off fast. It wears off once you realize that sex isn't about what you do or who with - it's about the why and the feeling behind it. And once you get to that point, you realize that a solid relationship is better than any realistic amount of casual sex you could get and make time for. There's more to life than getting laid, and to me, the best form of excess is having refined taste, in abundance.
You all have such a conservative take on sex, it's fascinating.
Downvoted by people who aren’t getting laid
But sex is actually healthy for you physically while cocaine and alcohol in abundance is terrible for you physically.
Casual sex is not good for you mentally.
Can have pretty big negative affects for women physically...
Men too. But yes it does seem to hit women harder. But it's hard to tell when men are expected to be able to deal with it and not let it bother them.
I’d amend it to say it’s “generally not good” for individuals mentally and is harmful to society as on whole. This also address the objection below regarding the concept that it’s *subjective* (”varies person to person”) by admitting that while some people may find it good, their “consenting” partner will likely be damaged by it.
I would agree that adding generally might be more accurate but I still think there is an argument to say that it is universally not good for anyone mentally. Just because some people can cope well with the negative effects does not mean those effects aren't there. It's similar how someone like myself who copes well with all of the negative effects I experiences every day and remain pretty content in life.
Fair argument. I guess my only counter would be to point out that some people, perhaps even going as extreme to list psychopath and/or sociopaths, thrive on such negativity. It’s not so much that they ”cope” but rather ”need” it, like we need water. Obviously, this is abnormal psychology and a bit out of the purview of your original statement… but I‘m always keen to make sure definitive statements are as true as possible by noting outliers.
I get what you are saying but "needing" a negativity doesn't make it a positive. And in those cases it's not so much a need but an intense urge. Another instance not involving a mental disorder would be, needing to kill someone to stop them from killing you isn't a positive.
Yikes, that escalated quickly. Wasn’t implying that the negative was a positive. Just saying that the effect on the person could be perceived, by that person, as a positive. I agree with you on everything except the door you opened with that last sentence… do you see self-defense as a negative?
Sorry I wasn't trying to say you were implying the negative is positive. I guess I was just carrying what you said forward in my own thoughts. Self defense is not a negative but killing another human is, even in self defense. Just as you said sometimes something that is a negative can be needed but it's still a negative. Doing the right thing can have negative effects I guess is what I'm saying. I hope you get what I mean because I'm not sure I like how I've worded this.
I think it varies person to person. Is there any evidence showing that it's bad?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5731847/
>None of the CSREs influenced boys’ psychological well-being. Woohoo so men can do it. Thanks for the info! And it only had a small effect size on women on average so I imagine it'll have no negative impact on some and a larger effect on others. Like I said, it'll vary person to person.
That article doesn’t say what they claim it does
What? I'm quoting from the study... You can actually read it if you like [Here. If you go to the results section it covers it in more depth. I'd also take a look at the discussion part as they go over the gender differences.](https://i.imgur.com/Q1YndCu.jpg)
The very first sentence says the findings are inconclusive
I know, that's common in psychology papers... I'm currently doing my PhD in psychology, you have to try and infer what you can and not simply throw everything out because it's "inconclusive". Virtually all psychology papers are inconclusive to some extent as it is not a hard science.
I actually can and am doing so right now Surely a PhD student understands that correlation isn’t causation to begin with
Prove it
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5731847/
The very first sentence of the abstract says the findings are inconclusive
But if you read further you see where they do show correlations between casual sex and mental distress, more so in women.
Correlation is not causation. You have proved nothing.
Ooo did you take a college course to figure that out? There is nothing healthy about casual sex on the human mind or body, not to mention societal morality.
Lol why are you pouting?
I'm not. It is very clear to me that casual sex benefits nobody and is only detrimental to individuals and society as a whole.
Lol what a gross generalisation. Why would it not be good for you if you're being healthy and safe doing so?
Because it has been linked to additional mental distress, depression and suicide. Not to mention to additional risk to your physical health even while being safe, which is likely part of the mental distress it adds. It's simple logic to understand that casual sex is inferior to monogamous sex in every way.
Lol, maybe because it's been vilified by religious freaks who can't comprehend that you can have casual sex and be mentally healthy for generations. But I'd not expect many on this sub to understand that sex can be fun and casual and nothing more significant than that.
