# Solution to Ethics **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 19, 2017, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/solution-to-ethics/791610 "2017-07-19T00:29:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2017, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/solution-to-ethics/791610/241 "2017-07-20T20:35:22Z")
> [@Forest\_Green](#): > > Interesting, women aren’t objects? But if you want sex and don’t get it from them, the only problem is you – as if they don’t exist? You accuse me of objectifying people entirely, as was picked up by the quoting of my saying “what they’ll have sex with” - people in the present are nothing more than their present and past behaviors; which are “what’s”, who would you have sex with, is also a matter of what you’d have sex with. > > Some people have married walls on streets… literally. To that person, as an animist, that wall is a who, and they are deeply in love with it - have sex with it etc… it is also a what; it is distinct; otherwise they couldn’t marry it. I don’t think marrying a wall is sexual dysfunction, or marrying a car as other people have… > > Getting into the who/what distinction is still a matter of avoiding the overarching point - is the behavior that doesn’t facilitate sex, when someone wants it, bad by definition; given that there is more than one person involved, and the behavior that gets it, good by definition? > > What I’m getting at is that good and bad are only measured by hypocrisy and contradiction; otherwise we can’t even communicate in this thread. If someone is good at this; thus good, and can’t find sex, is it really the case that they are the ones with the problem? Not really necessary, but thank you for confirming his post anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2017, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/solution-to-ethics/791610/242 "2017-07-20T20:36:05Z")
> [@Forest Green](#): > > Every male on earth so far, has only had sex because of approach escalation And here I thought it was because it was my birthday. > [@](#): > > A man can either destroy the earth, or never get sex from women Don’t rush me - I’m thinking! Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2017, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/solution-to-ethics/791610/243 "2017-07-20T20:37:16Z")
What’s more likely? a) You are the problem. b) Every single eligible woman is the problem. ---
**Author:** ![Fuji](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a9a28c/32.png) [@Fuji](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuji)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2017, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/solution-to-ethics/791610/244 "2017-07-20T20:38:13Z")
> [@Forest\_Green](#): > > If someone is good at this; thus good, and can’t find sex, is it really the case that they are the ones with the problem? If “someone” (surely not the archetypal _‘my friend’_ :rolleyes: ) can’t find transactional sex, in 2017, then they’re not looking. After all, if something is just a resource, then purchasing it is just a matter of entering the market. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2017, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/solution-to-ethics/791610/245 "2017-07-20T20:38:53Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > And here I thought it was because it was my birthday.Don’t rush me - I’m thinking! > > Regards, > Shodan Remember: Women first, _then_ destroy the Earth. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2017, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/solution-to-ethics/791610/246 "2017-07-20T20:39:04Z")
> [@Forest\_Green](#): > > Interesting, women aren’t objects? But if you want sex and don’t get it from them, the only problem is you – as if they don’t exist? You accuse me of objectifying people entirely, as was picked up by the quoting of my saying “what they’ll have sex with” - people in the present are nothing more than their present and past behaviors; which are “what’s”, who would you have sex with, is also a matter of what you’d have sex with. > > Some people have married walls on streets… literally. To that person, as an animist, that wall is a who, and they are deeply in love with it - have sex with it etc… it is also a what; it is distinct; otherwise they couldn’t marry it. I don’t think marrying a wall is sexual dysfunction, or marrying a car as other people have… > > Getting into the who/what distinction is still a matter of avoiding the overarching point - is the behavior that doesn’t facilitate sex, when someone wants it, bad by definition; given that there is more than one person involved, and the behavior that gets it, good by definition? > > What I’m getting at is that good and bad are only measured by hypocrisy and contradiction; otherwise we can’t even communicate in this thread. If someone is good at this; thus good, and can’t find sex, is it really the case that they are the ones with the problem? In all of your comments on this topic, I don’t get the impression that a partner is something you wish to actually care about, rather than just receive services from. I’m not going to argue that there are not ‘methods’ by which you can ‘get sex’ - of course there are. But the people who obsess over these 'methods, with only thoughts for their own benefit in the process, and without any mention of _giving_ and _caring_, are scary assholes. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2017, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/solution-to-ethics/791610/247 "2017-07-20T20:39:12Z")
