:lol:

It's just a thought experiment that I think illustrates the perversity of American culture quite well.

Dude, the point is you are burdened with a caricature of the being called "American woman". There are American women on this very forum. Why don't you ask them how willing they would be to drop their knickers for a handsome celebrity on first meeting? Then after you get the shit verbally slapped out of you recognize they are people with mostly some moral integrity and not walking pussies waiting to be fucked by Brad Pitt. Please...

I don't see why you've made it just about American women, the point is equally about American men, probably moreso than American women actually. I have no doubt that if you ran the experiment, at least on men, you'd get at minimum 8-9 saying yes.

No doubt that there are people with moral integrity too who would refuse. I'm not questioning that. But you have to understand that your average US citizen isn't the well-read and intellectual Baden who has thought through his moral views extensively.

And if you ran the experiment on women? What's your answer. I'm all ears...

What do you reckon American guys like these will do?

And if you ran the experiment on women? What's your answer. I'm all ears... — Baden

I'm not sure, if I had to guess, I'd say 5-7, but it depends how well it's pitched. If it's in the middle of the street, there will be more no's, if it's in private, there will be more yes's.

See, that's insane to me, but it does help us to contextualize your world view. I'll say this, I know at least ten western women well (and I have no evidence to suggest American women, whom I've met many of, are significantly different in the realm of sexual mores) and I'm sure none of them would accept a random offer of sex on the street from anyone, but would find it creepy and disgusting. So my answer would be roughly zero. The question then arises as to who the hell you have been hanging out with of the fairer sex? Do you spend your days in houses of ill-repute, go-go bars or randomly creeping around docklands areas in the wee hours? Are these the only women you know?

Or tell us how many American or western women do you know well? What's their background and what leads you to believe they could be so easily convinced into having sex with a celebrity on first meeting?

How many American or western women do you know well? — Baden

Depends on what you understand by know well. It could be anywhere from 5-50 if you include acquaintances or friends of other friends. Mostly from my stay in the UK. I've gone to clubs there, for example for a friend's birthday, and I've seen what some of them can be up to (thankfully not on myself, though one did try).

What's their background and what leads you to believe they could be so easily convinced into having sex with a celebrity on first meeting? — Baden

Because from what I've observed, some of them are easily convinced to have sex with a random guy! Now if that random guy was also a celebrity, why would they suddenly back off?

So, largely drunk young women in nightclubs being chatted up by men and then on your presumption being taken away for sex equate to a random sample of women from the general population being stopped in the street? Let's try again, of those women you know well who did not join your friend's birthday party to cavort around while you bravely fought against the imposition of sexual immorality on your person, have you seen more than fifty percent of them get spirited away for sex with random strangers on a first meeting, or do you just presume that would be the case? And if so based on what?

I've been out with groups of men and women to bars and clubs and people just socialize and drink and no one goes home with anyone. Therefore no one ever fucks. Wow am I doing philosophy?

Moving on to men, Agu, what makes you think the number would be higher in the US than elsewhere? The US is one of the most religious and socially conservative of the advanced democracies. If you're right, increased levels of religion and social conservatism would seem to turn men into relatively rabid sex maniacs. I just don't know what you're trying to argue.

Yes, but why is sexual satisfaction such a scarce commodity? Isn't it precisely because it's not really possible to achieve sexual satisfaction through promiscuity — Agustino

You have this bizarre bourgeois/religious notion that sex is valuable only if it is experienced as seldom as possible. It's a delusion that your lobbyists have promulgated far and wide.

The Romans had a phrase. To rule over the plebs, give them bread and circuses — Agustino

The Plebs had a phrase, "You had better give us bread and circuses if you want to keep your heads, because maintaining your idle privileges would otherwise be an intolerable inconvenience, and we would do away with the lot of you!"

If we did an experiment, and Brad Pitt walked up — Agustino

Actually Brad Pitt did walk up and offer me a BJ. I took him up on the offer, of course -- I have nothing against promiscuous sex. We went into a convenient back alley. It was OK, but I thought he lacked a certain commitment to the role. Anyway, he doesn't seem to be all that bright. Here's a picture I took of him trying to figure out how many fingers he has. He kept losing count.

I've been out with groups of men and women to bars and clubs and people just socialize and drink and no one goes home with anyone. — Maw

Tragic, just tragic. Very sad.

Social conservatism in practice : Adultery

Cue no true scotchman...

Prohibition can be a persuasive salesman...

Have you considered changing banks? You can utilise the DJSI and other sustainability indices to inform you and then to change banks and spend your money with different companies.

See for instance: https://yearbook.robecosam.com/companies/#gold

So in the US that would be Bank of America or Citigroup (bronze group). You can also go with ABN AMRO but not sure if they offer retail banking in the US. — Benkei

Thanks for the heads up, Benkei. I'll look into these programs and get back to you (if you don't mind) if I have any questions.

My provisional take on the issue of sex, at least as it relates to the form of social conservatism I have in mind, would include: the belief that sex is good!; the belief that government shouldn't get involved in trying to regulate sexual behavior; the belief that sex within a committed relationship with someone you genuinely care about is preferable to casual sex with many partners; a dislike of things which reduce women (or men) to objects of sexual desire; a preference for a "natural" look and a related hope that someday we'll spend way less money on cosmetics and plastic surgery; an appreciation for modesty in dress and behavior; a belief that the best relationships - and the best sex - transcend mere physical attraction; etc. Pretty standard, relatively conservative but far from puritanical stuff.

So those are my views based on my own experience and I would not attempt to impose them on anyone else. I think they're fairly moderate and reasonable positions that (yet again) may even align in a couple areas with "progressive" positions. I'm not nearly as obsessed with the issue as Agu is, obviously, but also not entirely dismissive of his criticisms of lax sexual morality and the possible negative effects this may have on individuals and the community more generally. I went through a stage in my life (early twenties) where, like a lot of my friends, my primary goal was to get laid as much as possible. Not too difficult around these parts, especially for someone working in the bar business as I was.