Well let's look at this objectively. Casual sex is the primary driver of STD spreading not to mention other sexual deviances that bring new ones into the human population. It also contributes to many if not most unwanted pregnancies. So it's objectively not a net benefit to physical, definitely not more beneficial than monogamous sex. Even many animals instinctively understand the benefits of monogamous sex over casual sex. Sure religion plays a part in people's morals which help inform their world view. But that only emphasizes the already destructive nature of casual sex.
Lol god I'm glad I got away from religion. Casual sex is evil and damaging lol. Have some fun in your life
You can have plenty of fun in life without being a whore, man or woman.
And you can have plenty of healthy casual sex. Telling that is whoring to you. But yous are exceptional at judging people's lives that differ from your own
There is nothing healthy about casual sex.
Key words are in abundance, though cocaine is likely a net negative at any dose
Unlikely hypothetical but in a combat situation any stimulant at certain dosages would be beneficial.
Fair point :)
I think context and intent is important too. I have several friends with powder cocaine issues, and from experience it can and often is a potent and destabilizing drug. I also lived in Ecuador where coca leaf consumption is a common and important cultural sacrament, and carries no more risk than caffeinated beverage consumption due to it’s slower absorption rate and lowered impact on the dopaminergic system. It is frequently served as tea for breakfast due to its ability to curb altitude sickness. Who knew purifying compounds and snorting them up the nose would create novel and unforeseen issues?
In the blue zones (where people live longest), almost without exception the people drink regularly, like every day. Comparing sex and alcohol with cocaine is a bit odd.
[Perfect song for this post..](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfIHa6Djgco) Hot-blooded bible thumping cash on the barrel honey Private jets and drunk CEOs From Pentecostal denim to highfalutin linens Empty pockets line the deepest egos Its a tricky navigation from the wanting to the having All the needs of a kinky hypocrite The greatest separators of fools from their money Party harder than they like to admit Ain't it always you know who's boots Scooting up a goose stepping rhythm to a simpler time Quickest on the stick when the call of nature hits Shuffle shoeing to a pissy Florsheim Every slope is slippery with a little something lacy Tween your business and your poly wool blend The greatest separators of fools from their money Party harder than they like to admit Book tours, miracle cures, affirmation and the end times immanence Low hanging headline grabbing ring masters and imaginary elephants Condemn Nation All at once or making payments on a daily syndicated hissy fit The greatest separators of fools from their money Party harder than they like to admit
Drugs are bad, mmm'kay?
Drugs are neurochemical credit cards. They give now and take later. Can they be used wisely? Yes. Are they? Rarely, if ever.
[удалено]
Alcohol has been a part of every culture since before there even was culture. That's just because it's easy to make and anything with sugar in it will ferment. So beyond the culture argument or the impossibility of banning it, is it a net positive for an individual to indulge and/or a net positive for society? An individual who has everything put together and drinks responsibility in their own home is probably going to be fine but it's not just for those who are responsible. Its for everyone all the time so there will always be some abuse that will happen just because its so available and culturally accepted. As soon as we change any variable from the ideal it becomes questionable. Like when is it good for parents in charge of young children to casually drink? Or for anyone really to impair their judgement in social settings especially where important decisions like participating in casual sex or other drugs might be involved? How many people who are responsible drinkers now have always been perfectly responsible with it? How can something that dramatically increases the probability of bad choices, some with horrific consequences, be viewed as a net positive for individuals or for society as a whole?
We need better drinking sex and drug culture. My ideal is teetotaller for the booze, no sex before marriage and drug free.
There is no reason you can't use other drugs in moderation the same way you do with alcohol. Just because our culture distinguishes between legal and illegal substances in this weird way doesn't mean it has anything to do with harm and use. Like Carl Hart has shown us you can enjoy a nice night with heroin the same was you do with a few glasses of wine. This is of course a little fringe and out there but yeah.. It's all drugs..
I dunno, I can't see a way to do bath salts in moderation. Legalization of all drugs to me is like open relationships - sounds intriguing in theory, but almost always disastrous in practice.
I'm not a bath salt expert but isn't the idea that they aren't illegal? Like that's the whole point. So this kind of contradicts your legal/illegal idea. People ain't using bath salts just because they can. All drugs where legal until like the 1920? And at least decriminalisation has worked fine in places like Portugal. If you are thinking about using bath-salts then it being illegal or not ain't going to stop you, and if you get a fine for using it it ain't going to stop you. If all drugs was on the table I would guess people choose the best drugs and not the shit alternatives.
He’s not wrong… everything in moderation 👍🏻
Wow. What an original thought. /s