> [@Forest\_Green](#): > > is the behavior that doesn’t facilitate sex, when someone wants it, bad by definition; given that there is more than one person involved, and the behavior that gets it, good by definition? That an individual who wants sex isn’t getting it is not necessarily a problem at all objectively, not for society or humanity. > [@](#): > > What I’m getting at is that good and bad are only measured by hypocrisy and contradiction; otherwise we can’t even communicate in this thread. Well, I don’t accept your definition of good and bad. So start at a different point. > [@](#): > > If someone is good at this; thus good, and can’t find sex, is it really the case that they are the ones with the problem? 1. Your definition of “good” is not established. 2. You have established no connection between being good and getting sex 3. There is no problem for society if the only thing that is happening is that you aren’t having sex with the people you want to have sex with. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2017, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/solution-to-ethics/791610/248 "2017-07-20T20:42:41Z")
> [@Forest\_Green](#): > > I’m not repressed homosexual. That is a charge to deflect the point I’m making. In the context of gay men, they often tell me, if only you were gay, you’d be the perfect man. It’s not a “charge”, there’s nothing wrong with being gay. > [@](#): > > I have relationships; my ideal is keeping relationships and having other sexual ones and keeping those — And some women aren’t interested in being your sexual conquest, walled off from the rest of your life, and entirely disposable when a different body type walks by? I am shocked. Shocked! > [@](#): > > The question I want you to ask yourself, in terms of what you call “committed relationships” what did you have to do to secure a single sexual resource? I don’t have a “single sexual resource”, I have a wife. It turns out that women are _people_, not just the casing a vagina is installed in. They have personalities, interests, the whole deal! Crazy, I know. > [@](#): > > Are you offended? “No, not me! I didn’t modulate my behavior just to secure any sexual resource! I don’t even think that way!” Well, she got me to use dryer sheets, and close the shower curtain behind me so it doesn’t mildew. You got me there. > [@](#): > > BS! Women “smell” the proclivity to marry and sexual jealousy on a man… they can tell by speech and affect whether you have hypocritical orientation. If they don’t detect it, they will not approach. I don’t do anything weird or wrong, I don’t rattle on about this stuff in public. I have normal conversations with people… joking and stuff like that (I have been more agitated at times), but the signals of this type of psychology doesn’t pervade my affect. Like I’ve been saying: if you’re only interested in pickups, expect a lot of women not to show you any interest. There’s zero hypocrisy in my marriage. I’ve never told anyone else not to flirt with women, date, get married, or have sex. I welcome others to do as I say, and as I do. BTW, you are not in a position to judge your own affect. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2017, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/solution-to-ethics/791610/249 "2017-07-20T20:48:20Z")
> [@Forest\_Green](#): > > I have relationships; my ideal is keeping relationships and having other sexual ones and keeping those — The thing about open relationships is that you need to have a lot of trust and mutual respect for them to work. The attitudes you’ve described in this thread paint you as someone with very little respect for women - that whole, “Woman can’t have moral agency” thing is going to be a huge barrier between you and the sort of relationships you want to have. > [@](#): > > The question I want you to ask yourself, in terms of what you call “committed relationships” what did you have to do to secure a single sexual resource? > > Are you offended? “No, not me! I didn’t modulate my behavior just to secure any sexual resource! I don’t even think that way!” Again, sex isn’t a resource, and thinking about sex in such a transactional way is going to be another barrier between you and the sort of relationships you want to have. But in terms of what I did to make myself more attractive to other people? Lots of stuff. Most of it around making myself a better, happier, and more emotionally secure person. I didn’t lose my virginity until I was 27 or 28. This wasn’t because “women are bitches,” it was because I was insecure, anti-social, and didn’t really like myself too much. I worked hard on those issues - not so I could get laid, but just so I would be a better, happier person - and found that after doing that for myself, a lot of people (not just women) started to view me as a desirable partner. > [@](#): > > BS! Women “smell” the proclivity to marry and sexual jealousy on a man… they can tell by speech and affect whether you have hypocritical orientation. If they don’t detect it, they will not approach. I don’t do anything weird or wrong, I don’t rattle on about this stuff in public. I have normal conversations with people… joking and stuff like that (I have been more agitated at times), but the signals of this type of psychology doesn’t pervade my affect. All of my relationships with women have been explicitly casual. They started with a stated goal of friendship and physical intimacy, with a clear understanding that the relationship would not progress past that to any sort of long-term, permanent pair bond such as marriage. I’m also a polyamorist, and am currently dating a woman who is also a polyamorist. We would both regard any sign of sexual jealousy from the other person as an instant deal breaker. Now, the women I’ve dated have certainly been outliers, in terms of their attitudes towards monogamy and long term relationships. But I only need one counter-example to disprove your, “All women…” generalizations. And I’ve got significantly more than one counter example. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2017, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/solution-to-ethics/791610/250 "2017-07-20T21:01:16Z")
