Help my argument please

>What is there to lose from promiscuity?
Higher risk of Std's and pregnancy. HIgh possibility of drama, a lot of heartbreak and stress.
>Why should teenagers not have sex with anonymous adults?
Depends on their maturity level, but I think 16-18 is ok. Anything below that is degenerate.

For men i can't really think of anything, but for women there's the social stigma and i've heard it increases the likelyhood of depression and other mental ilnesses.

>my body is a temple!

this is my new favorite reaction image.

>sex as a emotional and intimate experience is immature
Seems like you're the one who needs to grow up

Where did I say that? I was green text mocking the guy I was replying to

The anonymous adults might kidnap and murder them.

Sex is always better with someone you care about and know well.

Fucking strangers all the time is only a power fantasy that makes you grow into a sociopath with no real investment or emotional connection poured into your sexual facet, furthermore, it actively prevents it.

Actions increase in value the less they are done. Being promiscuous causes sex to lose all value, and bars sex as a means of emotional connection with partners you truly care about.

>Actions increase in value the less they are done.

[Citation needed]

bacon only seems to get tastier the more I eat it

>power fantasy

Back to Tumblr you go!

...

There is nothing wrong with having sex as long as the people doing it are educated on the subject. If any of you have kids I urge you to talk to them about it. Don't let public school muddle up their minds more than it does already.

Cause you're a fat fuck with dulled receptors

I think he was saying people are immature about sex and not that sex is immature

He's right, sex with random strangers serves to feed ones ego. Male or female. Sex addicts do it to feel attractive and wanted. It's a mental thing as much as it is a physical thing

...

If sex were normalized like OP suggests, there probably wouldn't be that stigma.

If people were more promiscuous all the time, maybe there'd be less attachment involved with the sex. But do you think that people can have casual sex all the time and still be able to use sex to build a deep connection with a long-term partner? I do think so. That seems to sit at the crux of a lot of arguments in this thread.

I also think there are a lot of people that don't care that much about having sex all the time

>Actions increase in value the less they are done.
That's not entirely true, but the opposite is for the one who does the actions.

>if there were not consequences to your actions then everything would be swell

Women are hedonists and their enemy is boredom, effort, risk, danger.
Fortunately, men are desperate enough to feel relevant, dutiful, respected, valued so they are pushy enough to try to be noticed by women (because they fail to be relevant beyond women). and sooner or later, they cracks the bf-shield

Women know that chads and other robots are willing to help them, to have an easy life. The natural problem of women is that they get bored sooner or later with whoever choose to try to entertain them.
So women change their partners to avoid the rut and to create drama. men do not like to be changed, since they loved to be relevant for once in their life, they whine and hate women when women find other providers.
Of course, changing partners constantly becomes a bore too, so they want some fixed men in their life to give them emotional and material support, Rarely sex because women know that, no matter how good the lover is, it gets boring sooner or later.
When they are replaced, men become resentful towards women, since they lose the validation of their existence. They pretend that they can live without women and that they even are better than women, smarter, stronger (in forgetting that women do not need to be so, because men want to be so in place of women)

Knowing that they are not able to stop loving to be supported by men, Women love also to think that they need no man and that they live to help others >muh compassion. This is part of the tactic to enhance their pleasures: women think that they are good people in society, only to feel even more raw, more animal, more of a little minx, typically in private, when they are fucked properly by some beta ready to serve them sexually.

do I need to remind you that correlation does not equal causation?

Sex redpills you about monogamy

its completely irrelevent beyond an opinion from a third party to an actor so long as the act is voluntary, consentual, between both parties. by true law this suggests that once a person hits puberty they can legally form this contract of sexual activity (defined as sexual organ interaction)

It's only a problem if you want to go into a stable monogamous relationship (which is probably beneficial for society). The Romans got it right imho, they basically said fuck as much as you like (men, women, it doesn't matter), but eventually get married and stay faithful.

It's mostly about stds and pregnancy. The more sex you have with randoms the more likely it is you'll catch an std or cause a pregnancy.

While modern technology has reduced this concern via better healthcare, condoms, birth control, and abortions, the underlying possibilities are still there. But even if those options are exercised they can still cause damage or undesirable effects, such as abortions causing damage to the uterine wall and inhibiting future pregnancies, birth control influencing hormone regulation, and lax use of condoms after someone has had so much sex they get bored of them.

It boils down to the fact that if you aren't 100% ready for all of the possible ramifications of having sex with someone, you shouldn't do it. Promiscuity shows a lack of foresight and lack of personal responsibility in this regard. However, personally I think as long as someone is responsible, well educated, and understands what they're doing there's nothing inherently wrong with promiscuity.

Although promiscuity can (but not always) be an indication of psychological issues, in that someone with low self worth seeks acceptance from others in the most basic way they can: through the physical act of sex. For men this generally takes the form of him "conquering" a woman and thus feeling actualized as a man, and for a woman being seen as desirable and sought after by a man, actualizing herself as a woman.

There's also the idea of insecurity in the partner of someone who is promiscuous, in that if someone can so easily jump between different sexual partners, how can a partner be sure they won't just drop them the second someone better comes along? Studies have shown that divorce rates increase as the sexual partners the man/woman had before the marriage increases.

I mostly agree with you.

The issue of marriage statistics is highly tied up in cultural confounds. At least in American, more conservative christians are less likely to have sex because of the heavy stigma, and are more likely to stay in an undesirable marriage due to religious values.

Brain has bonding chemicals relased during sex.
Changing partners like crazy isn't psychologically healthy, since you are driving the thing into confusion.

Sexual promiscuity makes people disease vectors, causing irreparable harm to our health and the coffers of the state. It also weakens the fabric of our society by breaking the social institutions which have been created to organize society, create more stability for children, and stop the spread of disease.

Polygamists should be exiled.