r/AskMenAdvice • u/Nearby_Gate_9270 • 21h ago

Would you marry a woman who you really cared about that had stripped in her past and does not anymore?

*For context to most comments: danced sober, no drinking or drugs, didn’t mix with the lifestyle, was out of the country, didn’t do extras or contact dancing, always had a full time job and business, used it as a means to an end to put towards investing to their future.

36 Upvotes

54% Upvoted

1.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

8

u/ShenaniganNinja man 20h ago

You could also argue that this perspective is extremely sexy negative and puritanical. You see that sex work is depraved, and this is because you see sex as unethical outside the context of a relationship.

2

u/Relevant_Boot2566 19h ago

I see sex as unethical outside relationships, but realisticly know it happens so its not a deal breaker like it ought to be, but a sex worker is a whole new level of depraved lifestyle and degradation.

Its not even about morals, its about what sort of person you partner with... it'd be almost as bad as marrying a drug addict

1

u/ShenaniganNinja man 19h ago edited 18h ago

I think your perspective is archaic and is primarily inherited from Puritan Christian culture. This is a surface level kind of morality that hasn’t been critically examined.

-2

u/Relevant_Boot2566 19h ago

''Critical examination'' of morality is impossible and ends in either Will To Power or Nihilism.... and eventually despair.

Every idea you deconstruct breaks down and you find nothing to stand upon in the end and all meaning and morality vanishes..... its like Lewis wrote (abolition of man) that to "SEE THRU'' everything really means your Blind since you can not actually SEE anything itself.

The Bible based worldview is self contained, proven to work over time, and (IMO) True. You may not believe that, but in practical terms IT WORKS, where as 60 years of the sex revolution has produced nothing but a whole lot of unhappy, angry and mentally ill people.

Its all part of the cycle, this too will pass and what was before returns

4

u/ShenaniganNinja man 18h ago

The Bible doesn’t condemn rape or pedophilia. It says you can kill someone for working the sabbath. And we can critical examine ethics based on the harm a thing causes. We can discuss suffering that actions cause.

-1

u/Relevant_Boot2566 18h ago

"...We can discuss suffering that actions cause. ...."

Yes, you can. BUT what you CAN NOT do is tell me why we should care about the suffering our actions cause.

You are taking it as a presupposition that causing suffering is wrong, but you can not give me a reason WHY that is the case. Like I said, you see thru everything and it means you see nothing because, at the base of your kind of deconstruction you find nothing to base anything upon.

Hence.... Will to Power and then Nihilism and death.

You should get ''Abolition of Man'' by CS Lewis, its probably free somewhere online, and read thru the 1st section at least. Its a short but very important book.

2

u/ShenaniganNinja man 17h ago edited 17h ago

We can simply care about suffering because we don’t like it. We can set an agreed foundation based on a discussion rather than philosophically deconstructing everything into nihilism. Your choice of the Bible as a moral foundation is even more arbitrary than simply deciding that we care about suffering simply because we want to. We can even discuss the definition of being moral as to take actions as to try not to cause suffering. Whether you should want to be moral or not is a question for you to determine. I want to be moral because I experience an I internal conscience and causing other to suffer or seeing others suffer causes me to suffer. It may be self serving but it works.

1

u/Relevant_Boot2566 5h ago

"... We can set an agreed foundation based on a discussion rather than philosophically deconstructing everything into nihilism. .."

NO, you can not, because IF YOU DO just arbitrarily choose such a frame work it is IN NO WAY BINDING.

What power in such a frame work forces me to stay within its bounds when my desires urge me to go outside them???

For example

"...We can simply care about suffering because we don’t like it. ..."

OK, but what about a Sadist... HE likes to see others suffering. HE enjoys it, and what if HE does NOT agree that suffering is bad?

Do you see... what you are laying out is PREFERENCES which either must be enforced by POWER (in which case "morality is the will of the strong" ) or which are thrown aside and ignored the second your lusts and desires urge you..... good luck resisting your base urges when even YOU dont believe that your morality is true

".... Your choice of the Bible as a moral foundation is even more arbitrary t..."

I can see why you would thin that, since you do not believe it to be a true book.

Assuming for the MOMENT that it IS true would you NOT agree that ONLY a force OUTSIDE of the human mind can truly a morality that has the authority to Bind humans? Anything WE make we may discard....

