Sex

If sex wasn't a ridiculous amount of fun the abstinence-only education strategy wouldn't be a ridiculous amount of bullshit.

How surprising: PUAs vs. feminists exaggerate vs. underestimate sexual dimorphism in humans.

"A male rat would be placed into an enclosed large box with four or five female rats in estrus. He would immediately begin mating with all of the female rats repeatedly until eventually exhausted. Although the females would continue nudging and licking him to continue, he would not respond. However, if a novel female were introduced to the box, he would become alert and find the ability to mate once again with the new female." See the Coolidge effect - a phenomenon—seen in nearly every mammalian species in which it has been tested.

OK, so what do humans do who want a long term relationship, but who also crave novel nudging and licking? There's serial monogamy as advocated by a feminist here, and the polyamorous lifestyle described here.

That's a thoughtful response. Nutz is making somewhat of an Appeal To Nature. Even if there's a good biological explanation for our current behavior, that explanation by itself is not a justification for our behavior.

I agree with Nutz from a biological standpoint. Simultaneously, I'm not sure that this standpoint is completely acceptable on its own when all of human experience, human being, and society is taken into account. The controversy itself supports this viewpoint. Regardless, socially I think both men and women should be considered sluts if they are promiscuous just by definition of the word. Whether being a "slut" is a good or bad thing is a different issue rhetorically. I personally believe that a man or woman can have multiple partners and be a "good" slut if the experience is sincere, just as someone could be a "bad" slut(even perhaps having less partners than others) with insincere experiences. What is considered sincere or insincere is debatable but beyond this conversation.

Obviously it is almost humorous to talk about good and bad sluts... but I hope my point came across

Perhaps it's helpful to think about honesty friendly vs. honesty unfriendly domains:

Honesty friendly:
Philosophy, math, science, BFFs, family, actual art.

Honesty unfriendly:
Business, politics, dating, casual friends, popular art.

Perhaps our idealistic tendencies make us advocate honesty in domains where the practical reality is that honesty severely compromises success.

Yes, it's misogynistic.

What is misogyny? I think it's best described as ill will towards women. An attempt to harm women, qua women, is misogynistic.

The theory of pick up artists is based on trying to make the dating world less favorable to women -- conning them into sleeping with a man they would otherwise dislike. The language is usually to the effect that women have the upper hand, and it's time to cut them down to size. This is really tautologically anti-woman.

Here's what bothers me particularly. I think one of the worst ways to harm a person is to weaken his or her character, to sabotage his or her good qualities. PUA tells men to manipulate women into being their worst selves -- impulsive, emotional, gullible, petty. That's a very nasty kind of ill will.

Perhaps both men and women suffer from outgroup homogeneity bias towards each other.

Mystery's quote is actually from... a patent application. I'm really not trying to take a position here - but I find this terribly amusing, on all sorts of levels. I'm sure eventually when they invent the love-bot, its patent application will have citations that will eventually link back to this one. Auspicious stuff.

If you don't want to be the victim of dishonesty, make sure to do what you can to not be too easily deceived. Remember that politicians mostly get away with lies because of voter illusions, advertisements mostly get away with ridiculous hyperbole because it makes you buy their products, and men mostly get away with lying to women because women allow themselves to believe "he's really into me", against their better judgement.

As Homer Simpson said, it takes two to lie: one to lie and one to listen.

Of course. But then I believe that you own your body.

It's up to her. But they do have to be replaced periodically for the rest of your life. For myself, repeated surgery wouldn't be worth any gains in beauty.

You're right, and that's an excellent solution. I added the question "Is causal sex morally acceptable?" and shifted the Catholic Church's quote to that question.

More editoriality: The Catholic Church quote seems out-of-place alongside the other quotes here. They, and the question's description, are clustered mainly around the gender double standards regarding sexual promiscuity. The Catholic Church quote seems to be more about non-procreative or non-marital sex in general. (Granted, Catholic culture probably does take part in that double standard, but not officially that I know of.) Are there any existing questions where that would fit better, something like "Is non-procreative sex morally acceptable?" and/or "Is non-marital sex morally acceptable?"? Couldn't find any like those, but thought I'd check first.

Good call.