The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

  • Hi Guest - Did you know?
    Hot Topics is a Safe for Work (SFW) forum.

On Topic Discussion Are promiscuous guys relationship material?

zombiekiller said:
I know that in college they try to instill into you that you can never say anything about anybody. It's the politically correct thing to do. But out here in the real world, we have to determine who we can trust and who we cannot trust.

Let me repeat. Person A has always slept around and treated sex like it's just another thing in life. He sleeps with guy after guy while maintaining the no-string-attached attitude. He proudly proclaims himself to be single. Sex isn't special to him. To him, sex is like starbucks coffee. It tastes good, so he gets it.

Then one day, Person A meets Person B. A tells B he's all of a sudden a changed man and that he now all of a sudden treats sex to be an intimate act and not just like starbucks coffee. He asks B to trust him.

I know that the politically correct thing for B to do is say oh yes honey I trust you.

But come on, do you honestly expect B to trust A? Do you honestly expect me to trust someone like A?

The trustworthiness/untrustworthiness isn't just a value I'm assigning to someone. It's a fact. Until A does something to prove himself that he doesn't treat sex like starbucks coffee, I'm going to go with the best predictor at my disposal, which is his past behavior. To hell with political correctness on this one.
Click to expand...


I don't think you understand what I am saying. You can not say trustworthy/untrustworthy is morally neutral. These terms are used as ethical judgements - trustworthy is good, untrustworthy is bad. There are clear reasons why culture would evolve the idea that being untrustworthy is bad. In no word does the term have a moral neutrality.

It fine you are saying they are facts, but what you are also saying is that untrustworthy as a term does not have a moral judgement tied to it. It clearly does.

I don't really care that you take promiscuous people untrustworthy, more that you erroneously said this was not a neutral comment.
 
Well, according to you, noone ever should have the right to change.
What a horrible world would it be, if noone gets the chance to change. Thank god the real world isn't like that. At least I decided not to be like that. Everyone can change. If we don't allow people to change, then we can all stop fighting for tolerance rightnow. Fight for tolerance will only be successful if we allow people to change, i.e. homophobes to change their opinion. If we don't allow that, why bothering with gay rights etc?!?

Same here: If I'd meet a guy I like tomorrow, and I trust him (this is not gonna be based on his past but my gut feeling - too bad if you don't have such), then I won't care if he has been with 5, 50 or 500 guys.

Even though I personally consider sex as the most intimate thing possible on the planet.
 
JohnnyAnger said:
I don't think you understand what I am saying. You can not say trustworthy/untrustworthy is morally neutral. These terms are used as ethical judgements - trustworthy is good, untrustworthy is bad. There are clear reasons why culture would evolve the idea that being untrustworthy is bad. In no word does the term have a moral neutrality.

It fine you are saying they are facts, but what you are also saying is that untrustworthy as a term does not have a moral judgement tied to it. It clearly does.

I don't really care that you take promiscuous people untrustworthy, more that you erroneously said this was not a neutral comment.
Click to expand...

People used to refer to "homosexual" as morally bad. Just because people have been doing such and such forever doesn't mean it should be so.

People have been unfairly assigning moral values to erroneous things for ages. Being referred to as "gay" or "homo" used to be bad. Nowadays, while many people still regard it as bad, I'm sure that mainstream society is moving towards viewing it as morally neutral.

The less things we give moral values to, the better we are at being focused on what really matters.
 
KölnElch said:
Well, according to you, noone ever should have the right to change.
What a horrible world would it be, if noone gets the chance to change. Thank god the real world isn't like that. At least I decided not to be like that. Everyone can change. If we don't allow people to change, then we can all stop fighting for tolerance rightnow. Fight for tolerance will only be successful if we allow people to change, i.e. homophobes to change their opinion. If we don't allow that, why bothering with gay rights etc?!?

Same here: If I'd meet a guy I like tomorrow, and I trust him (this is not gonna be based on his past but my gut feeling - too bad if you don't have such), then I won't care if he has been with 5, 50 or 500 guys.

Even though I personally consider sex as the most intimate thing possible on the planet.
Click to expand...

I'm going to assume your post is a response to me.

No, I never said people should not have the right to change. That's silly.

What I'm saying is as it stands past behaviors are the best predictor for future ones. And as such, if you want people to change their expectations of how you will deal with things in the future, you can start by changing how you act now.

So, say person A has always been a homophobe. Then one day he decides to change. I would say ok that's good. But show me the money. Don't expect me to take your word for it. Show me.

What is this, a misread my words and put a negative spin on them fest?
 
I don't think you can claim people are misreading you when you don't understand the difference between a walk in a park and attributing personality traits.
 
zombiekiller said:
I'm not pretending anything. I really don't see why we have to assign a moral value to everything. Walking in the park is morally neutral. Sitting in a chair is morally neutral. Playing soccer is morally neutral. It's neither good nor bad.