Whoops, wrong thread! Move along, nothing to see here! ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2017, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/solution-to-ethics/791610/251 "2017-07-20T21:05:08Z")
> [@Forest\_Green](#): > > . . . my ideal is keeping relationships and having other sexual ones and keeping those — > . . . . > Women “smell” . . . . Dahmer and Kemper were keepers too. They solved the smell problem with refrigeration. > [@Forest\_Green](#): > > I have been hit on by hundreds of gay men Just because they are hitting you does not mean that they are gay. They are probably assaulting you because you smell of what you are physically or psychologically keeping. If you won’t seek psychological or psychiatric care, the least you can do is use refrigeration. > [@Forest\_Green](#): > > I was much angrier about it in the past You have a long way to go. Seek professional help. Learn to respect people regardless of their sex or their sexual orientation. Learn about what being a human is about. Stop shitting on women. ---
**Author:** ![Forest\_Green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8dc957/32.png) [@Forest\_Green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Forest_Green)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2017, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/solution-to-ethics/791610/252 "2017-07-20T21:10:47Z")
Human Action, I know there’s nothing wrong with being gay… the implication is that I’m a repressed homosexual because I refuse to use approach escalation (making an initial move in the sequence that implies sexuality in a gender dimorphic population when it’s hypocritical for a male to do) - you were telling me that because I’m not a hypocrite; that I must be gay, instead of men who use approach escalation being hypocrites (the definition of asshole). Some men and women cannot have sex; or orgasms… those are resources that they don’t have; biological resources. They try to acquire these resources by finding scientists to stimulate their spinal cord so they can experience them. If they aren’t resources, they can’t even try to get them, let alone, ever actually get them. To experience something, implies that it’s a resource; that you either do or do not want. The methods that facilitate them are also resources, that you either do or do not want. The subject is the theory of consciousness of others that develops with time; who are distinct and different from us, some people don’t get very far in theory of consciousness. Some get very far. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2017, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/solution-to-ethics/791610/253 "2017-07-20T21:16:51Z")
> [@Forest\_Green](#): > > The problem is that women don’t have sex with non-hypocrites. So… you’re upset you aren’t getting any vagina despite trying to be what you view as non-hypocritical? Have you perhaps considered that you might be wrong? > [@](#): > > so females not only, only have sex with hypocrites, heterosexual males are the only population on earth accountable to being a good person. By default, all gays and females are exempt. In other words, by saying women are not “accountable” you’re declaring that women are not moral agents and therefore not actual people. Neither are gay men, apparently, in your warped universe. Only heterosexual men are _capable_ of being good in your world (even if you think most aren’t) therefore everyone else is bad/evil. I eagerly await the moment someone invites you to the Pit. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2017, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/solution-to-ethics/791610/254 "2017-07-20T21:23:02Z")
> [@Forest\_Green](#): > > Human Action, I know there’s nothing wrong with being gay… the implication is that I’m a repressed homosexual because I refuse to use approach escalation (making an initial move in the sequence that implies sexuality in a gender dimorphic population when it’s hypocritical for a male to do) - you were telling me that because I’m not a hypocrite; that I must be gay, instead of men who use approach escalation being hypocrites (the definition of asshole). How is approaching women hypocritical, again? Are you under the impression that men tell women not to approach men, or what? (And no, “hypocrite” isn’t the definition of “asshole”. Two distinct ideas, there). “Must be” gay? No. Something you should think about? Yes. “Men who approach women are assholes” is about one step up from “Vaginas have teeth in them” for flimsy pretexts to avoid women. In this case, however, it’s probably better explained by your misogyny. I think we already had this conversation three years ago, though. > [@](#): > > Some men and women cannot have sex; or orgasms… those are resources that they don’t have; biological resources. They try to acquire these resources by finding scientists to stimulate their spinal cord so they can experience them. If they aren’t resources, they can’t even try to get them, let alone, ever actually get them. To experience something, implies that it’s a resource; that you either do or do not want. The methods that facilitate them are also resources, that you either do or do not want. The subject is the theory of consciousness of others that develops with time; who are distinct and different from us, some people don’t get very far in theory of consciousness. Some get very far. Considering that you don’t seem to grasp that women are people, nor express a desire for anything but your own gratification, you might want to work a little harder on that last part. ---