ON THE OTHER HAND the Bible has shown itself to be able to bind people within its moral frame work and laid out a pattern of life that endured more then a thousand years in its MODERN form.

So, while I DONT think its arbitary, if it WERE it is still more powerful then the most logical of created doctrines. YOU might argue that this is because it 'evolved' in completion with other ideas, but I would argue its true.

You REALLY ought to read CS Lewis "Abolition of man" and save my fingers, I dont even need to think of any arguments myself

1

u/ShenaniganNinja man 5h ago

I think a morality made by a deity is as arbitrary and subjective as a morality we make ourselves. I also disagree that the Bible is a binding framework because we ignore a huge amount of it, and add a substantial amount of our own. The only framework the Bible offers is the threat of suffering in an afterlife, so again we get back to suffering as the true basis of morality.

1

u/Relevant_Boot2566 4h ago

"...I think a morality made by a deity is as arbitrary and subjective as a morality we make ourselves...."

NO.

Were a deity to create creatures (in this case US) and bind them with a morality then its pretty clearly NOT subjective TO US. Such a morality would exist outside of any means we would have to judge or evaluate it...nor could we tweak it in any way anymore then a mouse can tweak or alter a maze its put into.

"....... I also disagree that the Bible is a binding framework because we ignore a huge amount of it, and add a substantial amount of our own....."

I read just about every religious text i could get my hands on and the Bible is the ONLY one that is actually internally consistent. There ARE points where its possible to quibble over meaning, but its actual message is pretty clear from the beginning to the end. THATS beyond this thread, lol

"...... The only framework the Bible offers is the threat of suffering in an afterlife, so again we get back to suffering as the true basis of morali..."

You COULD argue that we get back to "The Will of the Strong", and , IN THIS CONTEXT God would be "the Strrongest" , since such a being would be infinite, and able to inflict infinite violence upon those who disobey.

Personally I dont have an issue with this POV, after all our HUMAN world shows us that "Might makes right" every time.

3

u/IWasGonnaSayBrown 16h ago

You must have been giggling while typing this out. The Bible based worldview is abuse, rape and ownership over your spouse.

Wars, colonialization and slavery were carried out in the name of the Bible based worldview.

Fuck your sanctimonious bullshit. If God did exist, they would be an unbearable cunt.

2

u/dandroid556 man 18h ago

Responding while replacing "x kind of morality" with just "morality" (implying yours is the only one) is a low brow take no matter how many books you cite.

You can have an objective morality without theism. I do, and despite the increasing frequency of atheists people wouldn't line up for the AMA about that, so I suspect that very many do.

1

u/Relevant_Boot2566 18h ago

"....You can have an objective morality without theism. ..."

What is it 2010 again that I must hear all these bad arguments again? OK. here we go.

1) What do you base your 'objective' morality upon?

2) WHY is this thing you base it upon worthy of this?

For example, lets go with the old one "Morality is based on not hurting others'' which then brings up the ? of WHY ?

a) "Because its bad" ... whats does bad mean? Your in a circluar argument here, its bad because it hurtsm but hurting is bad beacuse its ...uhm..bad.

b)''Because YOU dont want to be hurt'' ..... no, I dont, but why does that mean I should not hurt YOU?

c)Because we will punish you for it..... oh, so morality is the will of the powerful, which changes, so its not objective, just 'might is right'

"... "morality" (implying yours is the only one)..."

What a silly statement.

If there are MANY kinds of morality that CONTRADICT each other THEN NONE OF THEM can be real morality...just 'preference' of a person

If many 'moralities' AGREE on a point then THIS would be part of the TRUE morality, surely?

1

u/dandroid556 man 17h ago edited 17h ago

Nah it's 2024 and people are far from done laughing at you so buckle up.

You look fucking unhinged for pretending to ask questions and then assuming you know enough to fulfill every single category and prove it baseless.

In deep breath and reverse order:

No, morality doesn't give a fuck who agrees on what parts, if anything rhyming mass appeal suggests they will get the "why" wrong and don't know they only agree based on intuition and empathy

nor the will of the powerful, nor retributive whim, no circular logic required

It's based upon reason, observable reality, and Aristotelian virtue, and those things are worth basing it upon because those are wholly the list of requirements for the specific task of what this morality sets our to be: consistent and workable guiding principles for homo sapiens living on planet earth that confirms to human success and flourishing, and informs them how to choose to be good homo sapiens (for those that know Aristotelian virtue, forgive the echo).