I agree with @Ciceronianus the White about the strangeness of being preoccupied with the sex lives of others. I'm only adding my opinion since I don't think Agu's somewhat extreme position should be taken as the only "socially conservative" option out there, even if it is shared by many others who identify as such. I do respect his self-control on the issue though - he's a much better man than me in that regard.

No problem. There's a lot going on in this space as some governments are demanding it. It's then easier and cheaper just to meet the strictest rules instead of adjusting to every local set of rules. So they divest from cluster munition, child labour and such. Clients are demanding green and sustainable as well. It's not perfect but a start.

As to your take on sex; apparently I'm a social conservative then.

I found the article on adultery I linked interesting. There's something weird about people banging on about family values, abortion and promiscuity and then going about undermining them at a personal level. I get people are fallible, I hardly live up to the man I want to be (I procrastinate like a sloth), but then I don't go about demanding that people live a certain way.

Yeah there's really not much that I've found that I disagree with you (or Baden, or Michael, etc.) on. I have an aversion for (and a suspicion of) people who moralize too much. Strange how they often seem to be the worst offenders of the very vices they rail against in others.

I'll check out that adultery article...

Agu's somewhat extreme position — Erik

Why do you take my position to be extreme? At the very least it is the position that is almost unanimously shared by the 5 main world religions - Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism and Hinduism. Mainly that all sex outside of marriage (or a committed relationship, which in my view one should only start with the purpose of getting married, and anyway, marriage is a spiritual event, and doesn't require a church ceremony) is immoral.

The extremity of your position is found in your attitude to want to regulate these things.

That's true, but I do think it's a bit extreme in a relative sense. Maintaining one's virginity until marriage, while extremely commendable, is just not something that seems practical for most people today. But perhaps things are different in other parts of the world. Anyhow, I respect your own personal stance on sexual purity a great deal, but I don't think it would resonate with people who weren't raised within a strict religious tradition. What's the old saying about not making the perfect the enemy of the good? I'm trying to be pragmatic.

Maintaining one's virginity until marriage, while extremely commendable, is just not something that seems practical for most people today. — Erik

But that's not my position. My position is no sex outside of marriage. And by marriage I don't mean what happens after a religious or public ceremony which officiates the relationship between two people. By marriage, I mean a committed relationship, in which the two people intend to live together until the end of their days. That can occur way before any actual marriage ceremony.

So pretty much if people have sex in committed relationships, I don't see that as a problem.

Hmm, then it seems as though you're using the term "marriage" in a highly idiosyncratic sense, one which is far removed from common usage. This is actually the first time I've ever seen anyone equate "marriage" with "committed relationship." I have heard of "common law" marriages, though, so maybe there's some legal precedent.

I made the logical assumption that "no sex outside of marriage" meant no sex until you're actually married, which I took to mean remaining a virgin up until the marriage is formally recognized by the wider community. Anyway, thanks for clearing that up. It still seems bizarre to me that anyone would refer to himself or herself as being married - ostensibly in a "spiritual" sense - when they aren't legally married.

This unique understanding of marriage does however make your position seem less extreme. I'll give you that. A quick and perhaps dumb question: say your "marriage" unravels and you separate from your "wife" for good - would you tell future girlfriends that you were previously married but are now divorced? Seems like marriage only makes sense within a context which includes things like public and formal commitment, separation, divorce, etc.

say your "marriage" unravels and you separate from your "wife" - would you tell future girlfriends that you were previously married but are now divorced? — Erik

Hmmm, you're still misunderstanding my view a bit I think.

Yes, I do use marriage in an uncommon way. But that's because I want to be critical of an institution that is many times hypocritical - as if a communal ceremony is ever necessary for there to be a lifelong bond between two individuals. Just like in the days of Jesus, the Pharisees followed just the letter of the law, not its spirit. We have started to do the same today. External marriage, which is the societal one, is merely a reflection of what happens between the two people and God. It is something that officiates what has happened between the two people and God and makes it public to the world.

But this societal marriage is merely a reflection. What matters is what is behind the reflection, the source so to speak. In some cases, there may be nothing, in which case the marriage is fake, and a hypocrisy - a sham. And in some other cases, if there is something, but there is no marriage (no social reflection) that in no way condemns the two people involved.

would you tell future girlfriends that you were previously married but are now divorced? — Erik

No, so as not to cause confusion. The point that matters is that I think that a breakup affects one spiritually as much as a divorce.

McCarthyism lives again. “Russi, Russia, Russia”. — raza

Totally incomparable. McCarthyism had Truman sign into law screening of civil servants for loyalty and led to a stifling of freedom of speech of US citizens and had McCarthy pursue the whole unamerican nonsense. In this case, foreign intelligence is accused of meddling and there's a suspicion of collusion also under investigation. Indicting and following the rule of law through investigating possible crimes has nothing to do with McCarthyism.

I hope you're getting paid for making all this shit up otherwise your lack of knowledge is comical.

Hmm, then it seems as though you're using the term "marriage" in a highly idiosyncratic sense, one which is far removed from common usage. — Erik

Just a method to avoid admitting he's wrong. He does it regularly. It's totally inconsistent with the discussions at the start of this thread.

And if I show you proof I've said the same thing before too, will you apologise for lying?

Totally incomparable. McCarthyism had Truman sign into law screening of civil servants for loyalty and led to a stifling of freedom of speech of US citizens and had McCarthy pursue the whole unamerican nonsense — Benkei

The comparable difference between the two examples is that the current day "McCarthyists" are not of the elected administration.