**Author:** ![Forest\_Green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8dc957/32.png) [@Forest\_Green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Forest_Green)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2017, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/solution-to-ethics/791610/255 "2017-07-20T21:25:53Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > So… you’re upset you aren’t getting any vagina despite trying to be what you view as non-hypocritical? Have you perhaps considered that you might be wrong? > In other words, by saying women are not “accountable” you’re declaring that women are not moral agents and therefore not actual people. Neither are gay men, apparently, in your warped universe. Only heterosexual men are _capable_ of being good in your world (even if you think most aren’t) therefore everyone else is bad/evil. > > I eagerly await the moment someone invites you to the Pit. It’s not about capability; it’s about requirement. If men complain that only assholes get sex, or get the most women, or the most sexual choice; then, in order to not be a hypocrite; they are necessarily accountable for the concept “Good”, which opens up a huge can of worms! Women and gays don’t have this complaint or observation, and certainly not to the magnitude heterosexuals men do; so they don’t have the same degree of accountability; it’s not a complaint in their populations. I’m not saying women can’t be good people or gays can’t be good people… I’m saying that they don’t have the same pressure, constant and intense, ever-present, that heterosexual men have to this regard… it’s not a requirement in the same capacity; a woman is not a hypocrite for being a hypocrite, because if a heterosexual man is an asshole to her, he becomes the thing he hates; the asshole who got laid. There is a double standard; women aren’t under a moral obligation to accept it, men, by necessity, are. This doesn’t mean women can’t strive for it, it simply means that they aren’t allowed to be punished like men are for being in any way, a hypocrite, because that would make the man a hypocrite. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2017, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/solution-to-ethics/791610/256 "2017-07-20T21:27:39Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Only heterosexual men are _capable_ of being good in your world (even if you think most aren’t) therefore everyone else is bad/evil. That’s a bit harsh. I think it’s more that everyone else is an object, to be acted upon by hetero men. Remember, this guy believes that _the only moral question that exists_ is which men have sex with the most women: > [@Forest\_Green](#): > > Since women don’t have the complaint that bitches get the most men or sexual choice; the entire female gender is off the hook for being moral - again, the only population on earth that has this complaint, is heterosexual men. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2017, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/solution-to-ethics/791610/257 "2017-07-20T21:27:58Z")
> [@Forest\_Green](#): > > The female sex in all cases, is like taking advantage of a drunk person, who has personality changes; which some people do and some people don’t when they’re drunk; and then passing it off, as “fair game”. That’s a closer analogy. Are you now claiming that women are essentially date-raping men? Oh, poor men, helpless slaves of their sex drives! Are you a member of an incel group, perchance? > [@](#): > > If women want to be respected for their choices, then they should stop having sex with only hypocrites. It’s very easy for non-hypocritical females to get sex. If they appreciate that about men, maybe they should return the favor. Respected by who? YOU? Why would they want the respect of someone who doesn’t consider them a moral agent, accountable, or fully human? Still sounds to me like you’re pisssed off you’re not getting any. You’ve formulated this world-view that it’s all the fault of women, even if you say they’re not moral agents. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2017, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/solution-to-ethics/791610/258 "2017-07-20T21:32:30Z")
> [@Forest\_Green](#): > > What I’m making very clear, is that anytime a person with a penis has sex with a person with a vagina, the person with the penis had to be a hypocrite, because that’s the only thing women in all of human history have ever had sex with. Again- - women are automatons, all alike, no differences, that is, not individuals (not humans) - the only important thing about women is that they have sex with men - wah-wah-wah I’m not getting any even though I’m a nice person! The problem must be THEM not ME! ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2017, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/solution-to-ethics/791610/259 "2017-07-20T21:39:47Z")
> [@Forest\_Green](#): > > If men complain that only assholes get sex, or get the most women, or the most sexual choice… What about men who don’t complain that “only assholes get sex?” You know, like most men don’t? ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2017, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/solution-to-ethics/791610/260 "2017-07-20T21:44:15Z")
**Forest Green** - what are you prepared to unconditionally give to a woman? Not ‘do, in order to get’, not ‘give, in order to [anything]’. Give. What are you prepared to give, without any specific agenda? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/solution-to-ethics/791610.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/solution-to-ethics/791610.md?page=14)