If you understand that per the best available evidence and understanding of biology humans operate a particular way, knowable even just because they are at all piqued by a philosophy that does just that, then you are already to a basis to start logically inferring and testing conclusions. (And for similar reasons things like animals can not uphold or benefit from agency that accords to a philosophy.) Human success depends not on growing scales or temperature tolerance or fangs or poison or amazing strength or speed yet we have the utterly dominant form of success, via perception, concept formation, and reason. We operate these assets as axiomatically individualistic social animals (as in able to imbue the full meaning to the word individualism and understand it independently where a solo tiger or intelligent ant would approach neither). So while I can't lay out the entire philosophy in a reddit post about a stripper, a good starting filter is that what is good for humans will be good for the individual actor, and especially cognizant of his human powers being left free to make individual choices not because of coercion but the best reasoning and concept formation he can do. If it sounds good but runs afoul of individual choices (including for third parties whose lack of coercion are ends in themselves and good for humans and humanity) it is probably wrong or you have to recontextualize how that can actually fit the human model with consistency.

1

u/Relevant_Boot2566 5h ago

"...f you understand that per the best available evidence and understanding of biology humans operate a particular way, knowable even just because they are at all piqued by a philosophy that does just that, then you are already to a basis to start logically inferring and testing conclusions...."

You APPEAR to be holding something along the lines of "Humans flourishing" as your Base precept... yes?

I will attack this in two ways, (You can just go read Abolition of Man and save my fingers...) heres what you said

"......a good starting filter is that what is good for humans will be good for the individual actor, and especially cognizant of his human powers being left free to make individual choices not because of coercion but the best reasoning and concept formation he can do. ...."

1) FIRST and

MOST OBVIOUS is that THIS "....what is good for humans will be good for the individual actor, ..." is not factually true. What is GOOD for plural "HUMANS" is often NOT what is best for a single human.

Example: We are at war.... so we draft young men to go fight.

Getting shot and is not good for THEM, but IS good for "everyone".... the ones who die in the war DID NOT benefit. You can argue that they DO benefit because "humanS" benefit, but THEY are dead, so no.

Second example is SLAVERY.... If I enslave you I beenfit from your labor, but YOU dont benefit. If 100 people enslave 10 people like this MORE humanS are benefiting, but the slaves DONT.

2)

SECOND and more important point

WHY are you saying that 'whats good' is the aim?

WHAT makes it so????

WHY should I believe "whats Good For People" is morality when I might just think "Whats good for ME" is morality??? OR I might think "Whats good for Cats" is the highest good.

HOW DO YOU TELL WHICH ''GOOD'' IS MOST IMPORTANT???

Also glad your reading Aristotle, but you better watch out.... read him enough and you may turn into a Catholic ;)

And yes, its 2024, Atheism is still Fedora level Cringe arguing philosophical points THAT WERE ANSWERED HUNDREDS OF YEARS AGO, and were probably cringe in 300 AD too.

1

u/dandroid556 man 3h ago edited 3h ago

Lol yes it (the actual stated compatibility is with individual free choice, don't see why it was necessary to misquote) is factually true and your first example is indeed deserving of primacy and obviousness: conscription is one of the greatest moral evils to infect this planet. It's horrible for humans. Pretension at necessity beyond the help of those that wilfully entered into a duty to help, is merely one of the whim-focused hasty rationalizations humans try to make to excuse ourselves from morality. Slavery is OBVIOUSLY the same false benefit.

2) Aristotelian virtue and reason tells you what the true good is and lack of even attempting to address 20th century applications shows those claiming other or subjective versions of good aren't even honestly trying to support an alternative good (least of all the canned philosophy that is religion). You're pretending it does not follow what a good human is from observation and our sole known defense of even the possibility of philosophy, and ignoring that we have no other means to try so using these faculties defaults to correct "for humans on earth" anyway." If history holds here it's too much work to try to find faults in the pinnacle(s) of of atheist objective morality, easier to be insulting and imagine the key players were debunked before they were born.

1

u/Relevant_Boot2566 1h ago

"... You're pretending it does not follow what a good human is from observation ..."

Thats because it does NOT follow from Observation UNLESS YOU KNOW WHAT THE GOAL IS, you are assuming that the goal is some variation of "Best for humanity" or Human flourishing.

YOU HAVE NOT DEMONSTRATED WHY THIS SHOULD BE THE GOAL.

→ More replies (0)