I'm well aware that overwhelmingly most of society considers trustworthiness to be a good trait and untrustworthiness to be a bad trait. I get that. I used to think this, too.

A number of years ago, I started questioning what I perceive as good or bad. And since, I've come to realize that people with traits that I used to consider bad traits aren't bad people. Then I took another step and realized that whether these traits are good or bad are entirely subjective.

I regularly participate on another forum that's more work related. Over there, the majority of people there honest-to-god believe that doing the minimum they can get away with at work is a good thing and people who take the extra steps to do a stellar job are fools. Their reasoning seems to be that in the corporate world there is no reason to do a good job because you get the same result regardless.

I happen to disagree completely with such attitude. I take pride in the quality of my work. At the same time, I don't think being lazy at work is morally bad. I think it's bad in terms of work ethics, but it's morally neutral.

What does this have to do with our conversation? I happen to work with some of these people who believe that they should do the minimum they can get away with. I don't trust them. Some of them work under me. I never assign any important task to any of these guys. I just can't bring myself to trusting them. That said, I don't think they are morally bad people or what they do or don't do are morally bad things. They happen to not agree with my standards.

I'm finding it odd that after years of trying to convince society at large that homosexuality is not morally bad, you guys are now trying to assign moral values to other things that do not concern you.
Click to expand...

What a great load of bollocks.

The problem with homophobia was not people thinking and judging gay people. The problem was people thinking badly and judging badly.
 
I'm not promiscuous at all, single, and still undatable. :)
 
zombiekiller said:
Haha, you're joking, right?

Actually, I'm pretty sure you're joking.
Click to expand...

Honestly zombie, I think you're the one who has to be joking if you think there's any definition of the word "trust" in the English language that can be described as a walk in the park. The word naturally conveys weight and, yes, moral authority.

Even in your supposedly "morally neutral" example, you're not not choosing people because they're inept, or because they necessarily lack the skill to do a good job, you're not choosing the people who lack pride in their work, in other words they don't have the moral authority to do the job.
 
Vitamin said:
Honestly zombie, I think you're the one who has to be joking if you think there's any definition of the word "trust" in the English language that can be described as a walk in the park. The word naturally conveys weight and, yes, moral authority.

Even in your supposedly "morally neutral" example, you're not not choosing people because they're inept, or because they necessarily lack the skill to do a good job, you're not choosing the people who lack pride in their work, in other words they don't have the moral authority to do the job.
Click to expand...

I agree that the word "trust" conveys weight but I don't agree that it has moral authority.

I don't agree that it is morally wrong to not try your best at work. There are plenty of places where laziness is embraced and indirectly encouraged. I simply don't think the non-lazy has any moral weight over the lazy just like I don't think the trustworthy has any moral weight over the untrustworthy. It's all a matter of personal preference.
 
zombiekiller said:
I agree that the word "trust" conveys weight but I don't agree that it has moral authority.

I don't agree that it is morally wrong to not try your best at work. There are plenty of places where laziness is embraced and indirectly encouraged. I simply don't think the non-lazy has any moral weight over the lazy just like I don't think the trustworthy has any moral weight over the untrustworthy. It's all a matter of personal preference.
Click to expand...

You seem to be trying to pretend questions of morality always come down to big descions about big issues, like sacrificing yourself or a loved one to save the world or something.

Most of the time it has nothing to do with that. Most of the time it's just a question of who you are, how you were raised, and how you go about your daily life. Usually we just call it character.

I think you need to read more English. I really do. I don't think you understand enough of the culture if this is really how you think on this topic.
 
Vitamin said:
You seem to be trying to pretend questions of morality always come down to big descions about big issues, like sacrificing yourself or a loved one to save the world or something.

Most of the time it has nothing to do with that. Most of the time it's just a question of who you are, how you were raised, and how you go about your daily life. Usually we just call it character.

I think you need to read more English. I really do. I don't think you understand enough of the culture if this is really how you think on this topic.
Click to expand...

First paragraph, no idea where you got that idea. The rest, sure you can call it character. Characters are neither good nor bad.

Added by edit.

On second thought, I completely agree with you guys now. Am I a cool kid now?
 
Think it's about being realistic. Either youre gonna be partnered up one day or single forever. To me, it seems more like a character issue. Like someone who can't handle responsibility and lacks self control is liable to cheat. Don't think you can tell how someone's character is in a relationship based on sleeping around whole being single or a high sex drive. Some people are loyal. Some arent.

I do think that the gay culture tends to devalue relationships in favor of sex though where people live for the moment and not the future. Also this forever young mentality where you have people scared of dealing with the realities of life so they hide it through naivety. At some point, you have to grow up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top